Are You Better Off...
...than you were 97 days ago? Ronald Reagan's 1980 question revisited. (Issue #165)
Before we get to today's main topic, some miscellaneous goodies and things worth your attention…
From the Department of Irony: Spam filters for several different email services (including Gmail) blocked my last Dispatch about how to protect yourself from being the victim of cyber-criminals. You can find that issue here.
Politics: Although my personal politics have always been easy to infer here in The Dispatch, I don't usually talk all that directly about politics, or if I do then I try to talk about things from a detached perspective. For example, in one of my earliest issues back in April of 2022, I talked about Trump as the world's best marketer, despite my distaste for the man. It is very weird to look back on that particular issue because in it I was comparing Trump and Elon Musk, long before Musk's cliff dive into MAGA, the Trump/Musk bromance that now seems to be slowly unraveling, and the nearly 30% erosion of Tesla's market cap since the start of 2025.
This Dispatch, though, is a departure. I'm dealing directly with politics and my bafflement at why the Trump Administration is doing what it's doing.
Fair warning: if you're a regular viewer of Fox News, NewsMax, or OAN, then you may be uncomfortable with this issue. I'll go back to my usual fare next week (probably).
George Santos: the 36 year old former congressman and unrepentant con artist was sentenced to more than seven years in prison (Washington Post $). for various kinds of financial fraud. He is hoping that President Trump pardons him. As always, the question is "what's in doing so for Trump?" Answer: nada. I haven't seen last night's SNL yet, but I will look to see if Bowen Yang resurrected his Santos character. (I doubt it: SNL doesn't punch down all that much.)
China has banned the export of many rare earth minerals, per NYT ($). This is, as my friend Matt Philpott observed, an important and under-reported story. China did this in response to Trump's "on-again/off-again/on-again/well, on-again-but-not yet, now where's the Tylenol because I have a headache now" tariffs. Lack of access to these metals will hurt companies that make drones and robots (critical to the war in Ukraine), and...
The metals also go into the chemicals for manufacturing jet engines, lasers, car headlights and certain spark plugs. And these rare metals are vital ingredients in capacitors, which are electrical components of the computer chips that power artificial intelligence servers and smartphones.
The bans are likely to impact both Tesla and Apple, albeit for different reasons. This is an example of Xi Jinping playing Chess while Trump plays Tiddlywinks. Wired has a different take on this story, suggesting that China's bans are merely inconvenient.
Personal: Today is, or would have been, my brother Evan's 54th birthday. He died in September 2023. I woke up wondering why so many traditions celebrate birthdays more than death days. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January acknowledges Dr. King's birth, when the only person who accomplished anything was Alberta Christine Williams King, Dr. King's mother. It would, I understand, be weird to celebrate King's death since he was assassinated, but why his birthday rather than August 28, the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963?
In Judaism, we acknowledge the Yahrzeit, the anniversary of a loved one's death, so I reached out to my friend Rabbi Cyn Hoffman for her thoughts. Here's an excerpt:
If you honor the day of someone’s death, you have an entire life to honor, whereas, as you say, the only thing we really get out of a birthday is what parents get; to us it’s an accident. Think about a Shiva minyan: once the prayer service is done, we sit around and let the bereaved tell us about the life of the person who’s just died. Sharing that with the world is really powerful at such a short distance after death, and getting to talk about that is often therapeutic.
If readers have thoughts on this, I'd like to see them.
On the lighter side...
Commence Nautical Nonsense! I loved this very silly Paramount+ promo that combines Star Trek: Strange New Worlds with SpongeBob SquarePants. The next season of ST:SNW premieres sometime over summer 2025, which isn't soon enough!
Reacher, Season 3 on Amazon Prime Video: I finally finished watching this, and it was good fun, although you have to like action and adventure shoot-'em-ups. Special shout-out to Anthony Michael Hall—who I hadn't seen (or at least recognized) on screen since Weird Science and The Breakfast Club (both in 1985)—for a fine performance as a father caught in a situation he cannot control, trying to protect his son.
The Residence and KAOS: La Profesora and I are enjoying both of these Netflix shows. The Residence is the love child of The West Wing and Murder, She Wrote. KAOS is Percy Jackson for grownups.
Finally, I just started reading Lawrence Wright's new novel, The Human Scale, and I'm already hooked. The man writes so well that I sometimes find myself grinding my teeth in sheer envy. (It's a serious topic, so not really "on the lighter side," but at least it's fiction.)
Practical Matters:
Sponsor this newsletter! Let other Dispatch readers know what your business does and why they should work with you. (Reach out here or just hit reply.)
Hire me to speak at your event! Get a sample of what I'm like onstage here.
The idea and opinions that I express here in The Dispatch are solely my own: they do not reflect the views of my employer, my consulting clients, or any of the organizations I advise.
Please follow me on Bluesky, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Threads (but not X) for between-issue insights and updates.
On to our top story...
Are You Better Off...
Last Monday, I posted "Are you better off than you were 91 days ago?" The vast majority of the friends who engaged said no. Today it is 97 days since Trump's second inauguration.
You have to be of a certain age or a U.S. History major to get the nuance of the question. On October 28, 1980, in the second Presidential debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan (hosted by The League of Women Voters). Towards the end, Reagan addressed the American people directly:
Next Tuesday is election day. Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls; you'll stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was 4 years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was 4 years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were 4 years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last 4 years is what you would like to see us follow for the next 4, then I could suggest another choice that you have.
You can see the transcript of the whole debate on the Reagan Library site or watch it on YouTube.
Reagan's questions were savvy: they not only asked Americans to think selfishly, asking "am I better off and more able to buy the things I want in stores?" But Reagan also asked Americans to think as patriots: is employment up? Is America respected, safe, and strong?
During the 2020 election, Trump asked the same question as a critique of Biden's economic record. For both Reagan and Trump, the four-year election timeline was convenient. Economists can argue on either side about whose fault the weak economy was under both Carter and Biden, but that isn't my question.
My question? What's the rush?
Ordinarily, less than 100 days into a new administration, enough time hasn't passed to pose the Reagan question, but this is not a typical administration.
The New York Times ($) has a running list of the whirligig of Trump's initiatives, executive orders, mind-changes, lawsuits, wild claims, illegal acts, and unforced errors (e.g. Defense Secretary Hegseth's use of Signal to discuss classified military operations).
The economy is in disarray. The Dow, as WSJ ($) put it, is headed for the worst April since 1932 (the start of the Great Depression).
Steve Bannon, Trump's Secretary of Malice, has a well-known theory that the administration should "flood the zone with shit," overwhelming the media with so many things that it can't focus on anything in particular.
Most of the anti-DEI initiatives—indeed, all of the GOP culture wars—are primarily distractions. That doesn't mean that they aren't hurting lots of people. They are in the most racist and transphobic ways imaginable. I just don't believe that the administration cares about DEI initiatives in any substantive way: instead, it is using anti-DEI rhetoric, money-withholding, lawsuits, illegal deportations, arresting judges, and more to test its power and see what it can get away with.
Columbia University folded. Harvard didn't. What organization will be the next to grow a pair and say no?
There's a mangled quote from the Philosopher Hannah Arendt going around about how an onslaught of lies isn't there to convince a populace of any lie in particular, but to make it impossible to believe anything at all. Here's the actual quote from an interview Arendt did in 1973:
If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.
This helps me to make partial sense of what the Trump Administration is doing.
But then it takes me back to Reagan's questions. Less than 100 days in, many Americans would answer each of his questions with a firm no. No, it isn't easier to buy things. Unemployment is up, not down. And the USA is less rather than more respected.
What's the rush?
The best answer I can come up with at the moment is that the Trump Administration, insofar as it has a coherent strategy, is in a race against time. If the economy is going to tank, then they want it to tank in a hurry so that it might be back on the upswing by the midterms in November 2026, 555 days from now.
12 years after the Reagan/Carter debate, Democratic strategist James Carville coined the phrase, "it's the economy, stupid" as a key part of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992.
The Trump Administration knows that no administration will thrive in an economic downturn. No administration will keep both houses of Congress at the midterms if citizens feel that they are worse off, especially with the razor thin majorities the GOP has in both the House and Senate.
It's not too early to ask Reagan's questions. We just need to keep asking them. Every day.
Thanks for reading. See you next Sunday.
* Image Prompt: "Create an image displaying the words 'Are you better off than you were 97 days ago?' in a US Patriotic font and style, with a headshot of former president Reagan in the bottom right corner."