Just 1% of U.S. Counties Have Had Nearly Half of All COVID-19 Deaths

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states.

As our research has pointed out, state-level figures do not adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.


What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.


Moreover, even though the U.S. saw a rapid rise in cases during the summer, the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


For instance, as of Sept. 15, the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths accounted for 26% of all the cases in the U.S. and 40% of all deaths, much greater than those counties’ share of the population (18.4%). That is, just 1% of the counties in the U.S., representing just over 18% of the population, are responsible for almost half of the country’s COVID-19 deaths.

The Heritage Foundation’s newest interactive graphic allows individuals to see more detail on these concentrations among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest.

For instance, the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most deaths, all the way up to the 50 counties with the most deaths. It also allows visitors to select data from counties with no deaths, all the way up to counties with 10 or fewer.

Once a category is selected, the graphic provides the percentage of counties represented by that category, the percentage of the population contained in those counties, and the percentage of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths in those counties.

For example, as of Sept. 15, 60.6% of all counties are reporting 10 or fewer deaths. These counties represent 13.1% of the population, and account for only 2.7% of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.

In contrast, the five counties with the most COVID-19 deaths represent just 0.2% of all counties, but they account for 16% of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., nearly three times their population share of 6.5%.

A list of the 50 counties with the most deaths is also provided, and that list has not changed very much since April. New York, for instance, recorded 32,745 deaths as of Sept. 15.

In fact, New York City has exerted an outsized influence on the national COVID-19-related death rate. Removing New York City’s deaths moves the U.S. from eighth place in the world in deaths per million to 13th place.

The New York City metropolitan statistical area even has an outsized influence on the overall statistics for the state of New York.

Removing counties in the New York City metropolitan statistical area from the state’s totals drops the death rate for New York state to 348 per million, nearly 80% lower than the state’s rate when the New York City metropolitan statistical area is included (1,674).

That’s well below the national average and would move New York state from second place to 23rd place in deaths per million.

The same exercise with COVID-19 cases in the New York City area has a similar effect on the state’s totals.

Specifically, when withholding the New York City metropolitan statistical area cases, the overall case rate for New York state plummets by 71% (from 22,065 to 6,505), a level that is well below the national average.

Removing the New York City metropolitan statistical area moves the state of New York from sixth in case rate among U.S. states to 42nd place.

As new Heritage Foundation research shows, as of Aug. 22, the death rate of 2,196 per million residents recorded in the New York City metropolitan statistical area is almost twice that of its nearest rival, Detroit, at 1,177.

Furthermore, the gap between New York City’s COVID-19-related death rate and those of cities that have experienced more recent outbreaks is even more pronounced. The New York City metropolitan statistical area’s death rate is more than triple those of Phoenix and Miami—two cities that have recorded higher rates of infection than New York. It is four and a half times that of Los Angeles and nearly six times that of Houston.

Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it’s even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases.

To make studying these trends easier, The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers. One tracks trends in cases; the other tracks trends in deaths.

The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days, and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during that time period.

These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data. They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well. Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates, as well as to explore the other visual tools on Heritage’s COVID-19 resources page.

COMMENTARY BY

Drew Gonshorowski focuses his research and writing on the nation’s new health care law, including the repercussions for Medicare and Medicaid, as a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. He also studies economic mobility and the Austrian school of economics.

Norbert Michel studies and writes about housing finance, including the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in financial regulations. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED TWEET:


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

TRUMP EFFECT: Incomes Hit Record High and Poverty Reached Record Low in 2019

There is no one on G-d’s green earth better equipped to get us right back than the great man who delivered these momentous gains.

NEW: Incomes hit record high and poverty reached record low in 2019

American households saw their best economic gains in half a century last year under President Trump, according to a report this week from the Census Bureau.And with the President’s pro-growth, pro-worker policies in action, this standard can be achieved again as America safely reopens from the Coronavirus pandemic.

Median household income grew by a stunning $4,400 in 2019, resulting in an all-time record of $68,700. This 6.8 percent one-year increase is the largest gain on record for median income growth.

The poverty rate plunged to an all-time low of 10.5 percent, as well. Between 2018 and 2019 alone, over 4 million Americans were lifted out of poverty, and the child poverty

Minority groups including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans saw the largest gains in income, while poverty rates fell to a record low for every race and ethnic group in 2019.

Black Americans, for example, saw a 7.9 percent median income increase and a poverty rate that fell below 20 percent for the first time in history.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted this historic progress in 2020. Nevertheless, America today is witnessing the fastest recovery from any economic crisis in history. Thanks to the strong fundamentals of the Trump Economy, the monthly jobs report has met or exceeded economist expectations for four months in a row.

The new Census report confirms what we know to be true: With the right agenda for blue-collar and middle-class workers, there’s no limit to America’s economic greatness!


HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM


RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrat Michigan Secretary of State Misprints Trump Ticket on Ballots for Troops

Pelosi’s House Majority PAC submits antisemitic direct-mail ads against Jewish Republican candidate in NJ-3

Nearly 2/3s of US young adults unaware 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, BLAME Jews for Holocaust

Communist China Group Funding Black Lives Matter-Linked Organization

Panthers Spanish-Language Announcer Fired Over Trump Support

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EUREKA! Federal Judge Rules Pennsylvania Governor’s Coronavirus Restrictions Unconstitutional

If it goes to the Supremes, we cannot count on that spineless, pathetic loser Roberts.

Federal judge rules Pennsylvania governor’s coronavirus restrictions unconstitutional

By Anthony Leonardi | The Washington Examiner, | September 14, 2020:

A federal judge ruled that Gov. Tom Wolf’s business closures and gathering limits to decrease coronavirus transmission were unconstitutional.

“Even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered,” District Court Judge William Stickman wrote in a decision Monday. “The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather — freedoms in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble.”

Stickman, a Trump appointee in the Western District of Pennsylvania, sided with the individual counties that brought the suit, ruling that parts of Wolf’s coronavirus restrictions violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Pennsylvania argued the restrictions, which included an indoor social gathering limit of 25 people, were a legitimate exercise of the state’s police powers during a public health emergency. However, Stickman concluded the language of the July 15 order describing the duration of restrictions, which reads “until further notice,” was too broad and that the congregate limits “violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”
‘We really need to get this to the Supreme Court’: Religious liberty advocates dig in for long coronavirus war

Stickman also took aim at the components of the state’s order that closed the operations of businesses, determining they violated both the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, which prevents the government from depriving life, liberty, or property without due process, and the equal protection clause, which requires states to govern with impartial judgment.

Under Wolf’s three-phase reopening plan, only “life-sustaining” businesses were permitted to reopen, such as grocery stores, while schools were ordered closed. Stickman sided with plaintiffs who said that the decision to differentiate between “life-sustaining” and “non-life-sustaining” was an “arbitrary, ad hoc process.”

Small businesses ordered to shut down, the plaintiffs argued, often sell the same products or services as big-box retailers. Stickman said it is “paradoxical” that an order meant to keep people apart allowed the largest retailers with the highest occupancy limits, such as Home Depot and Walmart, to remain open.

“The Court recognizes that Defendants were facing a pressing situation to formulate a plan to address the nascent COVID-19 pandemic… But in making that choice, they were not merely coming up with a draft of some theoretical white paper, but rather, determining who could work and who could not,” Stickman said.

Stickman added that the “solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty.”

The case was filed by Butler, Greene, Washington, and Fayette counties as well as individual businesses and Republican lawmakers. Mike Kelly, a Republican congressman, was also a plaintiff in the case.

Wolf has lifted the statewide stay-at-home order and allowed some businesses in certain counties with low transmission rates to reopen but has kept other orders in place. Last week, Wolf announced that restaurants will be permitted to reopen on Sept. 21 at 50% capacity as long as staff and guests follow social distancing procedures and mask-wearing.

In reaction to Stickman’s ruling, Thomas King, the attorney for those challenging the restrictions, called the decision a “complete and total victory” for counties, businesses, and others affected by the order.

“You can’t order the entire population of Pennsylvania to stay at home,” King said.

Pennsylvania Speaker of the House Bryan Cutler and House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, both Republicans, also praised the ruling, saying that the opinion “offers some form of hope that a return to normalcy might be on the horizon,” according to the Morning Call.

The state Department of Health on Monday announced 1,258 new positive cases, bringing the statewide total to 145,063 reported cases.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MUST SEE: NEW VIDEO ANALYSIS of Murder of Aaron Danielson (Jay Bishop) in Portland Point To An Organized Antifa Team Assassination

Cher Wants The Death Penalty For President Trump

Jail Releases Portland Man Who Set Fire With Molotov Cocktail. Then He Sets SIX More

235 Senior Military Leaders ENDORSE President Donald J. Trump

Biden campaign lawyers up for election-related court battles

Hungary will be only EU state to send minister to Israel-UAE deal signing

NY Hospital Trying to Fire Antisemitic Doctor Walid Khass Who Calls for Jewish Blood and Violence Against Jews

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Union Wish List Bill Would Harm Workers and the Economy

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

TREY KOVACS

Trey Kovacs is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has spent the last five years researching the adverse effects of public-sector unions on workplace choice and the economy, worker freedom, private-sector labor relations, and other labor policy reforms. Kovacs has been published by The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, U.S. News & World Report, and The Hill, among other publications. His work has been cited by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Fox News and more.

TOPIC..Union Wish List Bill Would Harm Workers and the Economy

JEFF CROUERE

Jeff Crouere is a native New Orleanian and his award winning program, “Ringside Politics,” airs at 7:30 p.m. Fridays and at 10:00 p.m. Sundays on PBS affiliate WLAE-TV, Channel 32, and from 7-11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990-AM & www.Wgso.com. He is a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on www.JeffCrouere.com.

TOPIC…What San Francisco is Doing is Criminal

JOHN O’CONNOR

John O’Connor, served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Northern California from 1974-1979, representing the United States in both criminal and civil cases. John is also the author of Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism.

TOPIC…How the Media Was So Badly Deked on Russiagate

 

Trump To Prioritize Ending ‘Slave’ Labor In China During Second Term, Campaign Says

President Donald Trump will prioritize ending “slave or near-slave labor” in China during his second term, senior Trump campaign advisor Steve Cortez told reporters on a Wednesday press call.

The assertion comes as the Trump campaign continues to make the case that former Vice President Joe Biden would be soft on the Chinese Communist Party if elected. The campaign touted Trump’s Phase 1 trade deal with China made earlier this year, saying his second term would focus on finalizing a Phase 2 agreement and curbing the ongoing human rights abuses in China.

“To this day Joe Biden doesn’t view china as an economic threat,” Republican Michigan Rep. Jack Bergman told reporters on the call. “He has consistently bowed down to the Chinese communist regime.”

Cortez argued Biden is a “committed globalist corporatist” who wouldn’t take the necessary actions to protect American intellectual property and jobs from China.

The comments came just hours after Biden announced plans to enact a tax bonus for American companies who return from overseas, including from China.

The plan would impose an increased corporate tax rate for companies based overseas, would reward tax credits on American-made products, as well as eliminate offshore tax loopholes.

Biden is poised to visit Michigan on Wednesday where he will make the case that Trump has failed American workers, an accusation Trump made against him in North Carolina.

“For half a century, Joe Biden shook hands with blue-collar workers and then he turned around and immediately stabbed them in the back,” Trump said at his Tuesday rally. “He closed the factories in Baltimore and sent them to Beijing. They were all sent to Beijing.”

COLUMN BY
ANDERS HAGSTROM
White House correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLE: US To Block Cotton And Tomato Imports From China’s Xinjiang Region Amid Forced Labor Concerns

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

AOC: ‘Freeing People’ From ‘Existential Havoc’ of Capitalism

In a conversation with the online Interview Magazine published Tuesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) promoted fellow Democratic Socialist Jabari Brisport from New York as another candidate who hopes to fundamentally transform the country.

AOC asked the openly gay, black nominee for the New York State Senate what Democratic Socialist means to him, Brisport replied, “For me, it’s really about getting people out from underneath the thumb of capitalism, and freeing them from the very small group of people that manage—or I should say mismanage—our economy and our society for their own wealth and benefit. It’s about freeing up people to truly experience all the joys in life by making sure they don’t have to worry about whether or not they’ll be able to keep their home from month to month, or whether or not they’ll be able to pay for health care when they get sick.

“It’s about freeing people from all the existential havoc that capitalism wreaks on us, and allowing them to truly thrive,” Brisport added.

The duo didn’t offer any examples of where and when in history people have truly thrived under socialism.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

27 Known Connections

Lauding the Protesters and Rioters in America’s Streets

In an August 2020 photo essay in which Vanity Fair magazine “celebrat[ed] the founders of Black Lives Matter [BLM] … and more on the forefront of change,” Ocasio-Cortez called it “profoundly exciting” that the Marxist/anarchist revolutionaries of BLM and Antifa were “discovering their own power” by participating in the massive wave of protests and violent riots that had swept the country since late May. Some excerpts:

  • “I believe that people are really discovering their own power in a broader sense that we have not seen in a very long time. So, yes, we’re starting to see some of this emerging power at the ballot box and at the polls, but we’re also starting to see it in the streets, and people standing up for themselves in the workplace, in organizing themselves and their labor, and it’s profoundly exciting. And it’s really incredible to see how people are really taking the reins for themselves in the direction of systemic change.”
  • “I think that all these people in the streets that are educating others, that are engaging in this elevated and amplified way, have really emboldened me, and it’s given me a lot of courage and encouragement to try to match the energy of everyone else right now who’s really fighting for progressive change.”

To learn more about Ocasio-Cortez, click on her profile click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How lockdown has affected the work-life balance of many families

Families across the globe have been affected by the ever-changing and uncertain working environment wrought by government responses to Covid-19.  For many families both jobs and childcare have become less certain.

For families that finely balance time with their children, work, childcare and everything else, lockdown periods are highly stressful.  My experience is that many couples with young children work in shifts late in to the night, while balancing phone calls, Zoom meetings and urgent emails during the day.  As most working mothers I know work only part-time, I can only imagine what it might be like with two full-time working parents.

I am certain that more than one parent has wondered whether paid work is sustainable at all in such an uncertain environment, if the children are to also be well-cared for and some remnant of a peaceful and well-functioning home maintained.

recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that government responses to Covid-19 have indeed caused drastic changes to most parents’ work lives and other responsibilities in the United Kingdom.  Its findings include:

  • “Millions of adults have lost or are forecast to lose their jobs permanently; many more have stopped work temporarily. Others are newly working from home, while many key workers are experiencing additional pressures and risks in their work.
  • For most parents, school and childcare closures have meant that children are at home, and requiring care, for at least an extra six hours a day.
  • …The complete shutdown of certain sectors and the huge increase in households’ care responsibilities are both completely new.”  

Job losses and increased childcare responsibilities most often affect women.  Mothers are one-and-a-half times more likely than fathers to have either lost their job or quit since the lockdown began. They are also more likely to have been granted a leave of absence from work.

Women are much more likely to be in insecure, part-time employment roles, and the shut-down sectors also disproportionately employ women, thus they will likely be the first to go when more redundancies hit.  Moreover, as women generally perform important childcare and “home” responsibilities, many feel that without certain child-care, time at home must come before other work.  Thus, the effects of lockdown may be felt for some time to come:

“Workers who have lost their jobs permanently may struggle to find new ones, workers who have reduced their hours may struggle to increase them again, and workers whose productivity has suffered due to interruptions may be penalised in pay and promotion decisions. The disproportionate decrease in mothers’ paid work now suggests any longlasting effects will be particularly severe for them.”

The findings also indicate that, despite doing less childcare than mothers, during lockdown fathers have nearly doubled the time they spend on childcare. It will be interesting to understand how many work places have accommodated fathers to balance childcare responsibilities over the lockdown period.  I have heard more than one parent of pre-school aged children lament that many of the people they work with have never had children or don’t currently have young children, and simply do not seem to even contemplate the huge stress on families with young children.  Will lockdown result in greater allowances for fathers that balance time at the office with adequate family and “home” time?

Spending more time with our own children is a blessing.  I often lament how many hours a day my children are under the influence of others at school; increasing numbers of parents choose to home-school for this very reason.  However, the reality of other commitments, both financial and otherwise, make this season of life a very stressful one for the parents of young children. It may also affect the many women who balanced any sort of paid work with their important work in the home for many years to come.

COLUMN BY

Shannon Roberts

Shannon Roberts is co-editor of MercatorNet’s blog on population issues, Demography is Destiny. While she has a background as a barrister, writing has been a life-long passion and she has contributed… 

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Promiscuity and the price of free love

‘Good, Raunchy Fun,’ says The New York Times about this mega-hit song. Really?

A focus on ‘autonomy’ cheapens the value of human life

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What Pelosi’s Salon Scandal Says about the ‘Lockdown Elite’

There’s a deeper lesson to be learned from watching politicians who espouse egalitarian rhetoric indulge in clearly non-egalitarian behavior.


Nancy Pelosi got caught this week.

The House Speaker is in the proverbial hot seat after it was discovered she had her hair done Monday inside a salon in downtown San Francisco, despite a government order forbidding salons from providing business indoors.

Surveillance video circulated online (see below) showed Pelosi “with wet hair inside the salon, not wearing a mask.”

Pelosi took responsibility for the flap … sort of.

“I take responsibility for trusting the word of a neighborhood salon that I’ve been to over the years many times and that when they said we’re able to accommodate people one person at a time and that we could set up that time, I trusted that. As it turns out, it was a set-up,” Pelosi said. “So I take responsibility for falling for a set-up.”

There’s no need to go into all the details of Salongate and the potential political consequences pundits are discussing. The truth is, Pelosi’s hypocrisy isn’t that uncommon.

A casual look at 2020 shows examples of “do as I say, not as I do” have been rampant during the pandemic. Here are a few examples:

Earlier this week, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was compelled to publicly apologize after he was busted sneaking over to Maryland to enjoy dinner at a restaurant over the weekend.

Meanwhile, indoor dining remains forbidden in Kenney’s own city under orders imposed by the city.

“I felt the risk was low because the county I visited has had fewer than 800 COVID-19 cases, compared to over 33,000 cases in Philadelphia,” Kenney wrote. “Restaurant owners are among the hardest hit by the pandemic. I’m sorry if my decision hurt those who’ve worked to keep their businesses going under difficult circumstances.”

In March, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio defended his decision to go to the gym during the pandemic while other New Yorkers were forbidden to do so.

Unlike Speaker Pelosi and Mayor Kenney, De Blasio didn’t sound particularly contrite or bothered by the hypocrisy.

“I need exercise to be able to stay healthy and make decisions,” de Blasio explained, adding that he was exercising in a “very socially distanced situation.”

In May, Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham found herself on the defensive when an Albuquerque news network accused the governor of breaking her own orders by purchasing jewelry from a store while all “non-essential” businesses were closed.

The previous month, during an April 3 press conference, Grisham explained why businesses must be closed. She also acknowledged the “tough financial times” and empathized with the “personal sacrifices” being made. Days later, she reached out to an employee at a high-end jewelry store—Lilly Barrack on Paseo, which was closed by state order—and arranged a purchase of expensive jewelry.

A spokeswoman for the governor defended the sale, noting the purchase was made remotely and the store remained “closed” during the purchase.

“The store was never ‘opened’ and a good safe process was followed,” spokeswoman Nora Meyers Sackett told the Associated Press.

Then there’s Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Earlier this year the Associated Press noted Lightfoot’s especially hard-line approach to enforcing the city’s strict social distancing policy, in some cases personally breaking up gatherings at private residences.

“Your conduct—yours—is posing a direct threat to our public health,” Lightfoot told one group of people allegedly flouting social distancing rules, according to the AP.

Lightfoot defended her closure of salons and barbershops, noting that “getting your roots done is not essential.” But she sang a different tune when it came to her own appearance, after it was discovered she arranged a private visit from a local stylist.

“I’m the public face of this city. I’m on national media and I’m out in the public eye,” said Lightfoot, who also banned political demonstrations on her own block even as her administration failed to protect business-owners and other “commoners” from violent riots.

These are just a handful of examples of politicians refusing to live by the same rules they demand others follow. (You can bet for every politician busted, a dozen got away with it.)

Pretty much everyone can agree it’s not a good look. Humans despise hypocrisy. It is “the only vice that cannot be forgiven,” the great English essayist William Hazzlit once observed.

So it’s no surprise to see these stories trotted out by partisan media and politicians in an effort to make political hay during election season.

That’s fine; politics is politics. But there’s a deeper lesson to be learned from watching politicians who espouse egalitarian rhetoric indulge in decidedly non-egalitarian behavior.

There’s a wonderful scene in the critically acclaimed 2006 German film The Lives of Others that demonstrates the stubborn persistence of hierarchy even in political systems built on ideological foundations of equality.

Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, The Lives of Others explores the quiet terror of life behind the Berlin Wall in East Germany when a Stasi captain is assigned to spy on a playwright who leaders of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) suspect may have subversive ideas. (In truth, a high-ranking KPD official simply desires the playwright’s lover.)

The ideal of a socialist system is equality, but viewers quickly see there is little equality to be found in the communist state. Throughout the film we see members of the KPD enjoy power regular citizens do not, and we also see within the Party itself that hierarchy very much exists. The best example comes in a scene in a state cafeteria involving protagonist Gerd Wiesler, the Stasi captain, and his superior, Lt. Col. Anton Grubitz (a nasty fellow).

Wiesler moves to sit at a table near several young people of lesser rank, prompting Grubitz to point out that captains sit in the back. To Grubitz, the idea of high-ranking officers sitting next to underlings clearly is strange.

Even in a state where utopian socialism reigns supreme, inequality is not vanquished; in fact, it is exacerbated.

As the great economist Ludwig von Mises once observed, it’s impossible to extinguish hierarchy from human affairs.

“As there will always be positions which men value more highly than others, people will strive for them and try to outdo rivals. Social competition is consequently present in every conceivable mode of social organization,” Mises wrote in Human Action.

Hierarchy and social climbing will therefore be found even under “egalitarian” socialism, which Mises regarded as a totalitarian system. Social status will just be based on proximity to power, as opposed to competence and service, which are what tend to determine status in a free society.

“In a totalitarian system social competition manifests itself in the endeavors of people to court the favor of those in power,” Mises wrote. “In the market economy competition manifests itself in the facts that the sellers must outdo one another by offering better or cheaper goods and services and that the buyers must outdo one another by offering higher prices.”

Indeed in communist Russia, the Party elite (called the nomenklatura) had special privileges that afforded them a lifestyle that contrasted sharply with the poverty of the masses. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 1986:

Members of the so-called nomenklatura, numbering perhaps a million, have special holiday retreats, access to special medical facilities and—most resented by ordinary Russians—access to special stores that sell imported and Soviet-made goods that are simply not available in the regular stores. Many also have cars and chauffeurs.

As a practical matter, the privileges are hereditary, since children of the elite have an inside track on admission to the top universities—graduation from which guarantees them good jobs and a place on the nomenklatura list.

America is not a totalitarian socialist state, but the lockdowns gave Americans just a taste of how such systems work. Those with power and influence were able to enjoy perks that those without power could not in most cases (at least not legally).

Moreover, those exercising their power and influence to procure services and products other people could not get through a market economy saw little problem in doing so (at least until they were caught). Indeed, some clearly believed their position entitled them to such perks.

Statements from Lightfoot and de Blasio make it clear they believe their status as public officials grants them certain privileges regular people cannot reasonably expect to have. In effect, they fancy themselves as members of an American lockdown nomenklatura.

This proves Mises’s point: Hierarchy is unavoidable, even in states built on the promise of equality. And humans being humans, they naturally become aware of their position in the hierarchy and use it to their advantage, even as they continue to celebrate the ideal of equality.

Mises is not alone in this assessment, it’s worth pointing out. A celebrated English writer and former socialist ultimately reached this very same conclusion about socialism and hierarchy.

“All animals are equal,” George Orwell famously wrote in his great literary work Animal Farm, “but some animals are more equal than others.”

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

He previously served in editorial roles at The History Channel magazine, Intellectual Takeout, and Scout. He is an alumni of the Institute for Humane Studies journalism program, a former reporter for the Panama City News Herald, and served as an intern in the speechwriting department of George W. Bush.

RELATED ARTICLE: CDC’s Eviction Moratorium Is an Unconstitutional Power Grab

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Minneapolis Law Preventing Business Owners from Protecting Their Own Property Backfires Horribly

It’s no surprise that preventing business owners from protecting their own property hasn’t beautified the streets of Minneapolis


Violent riots broke out in Minneapolis again on Wednesday night. This time, chaos rocked the city after misinformation falsely suggesting the police had killed an unarmed black man went viral. The violent outbreak sadly came as no shock, because by now, Minneapolis is no stranger to destructive riots.

After all, Minneapolis is where the tragic police killing of George Floyd took place in May, sparking nationwide unrest. During the aftermath of that incident, violent riots consumed the city. Countless businesses were looted, vandalized, or burned to the ground, and multiple people were killed. In a jarring example of how deadly this chaos was, police found a charred body in a Minneapolis pawnshop days after the riots died down. Arsonists had murdered a man, possibly without even realizing it.

Yet even in the face of wanton destruction and violence, city ordinances are preventing Minneapolis business owners from protecting themselves and their property. As reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the city currently bans exterior security shutters. These are the type of shutters they pull down over a mall storefront when it closes, that would make it much harder to break in and loot it. They also prevent windows from being broken, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace.

Why are security shutters banned in Minneapolis? Because city officials say they “cause visual blight,” and “create the impression that an area is ‘unsafe’ and ‘troublesome.’”

Now, many business owners are running up against this regulation as they seek to protect their reopened stores from future flare-ups of violence. (The earlier riots destroyed at least 1,500 Minneapolis businesses.) Liquor store owner John Wolf saw his store looted after rioters broke in through his windows and stole more than $1 million in alcohol. He’s fuming at the city regulations that stop him from protecting his property.

“Times have changed,” Wolf told the Star-Tribune. “I am going to spend millions of dollars to bring my business back, and I don’t want to buy 20 window panes and have them broken the first day. Property owners should have options on how to protect themselves.”

Technically, business owners can apply for an exception to this rule. But it is incredibly difficult to get such a variance approved.

A city spokeswoman acknowledged as much, reportedly saying that “while someone is authorized to file a variance, it is challenging to meet the legal findings that are necessary to grant a variance from this type of provision.” The city says it has only ever received one request—which it rejected.

“I have never felt so vulnerable,” car repair shop owner Mark Brandow told the paper. He wanted to install security shutters on his property in July but was told by city officials he was ineligible to even apply for an exemption. They are only now letting him appeal. In the meantime, his storefront remains boarded up.

“People in the neighborhood have asked me to take the boards off because it is ugly,” Brandow said. “But I don’t need to be pretty. I’m going to leave it ugly until I get some satisfaction.”

This predictable consequence is part of the irony of the law’s justification. The city’s anti-blight measure created more blight.

Well-intentioned Minneapolis officials banned security shutters, because they wanted their streets to be more visually appealing. Yet they failed to consider that store owners would only seek to install security shutters for a good reason—that is, if they were necessary.

We now see the results of this folly. Boarded-up stores, shattered windows, and permanent “closed” signs are far more likely to “cause visual blight” than security measures. The results of rioting run unchecked surely do far more to make an area seem “unsafe” and “troublesome” than metal security shutters.

So once again, we see sweeping regulation backfire and have unintended consequences that achieve the exact opposite of their original goals. This is what FEE’s James Harrigan and Antony Davies dubbed the “Cobra Effect.”

They told the comical yet revealing tale of how an Indian city placed a bounty on cobras to try and solve their infestation problem, yet achieved the opposite result. Why?

At first, more people hunted cobras to get the bounty, and the cobra population decreased. Yet then individuals started breeding and raising cobras at home in order to get the bounty again. When the government cancelled the bounty because the population had seemingly declined, citizens released all the cobras they had been raising in their homes into the wild.

The end result was a worse infestation of cobras than the city had to begin with.

“Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended,” Harrigan and Davies wrote in explaining why the regulation failed.

So, it’s no surprise that preventing business owners from protecting their own property hasn’t beautified the streets of Minneapolis—it has left them in shambles.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

America Will Reject Political Violence or Be Consumed By It

Coming Full Circle: A Way Out of the Riots

Remember When a Democratic Polling Firm Fired the Guy Who Thought Violent Protests Could Backfire Politically?

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

We should be hearing more about the ‘marriage gap’

Have the benefits of marriage become a middle-class secret?


Why should only the middle and upper classes enjoy the advantages of marriage as opposed to cohabitation? This is among questions posed by a recent Centre of Social Justice UK report called “Family Structure Still Matters.” With married parents twice as likely to stay together than cohabiting ones, their kids can benefit from numerous advantages of this stability – such as avoiding mental health issues and criminal conviction.

The report’s introduction sums it up well, saying: “The consequences of family instability are alarming; while the benefits conferred by marriage are inspiring. It is therefore surprising that government consistently fails to distinguish between marriage and cohabitation. In its language around family structure, including, crucially in its data collection, government persists in blurring the two categories of ‘married’ and ‘cohabiting’. Official silence on this issue has sent out the message that marriage and cohabitation are interchangeable. Yet we have seen how the two structures lead to widely different outcomes.”

What are these outcomes? The CSJ study points out that for cohabiting parents, their children experienced higher rates of cognitive delay; a greater presence of aggression and anti-social behaviours; more likelihood of involvement with crime or domestic abuse; and more under-performance in the educational arena.

The disadvantages extend to the parents themselves too, including higher levels of psychological distress and less healthy lifestyles; while married couples were both healthier and more likely to engage meaningfully with their communities.

In Australia in 2017, 81.3 percent of couples lived together before marriage as opposed to just a 16.0 percent in 1975. There is no doubt that this is the norm now, but as a Sydney Morning Herald article from late last year pointed out, “cohabitation doesn’t deliver the same levels of happiness, trust and well-being that marriage can bring.”

Unfortunately there exists a “try before you buy” mentality, something I see often amongst my generation. And while this seems like a way to avoid marrying the wrong person, most don’t realise that it also ingrains a non-committal mentality where one can pick up and leave at any time.

The CSJ report calls for the government to be more honest in its distinctions between marriage and cohabitation, so that couples can make more informed decisions about their lifestyles – and I, for one, agree.

Tamara El-Rahi

Tamara El-Rahi is an associate editor of MercatorNet. A Journalism graduate from the University of Technology Sydney, she lives in Australia with her husband and two daughters. 

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: California Town Sees Businesses Vanish Following Minimum Wage Hike

A couple of years ago, I praised federalism in part because state and local governments would be less likely to adopt bad policy (such as higher minimum wages) if they understood that jobs and investment could simply migrate to jurisdictions that didn’t adopt bad policy.

But “less likely” isn’t the same as “never.” Some state and local politicians can’t resist the temptation to raise taxes, even though that means workers “vote with their feet” for places with lower tax burdens.

And some state and local politicians continue to mandate higher minimum wages (see hereherehere, and here), even though that means workers have fewer job opportunities.

Today, we’re going to look at some fresh evidence from Emeryville, California.

The local newspaper has an impressively detailed look at what’s happened to the town’s labor market.

Representatives from the Mills College Lokey School presented data from its recent ‘business conditions’ survey to our City Council on Tuesday. The study confirmed what restaurant owners warned when the ordinance was hastily passed in 2015. They are struggling, rapidly raising menu prices and increasingly looking to leave. …It’s getting harder to find small food service businesses that were around in 2015 when the MWO was passed. Emeryville institution Bucci’s, Commonwealth, Farley’s, Scarlet City … all gone. In fact, nearly all the brick & mortar businesses that comprised the short-lived Little City Emeryville small business advocacy group have moved, folded or sold. …The survey also identified that “the restaurant industry is clearly struggling.” Specifically, small, independent, non-franchise establishments are having the most difficulty.

Here are some of the survey data on the negative effect.

Here is some specific information on how restaurants have been adversely impacted.

…nearly all the new businesses that have opened have embraced the counter service model that requires fewer employees. Paradita Eatery, whose original plan was for a full service sit-down restaurant, cited Emeryville’s wage ordinance specifically for ‘pivoting’ to a counter service model. Counter service models require fewer employees to offset higher labor costs. …The only full service restaurant that has opened since the Minimum Wage was passed was 612One Asian Fusion which folded after just two years in business.

One of the reasons for the economic damage is that Emeryville has gone further and faster in the wrong direction.

The local law is more onerous than the state law and more onerous than other nearby communities.

But it’s not just workers who are suffering.

Consumers are adversely impacted, as well.

One commenter, who identified herself as a resident, questioned why the survey did not include consumer data noting her dining frequency was altered by the drastic price increases she’s observed. …She noted that she used to frequent her local Doyle Street Cafe 2-3 times per month but last year went only twice. …Once franchise owner noted that the price increases they’ve been forced to pass along have ironically had the biggest impact on vulnerable communities that are more price-sensitive. “Our largest decrease in guests are folks over 50. Obviously our elderly, disabled, and folks on fixed incomes are unable increase their income to compensate for the price increases.”

Let’s close with a new video from Johan Norberg, which looks at the impact of minimum wage increases in San Diego.

P.S. If local communities are allowed to mandate minimum wages higher than the state level or federal, shouldn’t they also have the freedom to allow minimum wages that are lower than the state level or federal level?

P.P.S. A number of European nations have no mandated minimum wage. As explained in this video, that’s an approach we should copy.

P.P.P.S. If you want some minimum wage-themed humor, you can enjoy cartoons herehereherehere, and here.

This article was reprinted with permission from International Liberty.

COLUMN BY

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Herbert Marcuse: The Philosopher Behind the Ideology of the Anti-Fascists

No, We Don’t Need a Government Post Office

The Case for Capitalism, Part I

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How Republicans will Benefit from America’s Demographic Transformation

White majority Protestant Christians on the way to becoming a minority


For decades now, one of the favourite talking points of America’s political analysts and pundits has been about the political and electoral transformation in the United States favouring the Democrats from an unstoppable diversification of the electorate due to immigration. Due to this trend, it is argued, the white majority Protestant Christian demography in the US will soon enter minority status.

A lot of evidence does support this view — after all, a major part of the reason why Democrats now own California is because of California’s transformation from the State of origin of Ronald Reagan to a majority Hispanic/Latino State. Democrats are even pointing to polls in Texas and Arizona to show how they can continue to make red states purple, then blue, thanks to demographic transformation.

But as this article is about to show you, that is only part of the picture. As a matter of fact, time and time again Democrats have naively assumed that the rising sleeping giant of minority voters will benefit them and only them. Prior to 2016, liberal media assumed a “beautiful brown wave” would come and that Latino voters would be loyal to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Democrats have won the Latino vote consistently with Clinton winning 66 percent of the Latino vote in 2016 and Obama earning 71 percent of the Latino electorate in 2012. Elsewhere, black and Asian voters have consistently voted Democrat, which made many pundits believe before 2016 that America was about to enter a one-party Democratic hegemony in the 21st century.

But the rise of the Latino population is not the only demographic transformation in America. Turns out, the Republicans will also get shots in their arm and electoral boosts from groups you might have never heard of: Hispanic Protestants (evangelicals in particular), Haredi Jews, the Amish and their other ultraconservative Anabaptist brethren. Their demographic futures may well take away the guaranteed Democratic hegemony and make things continuously competitive for the GOP. The end of Christian white America may be nigh, but red conservative America may actually never go away and even make a demographic comeback.

Hispanic Protestants

In August 2020, the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released a report which shocked the Twitterati. Titled: “Are Hispanic Americans warming up to Trump?”, it showed a President who is actually gaining in favourability in the Hispanic electorate. Even the PRRI said this was surprising, given the pandemic, Black Lives Matter and endless “Trump racist” scandals that the media has been broadcasting 24/7/365.

In the report, Trump’s favourability increased from 28 percent of all Hispanic Americans in 2019 (roughly consistent with the percentage of votes he received from Latino voters in 2016) to 36 percent in August 2020. What is most surprising, however, is that Trump actually has a near-majority favourability among one often-neglected but increasingly influential group: Hispanic Protestants. In the survey, his approval among Hispanic Protestants is 50 percent.

Other polls and previous results have consistently proved the correlation and plausibility of these results. In 2016, Trump received just 28 percent of all Hispanic votes, but he received 41 percent of the Latino evangelical Protestant vote. A recent poll in Texas came up with a similar result: Texas Hispanics prefer Biden over Trump, but when you break it down significant discrepancies emerge: Hispanic Catholics favour Biden 60.6 percent to 32.7 percent, but that gets completely reversed when Hispanic Protestants are surveyed: they favour Trump over Biden 51 percent to 24 percent. Hispanic Catholics have consistently helped Democrats get a majority of the Latino vote, with Catholic Latinos voting 75 percent to 21 percent for Obama in 2012 and 67 percent to 26 percent for Clinton, in stark contrast to evangelical Latinos’ preference for the Republican candidate.

So why does this matter, I hear you ask. Aren’t Hispanic Americans overwhelmingly Catholic? And a 41 percent or 51 percent favourability for Trump among evangelical Hispanics is surely nothing compared to the 82 percent of votes he would get from white evangelicals? Well, here’s where things get really interesting, so buckle up.

It turns out that Hispanic Catholics are no longer a majority of Latino Americans. According to Pew Research, 67 percent of Latino adults identified as Catholic as recently as 2010, but since then breathtaking demographic transformation has taken place, with the figure falling to 55 percent by 2014, and to only 47 percent by 2019. Meanwhile, Protestant Hispanics rose from 19 percent in the 2014 survey to 24 percent in 2019. This means evangelical Hispanics are gaining and converting at the direct expense of Catholics. This is a direct correlation with the trends across Latin America, with Pentecostalism gaining as the Catholic Church bleeds members, converting previously overwhelmingly Catholic countries into future Pentecostal and evangelical majority nations.

So what does a quarter of all US Hispanics being Protestant translate into? It translates into 4-5 percent of all Americans. It is also a growing and young demographic, unlike the ageing and shrinking white evangelicals. One in three Hispanic Protestants are under the age of 30 and the median age of Hispanic evangelicals is 37. White evangelicals have a median age of 55. And yet they remain overlooked in electoral politics; in the 2016 Pew analysis of how the faithful voted, Pew listed Jews, black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics but did not even include Hispanic Protestants. But guess what? Hispanic evangelicals are double the population of American Jews.

They also live in states that matter. Hispanic evangelicals are 6 percent of Florida’s population, 8 percent of the Texas population and 5 percent of Arizona’s population. The electoral importance of these states is pretty clear. Democrats have for years wanted to flip Texas and Arizona, with some polls claiming Joe Biden currently leading and one of their main hopes lying with the growing Hispanic population in both States.

But given the fact that Hispanics are converting to evangelical Protestantism and also assimilating into mainstream American society, those Democratic hopes are not guaranteed. These Latino evangelicals are socially conservative on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, but liberal on immigration, making them a swing vote which is currently more in favour of Trump than Biden, especially among Hispanic/Latino men. As Hispanic evangelicals expand demographically, the Hispanic/Latino solid blue voting bloc may even become purple, directly affecting elections well after Trump and Biden.

Haredi Jews

Ultra-orthodox Jews may not be the first thing to come to one’s mind when considering a future major Republican voting bloc. After all, seven out of 10 Jews in the US vote Democrat.  Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews also only currently consist of about 10 percent of the total Jewish population in the United States. But it is the future that counts and, in many ways, the future is already here.

Haredi Jews have become the kingmakers in Israeli politics. Frustrating secular Israelis for decades, Haredi voting blocs in Israel yield extraordinary electoral and political power by voting strictly on the rabbi’s orders, repeatedly forcing Netanyahu and Israeli politics to swing to the right. That is why Israeli secular Jews have a deep frustration and resentment towards the Haredim. As the fastest growing demographic in Israel now and for the foreseeable future, the rise of Haredi politics in Israel is unstoppable. And in some parts of the United States, that might one day become a reality.

In 2013, Pew estimated that 10 percent of American Jews were Orthodox, with 3 percent being modern Orthodox and 7 percent being ultra-Orthodox (Haredi). But when you look at the youth population, the trends become mind-blowing. Due to the fact that Haredi Jews have fertility rates far higher than the average Jewish American (Pew estimated the Orthodox fertility rate to be 4.1 which included modern Orthodox Jews. Haredi Jews are likely to have even higher fertility at around 7.1 based on Israeli statistics. In 2013, 60 percent of all Jewish children in New York City were already Orthodox.

At this rate, these Orthodox Jews will go from the current one million to 3.5 million by the second half of this century. They will become the majority of Jews in America, which is projected to have a total population of 7.2 million in 2093, growing only because of Haredi Orthodox growth as other Jewish populations dwindle.

So what’s in it for the Republicans? Well, Haredi Jews vote distinctively differently from the generally liberal American Jewish population. And like in Israel, they do vote, and they vote in large blocs. In 2013, 57 percent of Orthodox Jews preferred the Republican Party.

But that was before the Democratic Party elected Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib (both accused of anti-Semitism) and well before Donald Trump came to the presidency and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Now, Haredi Jews prefer Donald Trump overwhelmingly. In 2020, 68 percent of Haredi Jews have a favourable view of Donald Trump. A total of 66 percent of Haredi will vote for him, completely contrasting themselves with the 70 percent of all Jews who vote Democrat.

This overwhelming conservatism among Haredi Jews is already reflected in local politics. Donald Trump’s home city of New York abhor him; he lost overwhelmingly there. But in parts of Brooklyn where huge populations of Haredi Jews live, he won overwhelmingly, making these areas red in an ocean of blue — 69 percent of Borough Park, Brooklyn (an overwhelmingly Haredi area) voted Republican in a borough that only voted 18 percent for Trump.

Moreover, Simcha Felder, the New York State Senator for the Borough Park area, is an Orthodox Jewish Democrat who regularly caucuses with Republicans. He is also a pro-lifer staunchly opposed to abortion, making him perhaps one of the only elected New York City Democrats who is pro-life in an age when the title  “pro-life Democrat” sounds like the ultimate oxymoron.

But that doesn’t matter, you might say, because the Haredis live in NYC which will always vote Democrat, right? Well, the Haredim are spreading out of Brooklyn. They are aggressively expanding in settlements across New Jersey and upstate New York and even in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio. Kiryas Joel, Lakewood and New Square are some of the youngest settlements in America in terms of the age of the local population, with Kiryas Joel having a median age of just 13.8.

In 2018, Kiryas Joel voted as a bloc for Republican Tom Basile in the New York State Senate Race, giving him 4,157 votes. In 2016, the “Trumpiest town” in all of New Jersey was the heavily Orthodox Jewish town of Lakewood, which voted 74.4 percent to 24.4 percent for Trump, giving him nearly 18,000 votes.

As a voting bloc, these towns will become pivotal in Congressional and local elections heavily favouring Republicans in deeply blue states. And when the populations of these towns are growing annually at 5 percent a year or more , a rapid shift in electoral demographics is going to take place very soon.

The Amish

Everyone has heard of the Amish. These pacifist Luddites who often reject electricity may be very much apart from the outside world of what they call “the English”, but they are on their way to massive demographic expansion. The Amish have maintained exponential population growth for over a century now, doubling every 19.63 years.

As a sect that rejects all forms of birth control, the Amish have near-natural fertility of 6-7 children, with some ultraconservatives having an average of nine children. Currently, there are around 350,000 Amish living in North America. At this rate, by the end of this century, there will be anything from 6 to 10 million Amish people in the United States and by mid-century they will already have reached over the million mark.

The Amish are naturally sympathetic to Republican conservatism as they are deeply religious and family oriented. Of course, one could raise the point that 350,000 Amish are a tiny minority in America and that the increased strength to millions will only arrive much later this century, meaning any contributions they will make to the Republican voting bank will remain minuscule for years to come.

Another huge caveat is that the Amish actually don’t vote that much due to their “separate from the outside world” doctrine. But Republicans are already looking to get the Amish vote out, from the group Bikers for Trump giving Amish Trump supporters a lift, to pro-Trump rallies in Pennsylvania, to an Amish political action committee registering and recruiting voters for Trump.

But here’s the interesting part: Amish people live in a few of the most important swing States of the United States, with 63 percent of all Amish people living in the three States of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. Pennsylvania and Ohio are key battleground States and often must-wins for any US presidential candidate. And the electoral margins are often razor thin (Trump only won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes). The world’s largest Amish settlements in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Holmes County, Ohio, may well hold the key to the White House if future elections boil down to one of these two States.

A few thousand Amish votes may be the only thing that makes the difference one day. It is already working out its power. In 2016, 1,019 Amish voters in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, voted out of an eligible 15,055. In the 1990s, less than 450 Amish even bothered to register. Moreover, Amish people are migrating to other key swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin in large numbers, making them a future potential voting bloc in these States too.

As it stands, the Republicans are bound to benefit greatly from the above demographic transformations. This extends well beyond Trump, regardless of whether he steps down in 2021 or 2025 and will continue for decades to come. They will not guarantee a electoral majority for the GOP, but will definitely guarantee that the GOP will not be a disappearing party of just “old white people”. On the contrary, the Republicans might have a bright electoral future ahead of them in some regions. The GOP is here to stay.

COLUMN BY

William Huang

William Huang is a product of the one-child policy as he is the only son in the family. Born and raised in China, it is only when he went overseas to study that he had an epiphany, realizing just how much… 

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Levi Strauss Supports Radical Transgender Ideology

The clothing retailer Levi Strauss (1.00) recently stepped up its one-sided political activism when it filed an amicus brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court in favor of a gender-confused teenager denied access to the men’s restroom. Drew Adams is a girl who identifies as a boy, and when her high school in St. Johns County Florida said she must use the girls’ bathroom or a single-stall one, Adams sued and won. The ruling of the lower court that sided with Adams was recently upheld by an appeals court after corporations like Levi’s supported Adams’ Title IX discrimination claim.

Levi’s open celebration of Adams’ high school being forced to submit to a liberal gender ideology shows the company values social justice politics more than their customers’ safety and comfort. Teenager girls should not have to face males in their restrooms, locker rooms, or sports teams, but that’s where Levi wants our culture to go. They’re also adding to children’s confusion about their gender.

Taking such a blatantly left-wing point of view will only isolate Levi’s from their conservative customers and middle-of-the-road parents who are concerned about the kids’ safety. Levi’s clear support for teens who have tried to change their gender will also influence more children to take this unhealthy path.

In 2016, girls like Adams accounted for 46% of sex reassignment surgeries in the U.S. Only one year later, that number spiked to 70%. Levi’s normalizing of transgenderism is unlikely to lead to a decrease in this trend. All of this should be more than enough reasoning for 2ndVote shoppers to patronize businesses that prioritize customer service over politics.

Eddie Baur 3.00, Carhartt 3.00, Anthropologie 2.43, and Tommy Hilfiger 3.00 have demonstrated how much they value their customers by taking a neutral approach to politics. Let Levi’s know they should follow these company’s examples and stop fueling children’s insecurities about their gender.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Company Contrast – Navigating the Non-Profits

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Should You Mix Podcasts In Your Sales Marketing Campaign in 2020?

An ideal sales and marketing strategy involves more than just running ads and cold-calling prospects. The right marketing mix can be a daunting task, often likened to rocket science. It requires talent, effort, expertise, and consistency.

Developing the perfect campaign requires you to first understand the business and how your product fits into the market. As you assess the competition, figure out what motivates the target audience to make purchases. The data you get from this forms the foundation of your sales and marketing strategy.

Thanks to the many developments in technology, you do not have to worry about the delivery of your content to prospects. The only major problem which most marketers face is understanding the correct channel to use. While there are numerous ways, such as blog posts, webinars, videos, etc., that can be used to market your brand, it is never a guarantee that your target audience will be found there.

One of the latest entrants in the field of marketing is podcasting. There are currently about 850,000 active podcasts with over 30 million episodes. The use of podcasts for marketing is one of the most powerful platforms a business can use to reinforce their message. It is much preferred due to the convenience it provides to both the marketer and the audience.

To clearly understand whether you should mix podcasts in your sales marketing campaign, it is prudent first to get to know some of the key sales and marketing strategies to implement in 2020.

Sales and Marketing Strategies to Implement in 2020

The global market is highly competitive, and to survive, you have to curate the right message for the right audience, and through the proper channels. There is a clear need for increased visibility by the brands to improve sales.

However, to get visibility, businesses have to spend lots of money. But what happens if the well runs dry?

Fortunately, there are certain things that you can do, even on a shoestring budget, to reach more customers without breaking the bank.

Take a look at these three tips that will ensure that your sales and marketing campaigns succeed:

1.    Defining your ideal buyer profile.

Before delving deeper into your marketing strategies, you ought to identify your potential buyers. Furthermore, you need to define which buyers you might help and which ones you can’t. Some marketers blindly chase after unproductive leads; hence, consuming too much time, which would have been put into profitable use.

Such leads might never purchase anything from you, regardless of how well you nurture them. Defining an ideal buyer profile varies from B2B companies to B2C companies. Here are some of the things you should consider when creating an ideal buyer profile for both:

For B2B

  • Size of company
  • Size of the department
  • Job duties
  • Business location

For B2C

  • Demographics
  • Geographic area
  • Income level

In a nutshell, you first have to understand your company and what you wish to concentrate on selling. After doing that, make a list of existing customers and identify their purchasing patterns. What kinds of people or companies are they? What drives them into getting your products? And finally, what did the buying cycle look like?

These are the things to consider when implementing your sales and marketing strategy; otherwise, you will end up chasing unproductive leads.

©All rights reserved.

President Trump Grows the Fastest Economic Recovery in U.S. History

Despite the Democrat lockdowns, riots, looting, widespread crime and violence — the American people want what’s right, decent and good.

The fastest economic recovery in U.S. history

Under President Trump, America built the strongest economy the world has ever seen. The stock market broke records, the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level in half a century, and income inequality fell as blue-collar jobs returned to our country.

Then, as a pandemic from China spread across the globe, President Trump made the difficult but necessary decision to shut the economy down to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Now, as we safely reopen, our economy is surging back faster than anyone predicted:

  • America added over 9 million jobs from May through July—beating market expectations three months in a row. President Trump’s historic, bipartisan relief package alone is estimated to have saved over 50 million jobs.
  • Retail spending has fully recovered and is now at an all-time high.
  • Industrial production rose for the third straight month in July, with factory output up 3.4 percent last month after a 5.7 percent surge in June.
  • The NASDAQ and S&P 500 stock indices are trading at or near record highs once again, lifting Americans’ 401(k)s.

That result is no accident. After the financial crisis more than a decade ago, it took America over four years to regain 9 million lost jobs. But following the Coronavirus shutdown, it took the Trump Economy only a few months to do just that.

“We had such a strong foundation that we’re recovering much faster than anybody anticipated,” President Trump said at a news conference on Saturday.

In addition to pro-growth, pro-worker policies long before the crisis—including tax cuts, deregulation, renegotiated trade deals, and more—President Trump responded to the pandemic by using the Defense Production Act to lead the greatest mobilization of American industry since World War II.

The Trump Administration has exercised the DPA and related authorities 78 times so far, dispersing over $3.5 billion to speed the development and manufacture of essential materials here at home. President Trump mobilized the productive power of General Motors, for example, to create thousands of ventilators for Coronavirus patients.

As a result, GM repurposed its Kokomo, Indiana, plant in just 17 days. It has now produced over 21,000 ventilators.

Other companies, including Ford Motor Company, GE, 3M, and Puritan Medical have partnered with the Federal Government to ramp up production of everything from N-95 masks to testing swabs. This nationwide effort is boosting American manufacturing, creating jobs, reshoring supply chains, and replenishing our Strategic National Stockpile.

“New factories, businesses, and laboratories are being built all over America to match our Nation’s demand for personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, drugs, testing supplies, therapeutics, and vaccines,” President Trump said.

President Trump’s “Made-in-America” strategy is crucial for defeating this virus, important for restarting our economy—and essential for restoring our country’s promise.

RELATED ARTICLE: We have rebuilt America’s Strategic National Stockpile

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.