Who Just Got Angrier: Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi?

If fireworks during the Impeachment hearings aren’t enough evidence that our nation’s politics are super-heated nowadays, welcome to a pair of unlikely outbursts. The first arose because of Joe Biden being confronted by a MSNBC-watching voter in Iowa at a town hall meeting regarding his son’s role in Ukraine. The second was due to Nancy Pelosi being asked by a conservative journalist after a press conference about whether she “hates” Donald Trump.

120919-03 Joe Biden Head Down120919-01 Nancy Pelosi Anger

Which of the two Democratic leaders got angrier, and what have we learned or confirmed regarding their personalities and political chops? The answer to first question is Pelosi. Twice, she showed a more intense version of anger whereby the lips press together so tightly that a bulge forms below the lower lip. But that’s not all. Whereas Biden’s eyes mostly narrowed in anger, the other really vital emotional “grace note” here is that Pelosi showed disgust repeatedly, with either her upper lip flaring or else her lower lip pulling down and sometimes out as well.

120919-02 Nancy Pelosi Disgust

What’s the bottom line here?  Who proved more savvy in a moment of ire? Who displayed the best political chops?

Biden lost at least twice over, first by so often showing sadness (eyes closed, head bowed) in response to the voter’s concerns. It was as if he was surrendering to disappointment at being asked a legitimate question as to what kind of expertise his son brought to the board of that Ukrainian gas company that justified his compensation. Second, deriding a voter (who dislikes Trump) is far worse than brushing off a hostile journalist. Biden might be “proud” of his son’s judgment in taking the easy money, but who will second that motion? Did the gas company hope that by hiring Biden’s son the Obama administration might go soft on it in rooting out corruption?  That seems like a fair assumption, though it’s hardly a major scandal (especially given how Trump’s kids and Jared Kushner behave).

120919-03 Joe Biden Head Down

As to Pelosi, she managed to smile as often as she was angry or disgusted. She showed backbone and fire proportionate to the Constitutional stakes involved. And her disgust was entirely on-emotion, entirely in keeping with invoking her Catholic faith and, hence, revulsion regarding the President’s lack of ethics. Who’s the Democrats’ best street fighter among these two leaders?  Hands down, it’s Pelosi, whose eyes go wide (taking in information, ever alert) while Biden often resorts to closing his own.

120919-04 Nancy Pelosi Eyes Wide

Klobuchar Rising: The 5th Democratic Debate of 2020 Race

112219-01 Amy Klobuchar

Six of these ten candidates are guaranteed to still be on stage come December’s debate, and of them Amy Klobuchar has done the best job of surviving near political death. If not for her “pipe dream” take on Elizabeth Warren’s medicare-for-all plan last time around, Klobuchar likely wouldn’t be securing a second look from voters. Now the Minnesota Senator’s shaky debate nerves are subsiding, a little, making her curmudgeonly disgust expressions her next big emotional hurdle.

Like Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg had a far better night verbally than he did in terms of his non-verbal, facial expressions. Expecting to be attacked as a newly-minted frontrunner in Iowa, mayor Pete looked downright pensive most of the evening. That all changed, however, when Tulsi Gabbard made her ill-advised attack on Buttigieg. Then viewers saw Buttigieg’s mouth purse tight in anger, a tell-tale bulge forming below his lower lip. Mayor Pete has already dispatched one youthful rival, Beto O’Rourke; now he’s done it again with Gabbard. Anybody who thinks the guy from Indiana lacks the toughness to potentially go all the way isn’t paying enough attention.

112219-02 Andrew Yang

What else was visually of note from last night’s debate? Hard to forget the image of a clueless Joe Biden, standing with his mouth open after he forgot that there’s been a second black female Senator: Kamala Harris standing nearby, incredulous, and feigning amusement at being overlooked! Andrew Yang proved he could smile. Tom Steyer again did his best imitation of The Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz. Eating more salads agrees with Bernie Sanders. Finally, paradoxically the evening had more left-wing Elizabeth Warren still comfortably occupying center-stage while centralist Cory Booker stood marooned on the stage’s far left side.

 

P.S. After yesterday’s testimony from Gordon Sondland failed to create any Republican impeachment converts in Congress, I had to think again of Upton Sinclair’s comment: “It’s hard for a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it.”

Stump the Trump: Week 1 of the Impeachment Hearings

One of Donald Trump’s many (flimsy) defenses is that he “hardly knows” the people working for him, and now testifying in front of Congress. So stumping the Chump-in-Chief is easy. Surely, you can do better at linking these photos to the names, roles, and signature facial expressions of seven major players from week 1 of the public U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment hearings.

111819-01 Impeachment Week 1

A concerned William Taylor, charge d’affaires in Ukraine

111819-02 Impeachment Week 1

A bemused George Kent, senior State Department official in Ukraine

111819-03 Impeachment Week 1

A saddened Marie Yovanovitch, former ambassador to Ukraine

111819-04 Impeachment Week 1

A terse, on-guard Adam Schiff, Democrat, head of the House Intelligence Committee

111819-05 Impeachment Week 1

A boiling mad Devin Nunes, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee

111819-06 Impeachment Week 1

A happy-to-fight Jim Jordan, recently added to the Committee’s Republican ranks

111819-07 Impeachment Week 1

An “I’m so shocked” Elise Stefanik, Republican who tried to use Nunes’ allotted time

111819-08 Impeachment Week 1

Bonus round: who’s the man to the right in this photo?

  1.  Roy Cohn, back from the dead
  2.  Richard Nixon’s dieting younger brother
  3.  Republican lawyer Stephen Castor

Syrian Collusion: Trump, Erdoğan & Putin

102319-01 Putin Erdogan.jpg

Having recklessly given Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey the green light to invade Syria, how did Donald Trump fudge his decision? He wrote the Turkish leader a letter that began “Let’s work out a good deal!” and ended by telling Erdoğan: “Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!”  What glorious sophistication from our president, a man who told his biographer, Michael D’Antonio: “When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same.”  To which I say, amen.

Yesterday, Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin met to put their seal on Syria and there’s more to come. Russia is going to build Turkey a nuclear reactor for supposedly civilian purposes, as if the nuclear-weapons the U.S. has at its airbase in nominally NATO-allied Turkey isn’t already enough of a risk. As the stakes go up, what kind of man is Erdoğan? Will he answer Trump’s appeal to “get this done the right and humane way” or be the “devil” Trump’s letter also warned him not to be?

102319-02 Hailed Disparaged Chart (2)

The verdict is already known, by actions large and small: those already being enacted on the ground in Syria and in the characteristic facial expressions of Erdoğan. In doing the analysis that went into my book, Two Cheers for Democracy: How Emotions Drive Leadership Style, a clear emotional algorithm emerged. However explicit their “strongman” rule, those inclined more to dictatorship than democracy lacked happiness and were, instead, inclined to displays of anger and disgust. While Trump’s too sad to exemplify the model entirely, Putin comes close, and Erdoğan fits the model perfectly. If you’re one of those Kurds Trump faulted for not fighting alongside us on D-Day in France, don’t lose sleep trying to divine Erdoğan’s nature. The answer is written all over his face.

TwoCheers FrontCover (Blog Resize)

 

 

Two Cheers for Democracy, available now from Amazon.com.

“Why Do All Roads Lead to Putin?”

102119-01 Pelosi Trump Full

Speaking of events in Syria, this is the question Nancy Pelosi is asking. What’s immediately noticeable here? She’s the only woman at the table, daring to stand and point her finger directly at Donald Trump in questioning his loyalty and seeking an explanation. Her upper lip is raised in disgust and anger and her right (visible) eyebrow is likewise raised, in concern (even fear). As for Trump, he’s mostly angry: his eyebrows are lowered, he’s squinting hard, and his upper lip is likewise raised. The House Speaker and the President are captured on camera holding each other in mutual disdain.

Pity the general seated next to Trump. But he’s not only sad (head lowered, eyes closed), he’s also the angriest person in the room. All of this partisan bickering has left him with tightly pursed lips.

102119-02 Pelosi Trump Crop

About the only even close to serene person in the photo is Benjamin Franklin, given his bust perched along the back wall. A savvy diplomat, Franklin could be honestly described in the way Trump’s press secretary tried to spin the meeting afterwards. Despite having called Pelosi a “third-grade politician” and former defense secretary Jim Mattis the “world’s most overrated general,” our President supposedly remained “measured, factual and decisive.” Are you kidding me? When has Trump ever been emotionally measured, or factual either? The time is long past due for a new MAGA hat with this slogan: “Make Lying Wrong Again.”

102119-03 MLWA Logo

Biden Snoozes, Warren Loses (Her Grip a Little): The October Debate

Heart-attack and all, Bernie Sanders survived an at times tedious, at other times raucous three-hour debate by showing both gratitude for others’ concerns for his health and a shark smile: shiny white teeth, and a grimacing smile. Bernie still burns, but I continue to believe his monolithic, angry Old Testament prophet routine won’t get him to The White House.

How about some of the other candidates last night? Here’s who rose to prominence:

101619-01 Pete Buttigieg

  • Pete Buttigieg probably “won” the debate. He turned to face whomever he was challenging on stage, showed no fear, and was a passionately (mostly angry, sometimes disgusted) left-of-center moderate. Positioning himself as a millennial, outside the Beltway figure, Buttieg also had the blessing of being at the center of the stage with three candidates all over 70 years of age. “I don’t need lessons on courage from you” was his snarly response to Beto O’Rourke in an exchange on confiscating military-assault-style guns (or not). The man with suddenly sharp elbows, Buttigieg has tons of cash on-hand and stands to gain from Joe Biden’s fade.
  • Speaking of Biden, heaven help a guy who can’t help himself. His verbal stumbles caused him to wince as well as often close his eyes: is that the mode of an older man who portrays himself as “wise”? His son, Hunter, did him no favors either in an ABC interview that aired before the debate. Why, at one point Hunter even covered his face with his hands in trying to explain away his credentials for pulling down $50,000 a month for a nothing-role with a Ukraine energy company. Like father, like son, the lack of articulation was significant.
  • Elizabeth Warren is now the front-runner and so was under frequent attack on stage last night. All along I’ve been arguing that she needs to take a page from Teddy Roosevelt’s book and be an upbeat, energetic reformer with enough gusto to show she loves America. O’Rourke’s attack on her as “punitive” and her inability to thank Biden for helping to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shows that Warren needs to vary her slightly less heated version of Sander’s monolithic anger. More displays of happiness would help greatly. Attacked, she responded at times with a mouth that hung open in surprise as evidenced by her response to O’Rourke: “So, um, I’m really shocked at the notion that anybody thinks I’m punitive.”

101619-02 Amy Klobuchar

Of all the candidates at risk of not qualifying for the November debate, Amy Klobuchar fought like the one person determined to struggle to live for another day. The other three candidates on the far left or right of the stage averaged eight minutes of speaking time; she got in over 13 minutes. That said, Klobuchar was again full of fear, her voice quaking, her entire upper body quivering at times, and her face grim with a mixture of a mouth pulled wide in fear, lips pressed tight in anger, and disgust flaring her upper lip. Nonetheless, she made her points in favor of moderation (“at least Bernie’s being honest” about the cost of Medicare-for-all, she said to Warren at one point).

Nobody else mattered last night.

Among all the losers was a chance to make the debates better. How about a shorter format? How about letting the candidates each ask a question of another candidate, giving viewers a break from hearing the moderators grind through the same issues yet again? Finally, how about a question or two on Africa? The biggest trend of the past 40 years was the rise of China. The biggest trend of the next 40 years will be the rise of Africa, through the sheer weight of a swelling population if nothing else. America’s leaders have misjudged China’s trajectory badly. Will they do likewise when it comes to Africa’s future?

70-Year-Olds to the Rescue: The Third 2020 Democratic Debate

So another debate is in the books, and I’m not sure we’re a whole lot wiser for the three-hour marathon ABC News put us through as viewers. The good news is that at least it wasn’t as long as the seven-hour town hall on climate change that CNN hosted recently, a length more suitable to one of those 1920’s dancehall marathons than a town hall meeting highlighted by the presence of presidential candidates. Speaking of an earlier era, Joe Biden managed to slip in a reference to record-players but at least didn’t admit to showing up for the debate in his horse-and-buggy. Biden was definitely more caffeinated this time around, but I still get the sense that his campaign’s unofficial slogan is, “I won’t blow anything up.”

Who “won” the debate? Elizabeth Warren can always come across as measured and moderate so long as a bellowing Bernie Sanders occupies the stage. This time, Warren offered more details about her life and continues to look assured, informed, and utterly committed to reform. She’s about the only candidate on stage never subject to a bout of stage fright. Also doing well last night was Cory Booker, whose animated emoting—everything from big, genuine, generous smiles to indignation, surprise and more—makes him the candidate you might pay to watch as a stand-up comedian.

091319-01 Pete Buttigieg

The other candidates ranged from okay to odd. Pete Buttigieg increasingly strikes me as Radar O’Reilly from MASH: always prepared, but simply not the star of the show. Kamala Harris has descended into displays of “spontaneous” joy to overset her scowling. Amy Klobuchar continues to come across as a nervous wreck. Somebody should give the moderate Minnesotan a tranquilizer before she hits the stage next time. At the far other end of the stage, Julian Castro looked ready to play Biden’s assassin: full of menacing, haughty glances at the front-runner. The also-rans are many. Everybody on stage appeared to like Beto O’Rourke, but nobody is likely to pick him as their VP. O’Rourke still comes across as a meek version of Robert F. Kennedy: youth and conviction, but no bare knuckles.

091319-02 Andrew Yang

The night’s big loser might have been Andrew Yang. His give-away proposal during the opening statements was downright weird, eliciting tittering laughter from his colleagues on stage.  But that was just the start of his failure to capture the moment last night.

When Yang was asked why he was the best candidate to step up to the role of being Commander in Chief, he might have pivoted to the fact that as an entrepreneur he could argue that, ultimately, the state of the nation’s economy is what enables paying our large defense department budgets. Without money, nobody’s safe from China, Russia or losing the American dream. All in all, in the end, it was the three septuagenarians—Biden, Warren and Sanders—occupying center stage and promising to deliver us from Trump, a 70-year-old-plus leader himself. Of them, Warren seems the most in command of the details; Sanders the best at shouting, ever more hoarsely: “The house is on fire.” Meanwhile, Biden smiles and Trump continues to burn everything he touches.

Jeffrey Epstein: A Smirker Forever Outside the Law

081219-01 Jeffrey Epstein Double

I take no pleasure in speaking ill of the dead. But I simultaneously admit that as Jeffrey Epstein’s life has come to an end, and revelations are emerging, it’s hard not to be shocked and disgusted by what all he had a hand in. The guy was a smirker, as given to contempt as another Wall Street type: Bernie Madoff. The sex scandal of preying on under-age girls is horrific. So much so that learning that Epstein got his first big financial windfall emptying the coffers of two Illinois insurance firms is merely icing on a really terrible-tasting cake. Family values: Epstein didn’t have them.  Contempt can signal supreme confidence to the point of arrogance, as well as feeling one is above others and in this case the law. All of those most likely interpretations of Epstein’s signature emotion fit him extremely well.

Booker Finds His Mojo, and Warren Isn’t as Scorching as Sanders

Heading into this week’s two nights of Democratic presidential debates, the big picture looked like this. Based on national polls, fundraising efforts, and media coverage, the Democratic field consisted of five actually viable campaigns (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg), and a bunch of mere candidacies. Among the rest of the contenders, O’Rourke, Booker, and Klobuchar were generally considered to be the Minor Three candidates with the best chance of hitching a ride with the Big Five, real candidates. How everyone performed on stage—non-verbally, emotionally—over the last two nights has scrambled that picture.

080119-01 Cory Booker

The Winners: Nobody benefited more than Cory Booker. Passionate, full of looks of happiness, surprise, indignation, and occasional sadness, Booker really brought it to Wednesday night’s debate. The odds are he’s now found his mojo. Nobody was more animated or emotionally versatile than Booker. The other two biggest winners were Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren from Tuesday night’s debate. But by comparison, Sanders was utterly emotionally monolithic: anger, combined with more anger and just a touch of disgust. If somebody did a remark of the 1976 satirical movie Network, surely the casting director would have to look no further in deciding who to cast as the raving anchorman Howard Beale: the man on TV screaming to millions “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore.” Alongside Sanders, Warren was also repetitively angry, but not as intensely so. She projected courage and conviction, too, but not as if she would rather burn down The White House than move into it.

080119-02 Kamala Harris.jpg

The Losers: Occasionally stumbling for his words, and at other moments standing with his head bowed and lips firmly, even grimly, pressed together, Joseph Biden came across as more like a bobber at the end of a fishing line than our next President. Biden rode the waves, but not much more. For Kamala Harris, Wednesday night proved to be a minor disaster. The empathetic sadness she wove into her take-down of Biden in the previous round of debates turned into glum determination this time around. Maybe she didn’t expect to be pummeled by the likes of Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Bennet. But Harris looked like a woozy boxer at times, somebody taking it on the chin. Among the Minor Three candidates, Beta O’Rourke talked way too fast to emote much, failing to make a strong impression. In contrast, Amy Klobuchar made a definite impression: scared. As with the first round of debates, nobody exuded anxiety more than Klobuchar did; she appeared to be the mirror inverse of Warren’s pluck.

Everybody Else: Gabbard was close to phenomenal: unlike most of the 20 candidates on stage, she didn’t rush her words or fail to convey confidence and conviction. If there’s any justice in the world, she deserves to turn the Minor Three into the Major Minor Two: her and Booker. As to Pete Buttigieg, standing next to Sanders he tried to amp up his anger but got lost in the force field of Sanders’ greater, more radioactive anger. Julian Castro? Adept, but did you notice his tendency to arch his head back in a look of condescension not far off from Kirsten Gillibrand’s smirking. Marianne Williamson? She had a higher gear, emotionally and otherwise; she’ll be (likely) missed in round three. Andrew Yang’s flat affect undermined him, but not as badly as Bennet’s weak voice and tepid emoting, Jay Inslee’s ugly mouth grimaces, or John Delaney doing his best, wide-eyed and falsely smiling impression of what a prairie gopher or chipmunk might look like if running for President.

080119-03 Sanders & Warren.jpg

This week’s pair of debates provided a study in contrasts. On Tuesday, Sanders and Warren were ironically in the center of the stage, physically and emotionally, dominating the debate and making the “far left” seem downright central. Try as they might, verbally shooting at them from the wings, the party’s moderates lost out. Wednesday night’s debate was totally different. At center stage was the party’s main moderate, Biden, alongside center-left Harris. In this case, the center did not hold (up) well. Two other more or less moderate candidates, Booker and Gabbard, stole Wednesday evening and deserve to live to see another night on stage.