A Millionaire by Age 30? Here's How

A fellow named Grant Sabatier has revealed his technique for turning millennials into millionaires by the time they reach 30.

There's a lot of wisdom in his story. But it reminds me of another story.

A concert audience member, blown away by the pianist's skill, walked up to the stage as the other audience members were leaving. She told the performer how much she'd enjoyed the concert, and then added, "I'd give anything to be able to play the piano like you do." Expecting a reply of "thank you," or "ah, shucks, ma'am," what she got was, "Oh, no you wouldn't." Startled, she protested, "Oh, yes I would. Why do you say that?" "Because," he replied, "you wouldn't be willing to practice six hours a day for ten years."

In other words, while our young millionaire has his math right -- any teenager willing to do what he says will have a shot at $1,000,000 by his or her 30th birthday -- few if any would be willing to follow the steps and live the life required to achieve that wealth.

Mr. Sabatier's recommended life, a kind of ultimate deferred gratification, reminds me of another story by way of explanation.

A farmer was leaning on his fence, looking out over his pasture, when his neighbor came over to chat. Noticing a mule lying on his side in the middle of the pasture, the neighbor asked,"How's your mule doing?" "Not so good," replied the farmer. "I was training him to live on dew; almost succeeded when he uped and died."

Sabatier doesn't require that his followers live on dew, but his requirements are only marginally more generous. He would probably agree with the thrust of the Saturday Night Live sketch in which a young couple with financial problems (played by Steve Martin and Amy Poehler) are urged, "Don't buy stuff."

The basic formula is that you hold more than one job, one of which you grow into a business, cut expenses to the bone, and invest a far larger share of your income than most would choose to do.

His investment strategies seem sound enough, and similar to what many investment advisers have to say: Buy index funds with the lowest percentage fees (rather than individual stocks or managed funds); on a regular schedule ("dollar cost averaging"); diversifying among max cap equities, small cap growth, foreign firms, real estate, and bonds (taxable and tax-free). Of course, that's the easy part -- once you have the money to invest.

I've given teenagers similar advice with a couple illustrations, both leading to the million dollars (in my illustrations, by age 65). One involves a 15-year-old smoker who gives up the habit and invests what would otherwise have been burned up. As I put it to a one-or-two-pack-a-day teen, "Smoking is not a $10-to-$15-a-day habit, it's a $1-to-$2-million-dollar habit."

The other illustrates the contrast between paying cash and buying on credit. Two teens want cars. One buys on credit and makes monthly payments for cars all his life. The other saves first, pays cash, drives the car while putting aside and investing monthly payments for the next one, repeating the process for all of his life. When then reach 65 they both still have cars, but the one who pays cash will also have $1-million in investments.

Or, as I used to tell law students (albeit before graduation carried with it $100,000 or more in debt), "If instead of buying a Mercedes or BMW you continue to live during the next ten years (as a lawyer) the way you did during the last ten years (as a student) you could retire at 35. You'll find your 'lifestyle' living on 90% of what you earn not noticeably different from living on 110% of what you earn."

It's all about the capacity for deferred gratification, illustrated by the marshmallow experiment. Jacoba Urist, "What the Marshmallow Test Really Teaches About Self-Control," The Atlantic, September 24, 2014. I was born during the Great Depression. Deferred gratification was not a goal, it was a reality born of lack of money. There was no alternative, if I really wanted a bicycle, to getting a paper route first, saving my money, and then paying cash for it. One saying of the time was, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without."

But there is an alternative to poverty as the driving force.

If one thinks of doing without as painful deprivation, it is unlikely any teen who uses all their money to "buy stuff," one whose very identity is dependent upon physical possessions, will have any significant investments by the time they are 30, let alone $1-million dollars.

Yes, it's hard to alter one's behavior if one cannot alter one's thinking. But it's possible to alter one's thinking. I've written a book about it: Test Pattern for Living (available from Amazon).

Interested? Start by learning a little more about Grant Sabatier's journey, accomplishment, and program. Grant Sabatier's Millennial Money Blog; "Millionaire By Age 30? One Blogger Offers a Few Not-So-Easy Steps," Here & Now, WBUR, April 25, 2017.

The financial rewards can be enormous. But, like the lady who wished she could play the piano like that virtuoso, whether you are willing "to give anything" to achieve them is up to you.

_______________

Airlines, Crisis Communications 101, and Prohibited Speech

[Photo credit: frame from passenger video; CNN]

"The Friendly Skies" unfriendly expulsion of a paying customer from one of its planes April 9 (fortunately a plane still on the ground) has produced a plethora of complaints, comments, and constructive suggestions.

What seemed to me one of the more creative suggestions starts by accepting that the airlines are going to continue the business model of contracting with customers to perform something (air transportation between two designated airports at specified prices, times and dates) that the airline can unilaterally refuse to perform at any time -- up to and including immediately prior to a paying customer's boarding.

Given that assumption, the suggestion is that airlines require passengers to specify when buying a ticket the refund from the airline that will be necessary for them to agree to forfeit their seat at boarding time (a) if another flight is available that day, or (b) the next day (always including accommodations and meal vouchers if an overnight stay is required).

There are a number of issues raised by the events of April 9th.

Contents
Airlines as a Mode of Transportation

Load Factors and Bumping Passengers

What's the Law?

Prohibited Speech

Crisis Communications 101

What to Do?

____________________
Airlines as a Mode of Transportation

Air travel has always been problematical. Prior to the Wright brothers, many designs (with flapping wings like birds and such), if set aloft from on high, simply ended in humiliating crashes. For the Wright boys, it involved their, ultimately successful, need to blend technology, engineering, and physics.

Today's commercial aircraft have solved most of those problems. When the weather's right, they seem capable of lifting the equivalent of one's high school gymnasium off the ground, enabling hundreds of complaining occupants to sit in chairs miles in the sky, covering in hours distances that, 200 years ago, would have required their ancestors months to traverse (as Louis C.K. has observed; Google: "louis ck complaining flying").

Notwithstanding this engineering accomplishment, airplanes and the companies that operate them, have become dysfunctional as a mode of transporting humans.

For starters, airlines, like farmers, are dependent on the weather -- albeit one wants clear skies and the other prays for rain. But the impact on passengers who need a timely arrival at a destination is the same when the planes don't fly, whether it's because of lack of crew, "mechanical difficulties," severe turbulence, or iced up planes and snow covered runways.

Then there are the lost bags, TSA screenings, and flight delays. Passengers buy a time-specific arrival. Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have to sleep on the floor of an airport overnight while the airlines try to sort out the cancelled flights, lack of crews, and backups in the national system caused by one airport's problems.

Wall Street's pressure for ever-increasing airline profits has encouraged the substitution of pretzels for meals, narrower seats and less leg room, extra charges for everything from bags to specific seats -- and the overbooking that results in bumping paying passengers from flights. (Fortunately, regulations prohibit the sale of "standing room only" passage.)

Load Factors and Bumping Passengers

Selling seats on departure-specific airplanes is a business like restaurants and motels. A grocery store may have fewer sales during severe thunderstorms, but the gallon of milk it doesn't sell today will be sold tomorrow. The revenue lost from today's empty airline seat, motel room, or restaurant table is more often gone forever than simply time-shifted to the next day.

No-show paying passengers contribute to this airline problem.

The airlines' response -- to sell more tickets than they have seats -- is not entirely irrational (though there are preferable alternatives and modifications). But predicting how many additional tickets should be sold is an inexact science. So they error on the side of selling too many, and then apply a marketplace approach to the paying passengers they refuse to board: How much money would it take to satisfy a bumped passenger with flying later -- or not at all? Usually something like $400-$800 is enough.

There are some questions regarding what happened prior to departure of United Express 4311 from O'Hare (Chicago) to Lexington, Kentucky, on April 9. Was the flight overbooked, or was the problem only created by a last-minute need for four seats for United crew members? Did the passenger in question board, get off the plane, and re-board? What is unambiguous, because documented on videotape, is that he was on the plane, sitting in his seat, when he was forcibly removed from his seat, dragged down the aisle, and taken off the plane by O'Hare security.

What's the Law?

In addition to federal regulations, the relationship between an airline and its passengers is governed by a contract (even though most passengers -- and in this instance even United personnel and executives as well -- may be unaware of its terms). There are two Rules (Rules 21 and 25) potentially applicable to the events of April 9th.

One rule deals with pre-boarding bumping; the other deals with the circumstances under which a seated passenger may be removed from the plane. The former is inapplicable because it is limited, by its terms, to the airline's rights prior to a passenger's boarding. The latter is inapplicable because it deals with itemized justifications for removing a seated passenger from a seat, such as severe illness, drunkenness, or other disruptive behavior -- a rule inapplicable by virtue of its spirit as well as its letter. See, John Banzhaf, "United Airlines Cites Wrong Rule For Illegally De-Boarding Passenger," LawNewz, April 11, 2017.

Prohibited Speech

The letter of the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, only applies to efforts to restrict speech by governmental units. For most of us, most of the time, any restraints on our speech come from social mores and norms (e.g., "that's not nice," or in days gone by, "I'm going to wash your mouth out with soap") -- or civil suits for such things as defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A subset of these informal standards involves instances in which what was said is deemed to be grounds for dismissal from a job. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Was It Something I Said? General Semantics and the Unacceptable Remark," Institute for General Semantics, New York City, October 30, 2010; Nicholas Johnson, "Quck Draw Harreld and Why Language Matters," December 17, 2015.

That could have been an issue in the United case, when United CEO Oscar Munoz's first response was a memo to United employees that included the following: "Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right." "Text of letter from United CEO defending employees," Washington Post/Associated Press, April 10, 2017. Not much better was his follow-up, including: "I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers." Re-accommodate? Michael Hiltzik, "United Finds a New Way to Make Itself Look Awful, and Then its CEO Shows How to Make Things Worse," Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2017.

As it happened, this was about the same time that President Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, was explaining the missile attack on Syria as warranted because Assad had gassed his own people, which made him worse than Hitler. Nicholas Fandos and Mark Landler, "Sean Spicer Raises Outcry With Talk of Hitler, Assad and Poison Gas," New York Times, April 12, 2017, p. A13.

Crisis Communications 101

There are some relatively simple steps that public relations firms urge upon their clients confronting crises of various kinds. One is an illustration of the advice that when you find yourself in the bottom of a hole the first step is to stop digging. In this context, when an organization has done something horrible, and news of it has reached the public, the best strategy is for the top executive to respond with "immediacy, transparency, honesty and empathy." See, Nicholas Johnson, "Crisis Communications 101," February 14, 2011.

Instead of coming out with one statement displaying "immediacy, transparency, honesty and empathy," United's CEO produced three, each defensive and failing to improve on its predecessor (until his days-late expression of "shame"). "Read United CEO’s 3 statements on passenger dragged off flight," Boston Herald, April 11, 2017.

If it was an ill conceived tactic of United's public relations operation (and not just the product of a curious journalist working independently), I would find particularly despicable a corporate response of attacking the victim's personal reputation (like a rapist smearing the reputation of his victim) -- something having nothing whatsoever to do with the propriety of dragging the victim off the plane. Bruce Golding, "Doctor Dragged Off Flight Was Convicted of Trading Drugs for Sex," New York Post, April 11, 2017.

What to Do?

Imagine you have reserved a motel room, paid for by credit card, arrived, settled in and gone to bed. Imagine being awakened when all the lights go on, you see the manager standing there, and he informs you that you are going to have to dress and leave because he overbooked the motel that night.

Or consider the restaurant equivalent. You've made reservations for you and your partner. You arrive on time, are seated, and give the wait person your orders. Before the food arrives you are told you need to get up, put your coats on and leave, because the restaurant is overbooked that evening.

That behavior would be enough to put that motel, or restaurant, out of business.

Not so for the airlines apparently. Offer us the lowest fare and we'll take the risk that we'll be bumped (though not the risk that we'll be forcibly dragged from the plane once seated).

What were United's alternatives in this situation? There are a number that occur to me, and probably more that airline experts could come up with.

They could have done a reverse auction with all passengers: raising the amount they'd pay to a volunteer until one was found.

They could have avoided the issue by doing a better job of anticipating and managing crew location. If the crisis was the result of too few employees, possibly the cost of hiring more would have been worth it.

United is, after all, in the transportation of human bodies business. Chicago is their hub. Didn't they have a corporate jet available, or even a small United Express plane that could be spared for a couple of hours? No? Well how about a bus, limousine, or taxi? It's only 375 miles from Chicago to Lexington. What they chose to do delayed the flight two hours. The four crew members could have been driven there in a little over five hours.

Presumably even a United steely-eyed bean counter would see this as a matter of comparative cost. What would be the incremental cost of a 375-mile round trip in a corporate (or leased private) jet; or a limousine for the four crew members? So long as they could get a passenger to release his or her seat for less than that (or other alternatives) they'd pay the passenger and put the four crew members on the plane. Otherwise, they'd use the alternative. It's not that complicated.

But that's the past. What about the future?

They might consider changing their business plan that requires turning away paying customers, inconvenienced and upset.

On the assumption they are unwilling to change, they ought to build the practice into the contract and pricing. One way would be what's outlined at the top of this blog post: require that customers making reservations indicate ahead of time how much money it would take for them to voluntarily agree to be bumped.

Another might be to create a new, cheaper, bump-able class of ticket. That would be kind of like a life insurance contract: the company bets you're going to live and keep paying premiums; you bet you're going to die young. In the airline business: you bet the plane won't be full and you'll save on the fare; the airline bets it will be, you'll be bumped, they will owe you nothing, and the average fare per passenger will be higher.

And that's what I meant by, "There are a number of issues raised by the events of April 9th."

# # #
Comments

This blog post was published by OpEdNews in only slightly modified form as "Some Airline Issues," April 24, 2017, where I added the following three comments:

Apr 25, 2017 at 12:51:29 PM
Update: The American Airlines flight attendant who got in a struggle with a mother and her stroller was suspended (a decision undoubtedly affected by passengers' video of the events); American immediately issued one statement, not three (like United): "The actions of our team member captured [on video] here do not appear to reflect patience or empathy, two values necessary for customer care." The New York Times April 23 (p. A18) story can be found here: tinyurl.com/m82hd5s

Apr 25, 2017 at 1:06:57 PM
Update: Another United passenger (New Jersey to London) is suing the airline, alledging, "She had originally paid $1,498.90 for a window seat in the economy cabin before using 60,000 American Express miles, and an additional $498.56 in fees and expenses to upgrade to premium economy. . . . [S]he further upgraded her seat at the airport, paying $1,149 for a business-class seat . . .. About 20 minutes after she boarded the plane, and 10 minutes before takeoff, a gate attendant got on . . . demanded she move to the back of the plane . . . grabbed her arm and escorted her, 'in tears,' to a middle seat in the 21st row near the back of the plane, at one point calling her a vulgar name . . .." This Chicago Tribune April 24 story can be found in full here: tinyurl.com/lygzvau

Apr 25, 2017 at 5:06:16 PM
This piece deals with some (not all) airline issues. One that really should have been included is the extent to which the airline industry is subsidized by all taxpayers -- for the primary benefit of very few.

Our ability to create anything close to the efficient and environmentally sound passenger rail system we once had is stymied by many things, among them allegations from railroads' competitors that the railroads are "subsidized." Before we swallow those allegations, we need to consider how much taxpayer money is going to support the transportation system favored by the wealthy, business employees, and the politicians who hand out the money.

Bill McGee, "How Much Do Taxpayers Support Airlines?" USA TODAY, September 2, 2015, tinyurl.com/k4lb6lc . The answer is: "In the billions of dollars." The design and testing of what are modified to become their aircraft, as well as the training of their pilots, is paid for by the Defense Department. A significant share of the multi-billion-dollar cost of airport construction and expansion is paid for with federal, state, and local taxpayers' dollars. The TSA passenger inspection program alone costs $7 billion a year.

How much did most Americans benefit from these payments? The latest results from Gallup, tinyurl.com/h9b6g5f , indicate that 55% of Americans did not fly at all during the prior 12 months (25% only once or twice -- a total of 80%). Only 10% flew five or more times.

_______________

Of Missiles and Teachers

Note to potential critics of this post: It is not intended to, and does not, address whether we should be involved in Syria, or what we should be doing there if we are -- especially in response to gas attacks on Syrians. It does not argue that we do not need a military in these times. Read it again.

Spending on Military Always Comes at a Cost

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 9, 2017, p. D5
My father grew up on a Kansas cattle farm in the early 20th Century. Times were tough, and so were parents. He recalled sitting on the porch steps at a neighbor's farm house when that farmer's young, barefoot boy approached and asked for a nickel. The boy's father answered, "What did you do with the last nickel I gave you?"

It's much easier these days for America's military. Often it doesn't even need to ask. Elected officials sometimes send additional taxpayers' money its way for the weapons systems of major campaign donors, weapons the military would really rather not have, thank you.

As for "the last nickel I gave you," the General Accounting Office has often just thrown up its hands in frustration and announced that the military's financial records are in a condition that simply makes audits impossible.

So estimates vary, but most agree we are spending on our military more than the next seven nations combined -- much of which is used to make sure that we could win, should we ever have to fight World War II all over again. Unfortunately, there's little that the President Gerald Ford $8-to-13 billion aircraft carrier can do to defend us from cyber attacks or terrorists' random, homemade bombs.

Throw in the cost of caring for the wounded (Department of Veterans Affairs), and other costs throughout the federal budget, and the military's share of federal discretionary spending is well over the 54% just going to the Pentagon. (Estimates of the costs of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone, among the most difficult to audit, range between one and five trillion dollars.)

It's hard enough for most of us to deal with things measured in the millions of dollars. We can't even imagine how we should evaluate costs in the billions and trillions of dollars.

So let's just focus on the cost of one operation, during one day (yesterday, April 7), involving missile strikes on one Syrian Airforce base. [Photo credit: unknown; perhaps U.S. Navy]

It required 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles. At $1.4 million per missile that's $82.6 million.

So how much is $82.6 million?

Think of it this way: Given the median income of Iowa's K-12 teachers, $82.6 million would be enough to pay the salaries of over 1700 additional teachers for one year -- roughly a 5% increase in the number of Iowa's 35,000 teachers.

That's something we can imagine.

Now multiply that by roughly 10,000 times and you'll have some notion of how much our military expenditures are denying us in healthcare, jobs programs, education, infrastructure improvements, and other pro-people social programs.

Think about what President Eisenhower's military-industrial complex did with the last nickel you gave it. Think about it -- and act.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City shared responsibility for sealift to Vietnam while serving as U.S. maritime administrator. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #

Collusion, Treason, Trump and Putin

Collusion 1. a secret agreement, especially for . . . treacherous purposes; conspiracy

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally . . . or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

-- Dictionary.com

Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, . . . adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason . . . and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

-- 18 U.S. Code §2381 (1994)

Impeachment The President . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

-- U.S. Constitution, Article II, §4 (The 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides alternative procedures following a finding that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.")

_______________
What can we pluck from the speculation and wild accusations, alternative facts and devious denials, regarding Russia's involvement in our last presidential election? Here's a quick, three-part summary:

Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not fond of Hillary Clinton and preferred Donald Trump as the next U.S. president. Individuals in Russia were involved in hacking into computers of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton Campaign, and facilitating release of some of their content. They, or others in Russia, prepared propaganda and false damaging information about Clinton and distributed it throughout the U.S. through social media. However probable it may be that some voters were, to some extent, influenced in their opinions of the candidates, and even ultimate choices at the ballot box, there is no procedure for collecting the data necessary to prove or disprove such suspicions. It is unlikely that, but for these Russian efforts, Clinton would have won the electoral vote (although there's no way that can be proved or disproved). There have been assertions that Russians wanted to manipulate voting machines, but no evidence that, if so, they were successful in doing so.

Trump. A second, related, line of inquiry has involved the past and present ties that Trump, his family, campaign and other associates, may have with Russian oligarchs, banks, politicians and government officials. This includes Americans' interests in investments there (or payments from there) and Russians' investments or payments here. A significant number of individuals in both countries, meetings, and transactions have been identified and reported. Of course, a substantial impediment to a thorough understanding is Trump's refusal to comply with the norm that presidents reveal their past tax returns. And the Trump Team's case has not been strengthened by the number of instances in which their contacts with Russians (or payments from Russians) have been denied, only to have been unequivocally confirmed later.

Collusion. A third, and seemingly final inquiry addresses the possibility that there was "collusion," a "conspiracy," among the joint forces of Putin and Trump, working together in their efforts to defeat Clinton and elect Trump. Such a finding ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to prove without documents (e.g., electronic messages, meeting notes, transcripts of conference calls) or the testimony of those present at such meetings. If a "secret agreement" or "conspiracy" (as "collusion" is defined at the top of this post) can be shown, fine. But an inability to do so should not be the end of the matter. Indeed, it should not have been the beginning, either.

Here is an effort at an explanatory analogy for where the Putin-Trump inquiry should have begun.

Consider the terrorist attack on 9/11. That involved collusion, or a conspiracy -- an organization, communication and control, financing, training, a plan, and the execution of that plan. That was the case with some of the terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere. But as our government, intelligence community, and international cooperation became more sophisticated, loose affiliations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS found it increasingly difficult to carry out such organized attacks. Did they give up? No. What did they do? They changed strategy and procedures.

They began sending out to everyone in the world with an Internet connection the equivalent of the computer-generated emails we all get from time to time notifying us that we can't "reply" to the email. They said, in effect, "Don't leave your country; don't try to contact us or come to the Middle East for training; don't try to organize massive destruction like 9/11. Do what you can do where you are: shoot somebody or throw them off a rooftop, make a car bomb or drive your car into a crowd." Many to most of those who were persuaded by these Web pages and social media messages, persuaded to engage in some terrorist act, were not a part of a conspiracy, or collusion with a terrorist organization's leadership. They had attended no meetings, had no conversations, received no electronic communications personal to them. What they do is "consistent" with the organization's goals and strategies, but it does not constitute "collusion."

This is something we experience in our daily lives. Local street demonstrations -- whether the global "Women's March" demonstrations on January 21, or those throughout Russia on March 26; whether those of the Tea Party or Occupy -- often emerge and grow without any need for a conspiracy, collusion, or communication. Nor need it always be as dramatic as terrorist acts or demonstrations. The same is true of fads in food, dress, sports, or smartphones.

And that, I believe, is how we should approach the actions of Putin and Trump before, during, and after the November 8, 2016, presidential election. It is not necessary that they and their teams talked strategy with each other, or enabled each other's actions, or coordinated their campaign strategies and tactics. [Photo credit: Reuters/Alexander Zemlianichenko, AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Business Insider/Skye Gould]

"Treason," defined at the top of this post, only speaks of "giving [enemies] aid and comfort." Clearly, Putin derived "aid and comfort" from the outcome of the election, and the attitudes and actions of Trump's Team that have paralleled Putin's own.

So where's the evidence? Here are some excerpts from Newsweek's take last August:

Not since the beginning of the Cold War has a U.S. politician been as fervently pro-Russian as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. . . . Trump has praised President Vladimir Putin as a real leader, “unlike what we have in this country.” Trump has also dismissed reports that Putin has murdered political enemies (“Our country does plenty of killing also,” he told MSNBC) . . .. When Russian hackers stole a cache of emails [from the DNC] . . . Trump called on “Russia, if you’re listening,” to hack some more. . . .

“Trump advocates isolationist policies and an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world. He cares little about promoting democracy and human rights,” [says U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014] Michael McFaul. “A U.S. retreat from global affairs fits precisely with Putin’s international interests.” . . . Kremlin-sponsored propaganda outlets like Sputnik and RT . . . have lavishly praised Trump, . . . supported Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama “founded ISIS,” and Russia’s world-class army of state-sponsored hackers has targeted Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. . . .

[T]he Kremlin’s support for Trump is part of a longstanding strategy to sow disruption and discord in the West. Whether it’s by backing French ultra-nationalists . . . or boosting Donald Trump’s chances by blackening the Democrats, the Kremlin believes Russia benefits every time the Western establishment is embarrassed. . . .

Former CIA Director Mike Morell wrote . . . that Putin “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation” with flattery. But the truth is more nuanced. Trump’s pro-Putinism goes back to at least 2007, when he told CNN that [Putin] was doing “a great job” rebuilding Russia. Trump was pushing real estate deals in Moscow at the time and, according to one Moscow-based American businessman . . . Trump’s admiration for Putin was rooted in “pure self-interest. . . . He was looking to make friends and business partners” among Russia’s politically connected elite. . . .

Trump’s . . . political career has made him an important part of Putin’s wider strategy to weaken the West and court conservatives around the world . . .. into a grand anti-liberal alliance headed by Russia. In August, Moscow hosted a gathering of nationalist and separatist activists from all over Europe and the U.S. . . ..

“The target of the hacks wasn’t just Clinton,” [former head, Estonian intelligence] Eerik-Niiles Kross, wrote . . .. "What the Russians have in their sights is nothing less than the democratic fabric of American society and the integrity of the system of Western liberal values. . . . The political warfare of the Cold War is back -- in updated form, with meaner, more modern tools, including a vast state media empire in Western languages, hackers, spies, agents, useful idiots, compatriot groups, and hordes of internet trolls.” In other words, Trump is merely a useful stooge in the Kremlin’s grand design to encourage NATO disunity, U.S. isolationism and the breakup of Europe.

Owen Matthews, "How Vladimir Putin is Using Donald Trump to Advance Russia's Goals," Newsweek, August 29, 2016.

OK; keep the search for "collusion" or a "conspiracy" on the back burner. But what the media's investigative reporters, House, Senate, and any other investigative committees ought to be focusing on is making the case for what Putin and Trump are doing in parallel that results in weakening the world's great democracies -- whether or not it is the result of joint planning.

_______________
Comparable analyses and conclusions are found in many other sources, including "The view from the Kremlin: Putin's War on the West," The Economist," Feb. 12, 2015; and Mark Galeotti, "Putin’s Chaos Strategy Is Coming Back to Bite Him in the Ass," Foreign Policy, October 26, 2016 ("The Russian president has sown confusion and conflict around the world the past two years. But his short-sighted meddling isn’t the work of a mastermind.")

And compare what Putin and Trump are seemingly trying to accomplish with this 2004 UN General Assembly list of the necessary elements of a successful democracy:

• Separation and balance of power
• Independence of the judiciary
• A pluralistic system of political parties and organisations
• Respect for the rule of law
• Accountability and transparency
• Free, independent and pluralistic media
• Respect for human and political rights; e.g., freedoms of association and expression; the right to vote and to stand in elections

Michael Meyer-Resende, "International Consensus: Essential Elements of Democracy," Democracy Reporting International (October 2011).

And see also, "Tracking Trump," November 9, 2016-January 19, 2017; "Resources for Trump Watchers," February 11, 2017.

# # #