At today's rallies in opposition to the performative cruelty of Trump's immigration policies quite a few people endorsed the "Abolish ICE" idea. Now, these are people most animated by the outrages on our border. (I was planning on going, but had to work.) Their outrage is obviously targeted at those implementing these policies.
ICE is a terrible institution riddled with people who enjoy their work too much. But presumably, it is also full of law enforcement officers who are trying to do a necessary job. ICE needs reforming. But there seems to be a group that insists on living down to the most outrageous characterization of Democratic policies. No Democratic politician that I know of supports "open borders." I don't even know what open borders is supposed to mean. We will be traveling overseas this summer and we will need passports to get out of and into our own country. And that's fine.
We need an immigration policy that brings migrant workers out of the shadows and gives their status the protection of laws. We need to find a way to document those immigrants who live here, work hard and contribute to our economy, so that they, too, can have the protection of laws. We need a humane asylum policy. That's not the same as "open borders." It includes amnesty for those who have been here for years, but it does not simply open our borders to anyone who feels like they want to come here.
There is a role for an organization that enforces our immigration laws, and certainly the Border Patrol spends as much time helping lost migrants in the desert as making arrests. ICE has become symbolic of the wanton cruelty of Republican/white nationalist immigration policy. Perhaps it can't survice as ICE.
I would argue that you do that once you have power, not when you are trying to win power.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Friday, June 29, 2018
To Elaborate
To build on the post below, Democrats - and especially the activist base - need to understand that there really isn't much that Democrats can do to stop Trump from placing someone on the Court. Harriet Myers suggests that there might be a nominee that is too incompetent or extreme, even for the current iteration of the GOP. I don't think we have to worry about Judge Jeannine Pirro. Trump has usually defered to the professional Republicans with court appointments, and I imagine he will select some "safe" Federalist Society judge like Gorsuch.
So...unless Trump nominates Jared Kushner to the Supreme Court, I don't think Democrats can do much to stop it. And everyone needs to understand that going in. As Josh Marshall and Theda Skocpol note, it will define HOW you fight it. It is tiresome to listen to online activists whinge about the ineffectiveness of Democrats in Congress. There is literally nothing they can do.
When we think about the calamity of 2016...and the various levels of vituperation visited on Clinton's head, remember this. Russ Feingold lost Wisconsin by 3.36%. Online star, Jason Kander lost Missouri by 3.1%. Deborah Ross lost North Carolina by 5.8%. Katie McGinty lost Pennsylvania by 1.7%. If the Democrats had won any of those races, we would be having a very different discussion now. But they didn't. And these were not "DC establishment Dems" kowtowing to Wall Street. These were challengers.
Republicans won, at least in part, because some of the Obama Coalition stayed home. They won, at least in part, because the mushy middle wanted to change party control in DC - without really engaging in what that might mean.
The consequences of that are being visited upon us now. In every election since November 2016, Democrats have outperformed expectations. Win or lose, they have done better than they "should" in every race.
If Democrats define the fight over Kennedy's replacement in the wrong way, they risk creating a backlash and ennui that could spill over into November. Conversely, as Skocpol notes, if they blow up the Senate to prevent it from happening, they immediately mobilize a fairly disspirited Republican base.
Everything depends on November, 2018, because everything got screwed up in November, 2016. The tangible consequences that we are seeing now is the shifting of the Supreme Court to the far right.
Also, please stop talking about the "McConnell Rule." Jesus, what an own goal. Cory Booker was on TV saying that Trump should not be allowed to pick a justice who will rule on important issues surrounding Trump's own legal jeopardy. THAT is the tack to take. It won't work, but neither will invoking the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell, which everyone knows about anyway.
Knowing that you will likely lose the fight over Gorsuch 2.0 defines how you fight and what you expect to win. What you are playing for is control of the Senate and House, not the Supreme Court seat.
So...unless Trump nominates Jared Kushner to the Supreme Court, I don't think Democrats can do much to stop it. And everyone needs to understand that going in. As Josh Marshall and Theda Skocpol note, it will define HOW you fight it. It is tiresome to listen to online activists whinge about the ineffectiveness of Democrats in Congress. There is literally nothing they can do.
When we think about the calamity of 2016...and the various levels of vituperation visited on Clinton's head, remember this. Russ Feingold lost Wisconsin by 3.36%. Online star, Jason Kander lost Missouri by 3.1%. Deborah Ross lost North Carolina by 5.8%. Katie McGinty lost Pennsylvania by 1.7%. If the Democrats had won any of those races, we would be having a very different discussion now. But they didn't. And these were not "DC establishment Dems" kowtowing to Wall Street. These were challengers.
Republicans won, at least in part, because some of the Obama Coalition stayed home. They won, at least in part, because the mushy middle wanted to change party control in DC - without really engaging in what that might mean.
The consequences of that are being visited upon us now. In every election since November 2016, Democrats have outperformed expectations. Win or lose, they have done better than they "should" in every race.
If Democrats define the fight over Kennedy's replacement in the wrong way, they risk creating a backlash and ennui that could spill over into November. Conversely, as Skocpol notes, if they blow up the Senate to prevent it from happening, they immediately mobilize a fairly disspirited Republican base.
Everything depends on November, 2018, because everything got screwed up in November, 2016. The tangible consequences that we are seeing now is the shifting of the Supreme Court to the far right.
Also, please stop talking about the "McConnell Rule." Jesus, what an own goal. Cory Booker was on TV saying that Trump should not be allowed to pick a justice who will rule on important issues surrounding Trump's own legal jeopardy. THAT is the tack to take. It won't work, but neither will invoking the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell, which everyone knows about anyway.
Knowing that you will likely lose the fight over Gorsuch 2.0 defines how you fight and what you expect to win. What you are playing for is control of the Senate and House, not the Supreme Court seat.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Skocpol on SCOTUS
This is all good, but Theda Skocpol's take on the coming SCOTUS fight seems really smart to me. Skocpol's comments are a bit down the page.
The Filibuster
Predictions are hard, especially about the future. But I do believe that the continued outrages against decency that typifies Trumpistan will lead to Democratic takeover of the House and Senate this fall. I am, surprisingly, an optimist. I think a lot of Democrats and Progressives assumed that progress was linear and irreversible. The ascension of Obama to the presidency was supposed to be the fulcrum point towards the "emerging Democratic majority." Recent scholarship suggests that the "center" of American politics is a group of people who routinely vacillate against whomever is in the White House. At this moment, that sentiment should work against the Republicans.
Jon Chait suggests that Democrats should run on eliminating the filibuster in the Senate. From a strictly consistent point of view, it makes sense. We no longer have the filibuster for judicial appointments and the budget. Why do we have it for every day legislation? Imagine what Obama could have accomplished in 2009-2011 without having to rely on Joe Lieberman.
The argument that the filibuster protects the minority is a decent one, but does it really hold true today? What, exactly, is the filibuster protecting?
The Republicans have entrenched themselves in the House via gerrymandering, but that can be slightly reversed in 2020 with a two-part Democratic wave. However, both the Senate and House have natural gerrymanders that favor rural voters. Any move to end the filibuster is a long term move that might have implications long term.
There are two ways to amend rather than end the filibuster. First, as Chait suggests, is to end the "silent filibuster." If you want to filibuster, get up and talk for days. Make it painful. I 100% support that. Secondly, I've wondered about a "decaying" filibuster that starts at 60 votes and then a month or two later becomes 58 votes, then 56, until eventually you get a majority. That allows popular opinion a chance to impact the Senate.
If the Democrats decide to end the filibuster, it really should come with three other moves. First, divide California into two or more states. Second, give Senate representation to the District of Columbia. Third, give Puerto Rico Senate representation. I'm not sure if DC would need to become a state in order to get Senate representation, but there are more people in DC than in Wyoming. They should have Senate representation.
Mitch McConnell is the John C. Calhoun of the 21st century. He has broken institutions that he was supposed to serve. He wouldn't let the story of Russian interference in the election become public. He is a villain. But sometimes, you have to meet bare knuckles with bare knuckles.
Jon Chait suggests that Democrats should run on eliminating the filibuster in the Senate. From a strictly consistent point of view, it makes sense. We no longer have the filibuster for judicial appointments and the budget. Why do we have it for every day legislation? Imagine what Obama could have accomplished in 2009-2011 without having to rely on Joe Lieberman.
The argument that the filibuster protects the minority is a decent one, but does it really hold true today? What, exactly, is the filibuster protecting?
The Republicans have entrenched themselves in the House via gerrymandering, but that can be slightly reversed in 2020 with a two-part Democratic wave. However, both the Senate and House have natural gerrymanders that favor rural voters. Any move to end the filibuster is a long term move that might have implications long term.
There are two ways to amend rather than end the filibuster. First, as Chait suggests, is to end the "silent filibuster." If you want to filibuster, get up and talk for days. Make it painful. I 100% support that. Secondly, I've wondered about a "decaying" filibuster that starts at 60 votes and then a month or two later becomes 58 votes, then 56, until eventually you get a majority. That allows popular opinion a chance to impact the Senate.
If the Democrats decide to end the filibuster, it really should come with three other moves. First, divide California into two or more states. Second, give Senate representation to the District of Columbia. Third, give Puerto Rico Senate representation. I'm not sure if DC would need to become a state in order to get Senate representation, but there are more people in DC than in Wyoming. They should have Senate representation.
Mitch McConnell is the John C. Calhoun of the 21st century. He has broken institutions that he was supposed to serve. He wouldn't let the story of Russian interference in the election become public. He is a villain. But sometimes, you have to meet bare knuckles with bare knuckles.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
One Member Of The Supreme Court Wishes You A Shitty Day
The news that Anthony Kennedy is resigning as a Supreme Court Justice is obviously very disheartening news. Of course, yesterday's decisions suggest that he wasn't really saving us much, except perhaps from a repeal of Roe v Wade. There is an argument - made by people it doubtless doesn't effect - that perhaps Roe should be repealed so it can be settled politically rather than judicially. I suppose. Trumpistan has laid bare all the basest impulses of the "conservative" movement, why not this one. For years, Republicans have used repeal of Roe to fire up the evangelicals. Of course, as with the tax cut, be careful what you wish for.
Evangelicals and forced-birthers like to compare Roe to another Supreme Court decision: Dred Scott. However, a repeal of Roe would likely be even more unpopular. Let's hear what Frederick Douglass said after Taney issued his ruling in Dred Scott:
History moves slowly. And then it doesn't. I have noticed that truly revolutionary movement create their own counter-revolutions. Humans don't really like a great deal of change. If Republicans finally get their dream of repealing Roe, I don't think they will be greeted as liberators with flowers and candy.
Evangelicals and forced-birthers like to compare Roe to another Supreme Court decision: Dred Scott. However, a repeal of Roe would likely be even more unpopular. Let's hear what Frederick Douglass said after Taney issued his ruling in Dred Scott:
You will
readily ask me how I am affected by this devilish decision — this judicial
incarnation of wolfishness? My answer is… my hopes were never brighter than
now. I have no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such
an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies as that decision is, and has
been, over and over, shown to be….
Your
fathers have said that man’s right to liberty is self-evident. There is no need
of argument to make it clear. The voices of nature, of conscience, of reason,
and of revelation, proclaim it as the right of all rights, the foundation of
all trust, and of all responsibility. Man was born with it. It was his before
he comprehended it... To decide against this right in the person of Dred Scott,
or the humblest and most whip-scarred bondman in the land, is to decide against
God….
If it were at all likely that
the people of these free States would tamely submit to this demoniacal
judgment, I might feel gloomy and sad over it, and possibly it might be
necessary for my people to look for a home in some other country. But as the
case stands, we have nothing to fear.
In one point of view, we, the
abolitionists and colored people, should meet this decision, unlooked for and
monstrous as it appears, in a cheerful spirit. This very attempt to blot out
forever the hopes of an enslaved people may be one necessary link in the chain
of events preparatory to the downfall and complete overthrow of the whole slave
system.
History moves slowly. And then it doesn't. I have noticed that truly revolutionary movement create their own counter-revolutions. Humans don't really like a great deal of change. If Republicans finally get their dream of repealing Roe, I don't think they will be greeted as liberators with flowers and candy.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Five Members Of The Supreme Court Invite You To Have A Shitty Day
So...Mitch McConnell's brazen move to deny Obama the opportunity to put Merrick Garland on the bench has no yielded quite a few decisions that will role back various progressive efforts and concerns. They have decided that the Muslim ban isn't a Muslim ban. Anthony Kennedy's reasoning, in particular, is a stretch.
They have also, in this session, allowed various gerrymanders to stand. And struck down a California effort to regulate "crisis pregnancy centers."
I do believe that Trump loses his re-election bid. He's historically unpopular in terms of the intensity of the opposition to his presidency. But the Democrats' inability to control Congress is a structural problem that will require massive electoral wins in those contests in 2018 and 2020. Being able to control redistricting in 2010 has paid massive dividends for the Republicans, especially in insulating them from public pressure.
During the first Gilded Age, the court was a bastion of anti-reform tendencies, striking down minimum wage and working conditions laws, child labor laws, neutering the 14th amendment and watering down anti-trust laws. Legislatures were able to overcome that eventually, but the damage that conservative ideolgues in black robes are doing to efforts to make a more just and compassionate America are real.
They have also, in this session, allowed various gerrymanders to stand. And struck down a California effort to regulate "crisis pregnancy centers."
I do believe that Trump loses his re-election bid. He's historically unpopular in terms of the intensity of the opposition to his presidency. But the Democrats' inability to control Congress is a structural problem that will require massive electoral wins in those contests in 2018 and 2020. Being able to control redistricting in 2010 has paid massive dividends for the Republicans, especially in insulating them from public pressure.
During the first Gilded Age, the court was a bastion of anti-reform tendencies, striking down minimum wage and working conditions laws, child labor laws, neutering the 14th amendment and watering down anti-trust laws. Legislatures were able to overcome that eventually, but the damage that conservative ideolgues in black robes are doing to efforts to make a more just and compassionate America are real.
Monday, June 25, 2018
Civility Wars
The decision by the proprietor of The Red Hen to not serve Sarah Sanders has created yet another stupid, bullshit nontroversy over civility. By all accounts, the proprietor was respectful, Sanders responded respectfully and that was that. Then it became an internet "thing."
First of all, Sanders should thank the proprietor for asking her to leave rather than what usually happens in a restaurant when the staff hates someone. Let's just say that the "special sauce" isn't worth paying extra for.
Secondly, what happened there was a form of civil disobedience. Sanders was not denied service because of her race, gender or sexual orientation. She was not a "protected class" in this instance. She was denied service, because of her professional behavior. She was denied service, because the Trump Administration was tearing families apart to scare other migrants, and that was beyond the pale for this restaurant staff.
The Red Hen will have to face whatever repercussions from the decision of the staff, and they clearly understand that.
But what happened was not "uncivil." And the controversy is bullshit. As Marshall points out, we must draw the line at violence and physical altercations. I was clear on my position on that with the Antifa thing last summer. (Was that only last summer? Jeebus.) Violence works best when you don't care about the rule of law. It works best for facists and revolutionaries.
Civil disobedience is the tool of those who believe in democracy. And it's entirely legitimate to use it against an administration when they are otherwise unpersuadable. Trump and his minions don't "care" about anyone outside their base. But they do "care" about status and being respected.
This is all going to get worse before it gets better.
UPDATE: This is a good analysis.
First of all, Sanders should thank the proprietor for asking her to leave rather than what usually happens in a restaurant when the staff hates someone. Let's just say that the "special sauce" isn't worth paying extra for.
Secondly, what happened there was a form of civil disobedience. Sanders was not denied service because of her race, gender or sexual orientation. She was not a "protected class" in this instance. She was denied service, because of her professional behavior. She was denied service, because the Trump Administration was tearing families apart to scare other migrants, and that was beyond the pale for this restaurant staff.
The Red Hen will have to face whatever repercussions from the decision of the staff, and they clearly understand that.
But what happened was not "uncivil." And the controversy is bullshit. As Marshall points out, we must draw the line at violence and physical altercations. I was clear on my position on that with the Antifa thing last summer. (Was that only last summer? Jeebus.) Violence works best when you don't care about the rule of law. It works best for facists and revolutionaries.
Civil disobedience is the tool of those who believe in democracy. And it's entirely legitimate to use it against an administration when they are otherwise unpersuadable. Trump and his minions don't "care" about anyone outside their base. But they do "care" about status and being respected.
This is all going to get worse before it gets better.
UPDATE: This is a good analysis.
Cool. Trump Has A Secret Police
This is disturbing.
It's behind a firewall, but basically some Trump-supporting member of the Border Patrol interrogated a NY Times reporter, Ali Watkins, about how she got information and about a personal relationship she had with a Hill staffer. He didn't identify himself as a federal agent or give his name. Watkins used her reporter prowess to find it out.
This is obviously troubling for any number of reasons. Governments investigate leaks, from the point of view of the leaker, not the press. At least they shouldn't. And they shouldn't be using blackmail techniques.
To top it all off, the agent's name was Rambo. I mean...seriously.
It's behind a firewall, but basically some Trump-supporting member of the Border Patrol interrogated a NY Times reporter, Ali Watkins, about how she got information and about a personal relationship she had with a Hill staffer. He didn't identify himself as a federal agent or give his name. Watkins used her reporter prowess to find it out.
This is obviously troubling for any number of reasons. Governments investigate leaks, from the point of view of the leaker, not the press. At least they shouldn't. And they shouldn't be using blackmail techniques.
To top it all off, the agent's name was Rambo. I mean...seriously.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Why Trump Will Never Be President
The President of the United States is not only the head of his party and the head of government, he is also the head of state. That means the person who holds the job must also be the representative of the entire nation.
Donald Trump is not the president of all of the American citizens. He is the president of "his people."
That means that anything that doesn't appeal to his narrow and bigoted band of supporters is not important. Given that he is also a narcissist, nothing that doesn't appeal to himself is also not important. Trump can never speak to the voice of the nation, which means he can live (part time) in the White House, and he will have the Presidential Seal, but he will never really be a true president.
Donald Trump is not the president of all of the American citizens. He is the president of "his people."
That means that anything that doesn't appeal to his narrow and bigoted band of supporters is not important. Given that he is also a narcissist, nothing that doesn't appeal to himself is also not important. Trump can never speak to the voice of the nation, which means he can live (part time) in the White House, and he will have the Presidential Seal, but he will never really be a true president.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Too Busy To Blog
So just read Jon Chait.
This is a pretty comprehensive rundown of both the family separation policy and Trump's anarchic and dictatorial managerial style.
This is a pretty comprehensive rundown of both the family separation policy and Trump's anarchic and dictatorial managerial style.
Friday, June 22, 2018
Stop Trying To Make Woke Melania Happen
In the wake of the First Lady headed down to a place where migrant children were being ripped from their families wearing a most unusual garment, there have been some who have wondered is maybe she was trolling her husband. Or maybe us. Or....
Look, you have to accept that perhaps someone who would marry Donald Trump - even for the money and the green card - is an objectively horrible person.
Unless she changes her position publicly, we need to stop assuming that she's a hostage to Trump's cruelty. She's an accomplice.
Look, you have to accept that perhaps someone who would marry Donald Trump - even for the money and the green card - is an objectively horrible person.
Unless she changes her position publicly, we need to stop assuming that she's a hostage to Trump's cruelty. She's an accomplice.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
What Happens Now?
So Trump kinda sorta changed his immigration detention policy. He will stop separating families, but his current plan to detain them together is illegal. His plan will not reunite the children who have already been ripped from their families. Trump assumed being a hardass on immigrant children would resonate with his base and rally them ahead of the midterms. Instead, he reaped a whirlwind of condemnation even within the margins of his own party.
Meanwhile even a shitty immigration bill appears to be dying in the House, because nothing in punitive enough for the Tea Party and their "economic anxiety." This has been both a shitshow and an unnecessary exercise in arbitrary cruelty towards children.
This entire episode in the Trump Admininstration in a nutshell.
First, there is the performative cruelty masquerading as strength. "Strength" in Trumpistan is really just bullying behavior intended to slake the bloodlust of his ardent supporters. "Triggering libtards" is the most important aspect of policy in this White House. If you make Rachel Maddow cry, you've done your job. There is no expertise, there is no strategy, there is only the theater of cruelty.
This was entirely created by Trump and the Sessions/Miller/Kelly Axis of Evil inside the West Wing. But it escaped their control, and it turns out that the theater of cruelty doesn't play well outside the 27% of Deplorables.
Meanwhile even a shitty immigration bill appears to be dying in the House, because nothing in punitive enough for the Tea Party and their "economic anxiety." This has been both a shitshow and an unnecessary exercise in arbitrary cruelty towards children.
This entire episode in the Trump Admininstration in a nutshell.
First, there is the performative cruelty masquerading as strength. "Strength" in Trumpistan is really just bullying behavior intended to slake the bloodlust of his ardent supporters. "Triggering libtards" is the most important aspect of policy in this White House. If you make Rachel Maddow cry, you've done your job. There is no expertise, there is no strategy, there is only the theater of cruelty.
This was entirely created by Trump and the Sessions/Miller/Kelly Axis of Evil inside the West Wing. But it escaped their control, and it turns out that the theater of cruelty doesn't play well outside the 27% of Deplorables.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Breaking Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law states that the longer an online conversation occurs, the greater the chance that someone will compare their opponent to Hitler. There is a corollary to the law that states whenever someone makes the Hitler comparison, the conversation is over, and the person making the Hitler comparison has lost the debate.
I have been very reluctant to call the Trump Administration "Nazis." Nazis represent a uniquely evil chapter in human history, and there is a strong argument that what is happening to children along our southern border is not, in fact, close to the level of atrocity that Nazis committed. These aren't death camps; this isn't Auschwitz.
The problem with this is that Auschwitz wasn't Auschwitz to start. Germans created concentration camps, but they didn't invent them. The Spanish used them against Cubans during the Cuban war for independence. America used them against Filipinos during the Philippines War. Various countries have used some form of "reservation" system for ethnic minorities, obviously including the United States. The fact that two of those references - the Philippines War and the reservation system, not to mention Japanese Internment camps - are from American history goes a long way to discrediting the line "this is not who we are." This is clearly who we were. And it's also who the Nazis were before the Wannsee Conference of 1942 turned concentration camps into death camps.
The Nazis of 1933-1938 were considered comical and cartoonish by a lot of people. They were dismissed as a threat; Hitler was a punchline. And slowly but surely German institutions crumbled before the relentless onslaught of Hitler and the Nazi party. Trump and his minions are like early stage Nazis. They use language to dehumanize and "other" racial minorities - yesterday, Trump said America was "infested" with foreigners, language straight from the Goebbel's handbook.
"This is not who we are."
That sentiment is clearly going to come under great stress. First of all, it's clearly who we WERE. We did it to the Filipinos, we did it to Native Americans, we did it to the Japanese. We built our national economy on the breaking up of African families in slavery. It is very much who we were.
In my life time, we have tried to change that. We apologized for Japanese internment. We are trying to reckon with our legacy of brutality towards African Americans and Native Americans. We thought we were making progress towards what Obama always liked to remind us was a "more perfect union." Trumpistan has stripped away our belief in progress, which scares me. The gains we have made in our lifetime are real, but they appear more fragile than I would have hoped for.
My solace is that I do think that this is a breaking point for many Americans. It's kids. The counterargument I've heard is that we shrugged off Newtown, and that was white kids. The problem with that is conflating the Republican Congress with America as a whole. Americans ARE in favor of many gun control measures, and each shooting reinforces that. We have - because of the majoritarian nature of Congress - conflated what the Republican base wants with what America wants. Obama served as a buffer to shield Republicans from the consequences of catering to their base. They could and did put forth the worst sort of laws and ideas, but Obama was there as a bulwark. Now that the anti-Obama is in the White House, the Republican id is laid bare for all to see.
They don't like it.
Yes, Trump will always retain the support of the Deplorables. It is mathematically impossible for him to fall below 27% support. And the more decent people call out Republicans, the more Republicans will cling to these loathsome policies.
But there will be fewer Republicans.
There are two important things everyone must do.
First, long term, register to vote and vote like people's lives and the future of this country depends on it, because it does.
Second, if you can get to a protest next Saturday, do it. I've never been a big proponent of street protests, but this is a clear moment it needs to be done. (Naturally, I'm working, because of course.)
We need to decide where we are on the road to our own Wannsee Conference. We need to decide which vision of America must survive.
I have been very reluctant to call the Trump Administration "Nazis." Nazis represent a uniquely evil chapter in human history, and there is a strong argument that what is happening to children along our southern border is not, in fact, close to the level of atrocity that Nazis committed. These aren't death camps; this isn't Auschwitz.
The problem with this is that Auschwitz wasn't Auschwitz to start. Germans created concentration camps, but they didn't invent them. The Spanish used them against Cubans during the Cuban war for independence. America used them against Filipinos during the Philippines War. Various countries have used some form of "reservation" system for ethnic minorities, obviously including the United States. The fact that two of those references - the Philippines War and the reservation system, not to mention Japanese Internment camps - are from American history goes a long way to discrediting the line "this is not who we are." This is clearly who we were. And it's also who the Nazis were before the Wannsee Conference of 1942 turned concentration camps into death camps.
The Nazis of 1933-1938 were considered comical and cartoonish by a lot of people. They were dismissed as a threat; Hitler was a punchline. And slowly but surely German institutions crumbled before the relentless onslaught of Hitler and the Nazi party. Trump and his minions are like early stage Nazis. They use language to dehumanize and "other" racial minorities - yesterday, Trump said America was "infested" with foreigners, language straight from the Goebbel's handbook.
"This is not who we are."
That sentiment is clearly going to come under great stress. First of all, it's clearly who we WERE. We did it to the Filipinos, we did it to Native Americans, we did it to the Japanese. We built our national economy on the breaking up of African families in slavery. It is very much who we were.
In my life time, we have tried to change that. We apologized for Japanese internment. We are trying to reckon with our legacy of brutality towards African Americans and Native Americans. We thought we were making progress towards what Obama always liked to remind us was a "more perfect union." Trumpistan has stripped away our belief in progress, which scares me. The gains we have made in our lifetime are real, but they appear more fragile than I would have hoped for.
My solace is that I do think that this is a breaking point for many Americans. It's kids. The counterargument I've heard is that we shrugged off Newtown, and that was white kids. The problem with that is conflating the Republican Congress with America as a whole. Americans ARE in favor of many gun control measures, and each shooting reinforces that. We have - because of the majoritarian nature of Congress - conflated what the Republican base wants with what America wants. Obama served as a buffer to shield Republicans from the consequences of catering to their base. They could and did put forth the worst sort of laws and ideas, but Obama was there as a bulwark. Now that the anti-Obama is in the White House, the Republican id is laid bare for all to see.
They don't like it.
Yes, Trump will always retain the support of the Deplorables. It is mathematically impossible for him to fall below 27% support. And the more decent people call out Republicans, the more Republicans will cling to these loathsome policies.
But there will be fewer Republicans.
There are two important things everyone must do.
First, long term, register to vote and vote like people's lives and the future of this country depends on it, because it does.
Second, if you can get to a protest next Saturday, do it. I've never been a big proponent of street protests, but this is a clear moment it needs to be done. (Naturally, I'm working, because of course.)
We need to decide where we are on the road to our own Wannsee Conference. We need to decide which vision of America must survive.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Nancy Pelosi
I've followed Ed Burmilla of Gin and Tacos for a long time. Followed him on Facebook, eventually getting a friend invite from his personal account. I arranged for my wife to meet him at the AP US Gov reading last week. I'm a fan.
So I was really disappointed when basically he advanced the argument that the problem Democrats have right now is Nancy Pelosi. After different posts that note that Democrats are frozen from every branch of government, his argument is that this is somehow Pelosi and the aging leadership of the Democratic Party's fault.
Pelosi is, in many ways, a perfect representation of what is best and worst of Democratic politicians. She was an exceptional Speaker of the House, shephered tough legislation through in a narrow window of time and holding her caucus together. She is imminently more capable that John Boehner and Paul Ryan, and unlike Denny Hastert, she never molested children. She's tough as nails, smart as a whip and a very capable inside operator. She's a perfect technocrat.
She is, however, shitty in front of a camera. Like many perfect technocrats, she can't tell the sort of story that moves voters. However, her job should not require that. She needs only to win her own district and then guide legislation once she has the gavel. She doesn't seek out the cameras like Paul Ryan, either, but they obviously find her.
There are a number of good spokesmen and women for the Democrats right now. I'm increasingly warming to Brian Schatz of Hawaii. I've always been a big Chris Murphy fan. Kristin Gillibrand, Cory Booker. The House is always trickier to make a name for yourself, which is why they usually default to those in leadership positions like Pelosi or Adam Schiff.
Pelosi is a premier boogeyman for the Republicans. They run against her because she's liberal, San Francisco, a woman. But the idea that her age is the problem is laughable, when Republicans elected a 70 year old to the presidency. The idea that she's the problem is absurd.
So I was really disappointed when basically he advanced the argument that the problem Democrats have right now is Nancy Pelosi. After different posts that note that Democrats are frozen from every branch of government, his argument is that this is somehow Pelosi and the aging leadership of the Democratic Party's fault.
Pelosi is, in many ways, a perfect representation of what is best and worst of Democratic politicians. She was an exceptional Speaker of the House, shephered tough legislation through in a narrow window of time and holding her caucus together. She is imminently more capable that John Boehner and Paul Ryan, and unlike Denny Hastert, she never molested children. She's tough as nails, smart as a whip and a very capable inside operator. She's a perfect technocrat.
She is, however, shitty in front of a camera. Like many perfect technocrats, she can't tell the sort of story that moves voters. However, her job should not require that. She needs only to win her own district and then guide legislation once she has the gavel. She doesn't seek out the cameras like Paul Ryan, either, but they obviously find her.
There are a number of good spokesmen and women for the Democrats right now. I'm increasingly warming to Brian Schatz of Hawaii. I've always been a big Chris Murphy fan. Kristin Gillibrand, Cory Booker. The House is always trickier to make a name for yourself, which is why they usually default to those in leadership positions like Pelosi or Adam Schiff.
Pelosi is a premier boogeyman for the Republicans. They run against her because she's liberal, San Francisco, a woman. But the idea that her age is the problem is laughable, when Republicans elected a 70 year old to the presidency. The idea that she's the problem is absurd.
Monday, June 18, 2018
One Nation Under God
I just finished Keven Kruse's One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. It's a bit of a slow read at first, as he outlines with copious research how various anti-New Deal libertarian business interests bankrolled efforts to align Christianity with libertarian, anti-welfare state politics. He then moves into the Eisenhower years as Ike worked to increase what became known as ceremonial deism, a sort of non-sectarian religious presence in American life. It really picks up steam as it narrates the degree to which court cases like Engel v Vitale and Abingdon v Schempp accelerated the culture wars.
What struck by the end was how what started as an appeal by libertarian business leaders to oppose the regulatory and welfare state efforts of the New Deal morphed into what we see from Evangelicals today: outright embrace of authoritarianism.
Evangelicism certainly is fertile ground for authoritarianism, as it represents a religious belief in defering to God, the Bible and the pastor (later Fox News). The evangelical God is the Lord, the King of Kings and He deserves deference. It's the God of Leviticus, not the God of Matthew. It is aggressively populist, too, which he chronicles well in the debate over an amendment to allow prayer in public schools. The prime opponent to the amendment was the National Council of Churches, made up of educated, more liberal clergy. To these clergy, with their book-learning, theology and historical knowledge, the idea that the state would create prayers for school children was an assault on the separation of church and state. To them, that separation allowed for a healthy religious pluralism and prevented the abuses that inevitably follow when the church and state coalesce into an authoritarian whole. It's no coincidence that Putin has worked to resurrect the Russian Orthodox Church.
The lay people of the church supported the school prayer amendment, because the ban on school prayer was seen as anti-religious. Even a cursory reading of the Court opinions would reveal this to be false, but your average church goer was not parsing Supreme Court decisions. To them, there was a very simple (and wrong) equation: no school prayer=attack on religion.
Over time, it was Nixon and his Silent Majority who really aligned the Evangelical community and the Republican Party. I've said it before, but it wasn't Ronald Reagan who created modern conservatism, it was Nixon who created the politics. Reagan may have introduced new policies, but no one cares about policies. Nixon told the story, Pat Buchanan helped write the words.
The hypocrisy of Nixon's embrace of religion as he violated America's laws goes unstated in the book, Kruse just skips over Watergate entirely, except to note that evangelicals moved to Carter, and then away from him. Back then, they were swing votes. Not anymore.
Evangelicals are currently so commited to their deference to authority that they have supported Trump in everything. There is a poll out today that has Republicans (which can increasingly be conflated with Evangelical Whites) approving of Kim Jong Un more than Nancy Pelosi. It's just a few percentage points, but...Jesus wept. Republicans basically equate a liberal Californian with a despot who executes his enemies with anti-aircraft cannon. Trump is great because Trump is great. MAGAMAGAMAGA.
That mindset of "us against them," country against city, "Real America" vs "Coastal Elites" has its roots in the argument over Christianity's place as the national faith. It has its roots in the slavish devotion of evangelicals to their leaders, no matter how poorly those leaders (Swaggert, Bakker and now Trump) actually follow the tenets of their faith.
I don't know what it will take to disenthrall these alleged Christians from their embrace of a would-be Mussolini. Maybe putting children into cages. Maybe putting children into cages is actually "on-brand," given that those children are brown. Who knows? Maybe God. She's not talking.
What struck by the end was how what started as an appeal by libertarian business leaders to oppose the regulatory and welfare state efforts of the New Deal morphed into what we see from Evangelicals today: outright embrace of authoritarianism.
Evangelicism certainly is fertile ground for authoritarianism, as it represents a religious belief in defering to God, the Bible and the pastor (later Fox News). The evangelical God is the Lord, the King of Kings and He deserves deference. It's the God of Leviticus, not the God of Matthew. It is aggressively populist, too, which he chronicles well in the debate over an amendment to allow prayer in public schools. The prime opponent to the amendment was the National Council of Churches, made up of educated, more liberal clergy. To these clergy, with their book-learning, theology and historical knowledge, the idea that the state would create prayers for school children was an assault on the separation of church and state. To them, that separation allowed for a healthy religious pluralism and prevented the abuses that inevitably follow when the church and state coalesce into an authoritarian whole. It's no coincidence that Putin has worked to resurrect the Russian Orthodox Church.
The lay people of the church supported the school prayer amendment, because the ban on school prayer was seen as anti-religious. Even a cursory reading of the Court opinions would reveal this to be false, but your average church goer was not parsing Supreme Court decisions. To them, there was a very simple (and wrong) equation: no school prayer=attack on religion.
Over time, it was Nixon and his Silent Majority who really aligned the Evangelical community and the Republican Party. I've said it before, but it wasn't Ronald Reagan who created modern conservatism, it was Nixon who created the politics. Reagan may have introduced new policies, but no one cares about policies. Nixon told the story, Pat Buchanan helped write the words.
The hypocrisy of Nixon's embrace of religion as he violated America's laws goes unstated in the book, Kruse just skips over Watergate entirely, except to note that evangelicals moved to Carter, and then away from him. Back then, they were swing votes. Not anymore.
Evangelicals are currently so commited to their deference to authority that they have supported Trump in everything. There is a poll out today that has Republicans (which can increasingly be conflated with Evangelical Whites) approving of Kim Jong Un more than Nancy Pelosi. It's just a few percentage points, but...Jesus wept. Republicans basically equate a liberal Californian with a despot who executes his enemies with anti-aircraft cannon. Trump is great because Trump is great. MAGAMAGAMAGA.
That mindset of "us against them," country against city, "Real America" vs "Coastal Elites" has its roots in the argument over Christianity's place as the national faith. It has its roots in the slavish devotion of evangelicals to their leaders, no matter how poorly those leaders (Swaggert, Bakker and now Trump) actually follow the tenets of their faith.
I don't know what it will take to disenthrall these alleged Christians from their embrace of a would-be Mussolini. Maybe putting children into cages. Maybe putting children into cages is actually "on-brand," given that those children are brown. Who knows? Maybe God. She's not talking.
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Another Meeting
Roger Stone had a meeting with a Russian offering dirt on Trump in May of 2016. All the principles of the meeting, Stone, Henry Greenberg and Michael Caputo, denied to took place. Now, confronted by text messages, they admit it happened, but was totally not important.
For a witch hunt, there sure are a lot of witches.
For a witch hunt, there sure are a lot of witches.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
A Wall We Can Believe In
I've been (slowly) making my way through Kevin Kruse's One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. It's been a bit of a slow going, but I just read the compelling chapter on the seminal court cases, Engel v Vitale and Abington v Schempp. Those cases cemented the idea of separation of church and state, especially anything that smacked of sectarianism.
These cases were handed down before the Immigration Act of 1965 fundamentally remade the ethnic composition of the United States. Today only 69% of Americans identify as Christian, and that number is likely inflated by legacy faith expressions. If you were baptised, you call yourself a Christain, even if you haven't been to church since you grew old enough to say no. Only 45% of Americans identify as Protestant and only 17% as Evangelical. Roughly 31% identify either as non-Christian or Unaffliated.
I bring this up because of the grotesque display of what constitutes Evangelical Christianity today. Specifically, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions invocation of Paul's Letter to the Romans to justify ripping children from their parents along the southern border. Evangelism has become the Cult of Trump. And if there is one thing we know about Trump, it's that he craves a cult of personality.
Without necessarily meaning to, the Warren Court created a bulwark against the marriage of religion to a would-be authoritarian seeking to make his word the law. It won't work for that small sliver of Evangelicals who have aligned their faith with Trump. Those people are mostly lost to the 21st century anyway. But for the rest of us...Thanks.
These cases were handed down before the Immigration Act of 1965 fundamentally remade the ethnic composition of the United States. Today only 69% of Americans identify as Christian, and that number is likely inflated by legacy faith expressions. If you were baptised, you call yourself a Christain, even if you haven't been to church since you grew old enough to say no. Only 45% of Americans identify as Protestant and only 17% as Evangelical. Roughly 31% identify either as non-Christian or Unaffliated.
I bring this up because of the grotesque display of what constitutes Evangelical Christianity today. Specifically, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions invocation of Paul's Letter to the Romans to justify ripping children from their parents along the southern border. Evangelism has become the Cult of Trump. And if there is one thing we know about Trump, it's that he craves a cult of personality.
Without necessarily meaning to, the Warren Court created a bulwark against the marriage of religion to a would-be authoritarian seeking to make his word the law. It won't work for that small sliver of Evangelicals who have aligned their faith with Trump. Those people are mostly lost to the 21st century anyway. But for the rest of us...Thanks.
Friday, June 15, 2018
The Fulcrum Of American Democracy
Martin Longman advances a really, really interesting theory. Basically, he posits that there is about 15-20% of the population who clothe their ignorance in sophisticated disdain for "both sides." These are the "swing voters" who moved from Obama to Trump. They routinely move from one party to the other, based on who is in power at any given moment. They are not making a decision based on policy or ideology, but rather they simply want to throw the bums out, and "the bums" is a moving target depending on who controls the White House. I suppose you can't count on them 100%, but the constant drumbeat of negative news about Trump is likely to have an impact on these people.
One of the leading insights I've been gaining since 2016 is the idea that everything we think about voting is wrong. This is what the Sandernistas don't get. They think that offering some magic policy prescription will somehow flip the script.
Voters - especially the ones who haven't made up their minds yet - don't give a shit about policy. A few do, sure. Most simply vote their tribe. About 35-40% belong to each of the Red and Blue tribes, leaving the remaining 20% to fluctuate by moving against whatever the prevailing winds are. Ironically, I would argue that in these polarized times, what we need is a stronger sense of what each party stands for, but unless this 20% decides to pay attention to what the people in government actually do, it's probably useless. Political junkies naturally miss these people, because they vote, but they do so for reasons that make zero sense to people who are constantly checking their phones for the latest updates.
This group should swing for the Democrats in November and could deliver one or both Houses of Congress. But they will swing back again in 2022, because they are morons.
One of the leading insights I've been gaining since 2016 is the idea that everything we think about voting is wrong. This is what the Sandernistas don't get. They think that offering some magic policy prescription will somehow flip the script.
Voters - especially the ones who haven't made up their minds yet - don't give a shit about policy. A few do, sure. Most simply vote their tribe. About 35-40% belong to each of the Red and Blue tribes, leaving the remaining 20% to fluctuate by moving against whatever the prevailing winds are. Ironically, I would argue that in these polarized times, what we need is a stronger sense of what each party stands for, but unless this 20% decides to pay attention to what the people in government actually do, it's probably useless. Political junkies naturally miss these people, because they vote, but they do so for reasons that make zero sense to people who are constantly checking their phones for the latest updates.
This group should swing for the Democrats in November and could deliver one or both Houses of Congress. But they will swing back again in 2022, because they are morons.
Unpresidented
Let's see. How many Extinction Level Scandals is Trump involved in?
- Bragging about sexual assault on video.
- Campaign finance violations surrounding hush payments to a porn star.
- Violations of every known norm surrounding the Justice Department, including firing James Comey.
- Sucking up to Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin.
- Pretty much whatever he tweets.
- Engaging in barbarous treatment of migrant children on the border.
- Completely screwing up the Puerto Rico recovery.
- Whatever the hell else Michael Cohen was up to.
- Scott Pruit.
-Violations of the Emoluments Clause.
- Helping a Chinese company, ZTE, and then getting a massive loan from China for his business venture in Indonesia.
And of course...
- Working with Russia to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Now we can add the NY Attorney General indictment surrounding the Trump Foundation. There is a handwritten note, for Chrissake, in which Trump instructs someone to violate the law.
Meanwhile, in the realm of the GOP, the main issue is when to shutdown the Mueller probe because...
Fuck you, Republicans. May the stink of this two-bit grifter hang around your party for a generation.
- Bragging about sexual assault on video.
- Campaign finance violations surrounding hush payments to a porn star.
- Violations of every known norm surrounding the Justice Department, including firing James Comey.
- Sucking up to Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin.
- Pretty much whatever he tweets.
- Engaging in barbarous treatment of migrant children on the border.
- Completely screwing up the Puerto Rico recovery.
- Whatever the hell else Michael Cohen was up to.
- Scott Pruit.
-Violations of the Emoluments Clause.
- Helping a Chinese company, ZTE, and then getting a massive loan from China for his business venture in Indonesia.
And of course...
- Working with Russia to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Now we can add the NY Attorney General indictment surrounding the Trump Foundation. There is a handwritten note, for Chrissake, in which Trump instructs someone to violate the law.
Meanwhile, in the realm of the GOP, the main issue is when to shutdown the Mueller probe because...
Fuck you, Republicans. May the stink of this two-bit grifter hang around your party for a generation.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Proving A Negative
The argument for global trade is primarily an economic one with a dash of collective security thrown in. You engage in free trade so that each country and region can use their competitive advantages to grow their economy. Competitive advantage might be climate, so Mexican can sell their oranges in the American market and Americans can get oranges in winter. Perhaps it's labor costs, Mexican labor costs less, but is less skilled, so certain jobs move to take advantage of that. Additionally, nations that do a lot of business with each other go to great lengths to avoid a war with each other.
That's pretty much it.
The argument against trade is that it siphons jobs away from "our country" to "their country." This is undoubtably true. Of course, every worker is also a consumer. What you lose in job opportunities, you make up for in cheaper goods. Trying to suss out whether stagnant wages are a result of globalization or regressive taxes and a failure to redistribute wealth is very tricky. Grueling, pervasive poverty and stagnating wages have a lot of causes - fiscal policy, automation - but globalism is definitely one of the causes.
The "good" part of trade described above is largely invisible. You see the orange in your hand in January. You don't see the orange that's not in your hand in January. You can't "prove" the negative of a reduction in global trade until it happens.
Trump seems invested in making it happen.
Right now, Trump's only real positive is that he has not tanked the Obama Recovery. Yeah, he got the tax cut and Gorsuch on the bench, but those are partisan goals, rather than national priorities. Overall national economic health is a national priority, outside of peace, the largest priority. If Trump launches a full-scale trade war, it will almost certainly launch another recession. As an American, I am appalled by this. But the damage done by a trade war is easier to unwind economically than a financial crisis. The 2008 Crisis was a financial crisis that created long lasting pain across the developed world and in many ways led directly to Brexit and Trump. Both Brexit and Trump are responses to the continued weakness in certain economic regions brought about by 2008.
What Farage and Bannon did was harness that anger and direct it at "globalization." This allowed them to demonize both ethnic and racial minorities while blaming the outside world for everyone's problems. Starting a trade war - one that punishes the global economy - might be what is necessary to "prove the negative" about what happens if you do the thing economists say you should not do.
No one wants a recession, especially so close to 2008. But what if we need one to drive home the point about what is actually good about trade? What if Trump's childish tantrum over Canada and the G-7 is the thing that actually destroys his political movement by giving it exactly what it wants?
That's pretty much it.
The argument against trade is that it siphons jobs away from "our country" to "their country." This is undoubtably true. Of course, every worker is also a consumer. What you lose in job opportunities, you make up for in cheaper goods. Trying to suss out whether stagnant wages are a result of globalization or regressive taxes and a failure to redistribute wealth is very tricky. Grueling, pervasive poverty and stagnating wages have a lot of causes - fiscal policy, automation - but globalism is definitely one of the causes.
The "good" part of trade described above is largely invisible. You see the orange in your hand in January. You don't see the orange that's not in your hand in January. You can't "prove" the negative of a reduction in global trade until it happens.
Trump seems invested in making it happen.
Right now, Trump's only real positive is that he has not tanked the Obama Recovery. Yeah, he got the tax cut and Gorsuch on the bench, but those are partisan goals, rather than national priorities. Overall national economic health is a national priority, outside of peace, the largest priority. If Trump launches a full-scale trade war, it will almost certainly launch another recession. As an American, I am appalled by this. But the damage done by a trade war is easier to unwind economically than a financial crisis. The 2008 Crisis was a financial crisis that created long lasting pain across the developed world and in many ways led directly to Brexit and Trump. Both Brexit and Trump are responses to the continued weakness in certain economic regions brought about by 2008.
What Farage and Bannon did was harness that anger and direct it at "globalization." This allowed them to demonize both ethnic and racial minorities while blaming the outside world for everyone's problems. Starting a trade war - one that punishes the global economy - might be what is necessary to "prove the negative" about what happens if you do the thing economists say you should not do.
No one wants a recession, especially so close to 2008. But what if we need one to drive home the point about what is actually good about trade? What if Trump's childish tantrum over Canada and the G-7 is the thing that actually destroys his political movement by giving it exactly what it wants?
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Jeff Flake Is Wrong
Outgoing Senator Jeff Flake gets the occasional attaboy from the political media for making meaningless tweets and speeches against Donald Trump. Meanwhile, he and McCain could completely change the dynamic in Washington by withholding their votes (Collins could, too) in return for better policy, more accountability...you name it.
Recently, with the news of ICE agents ripping children from their families and building tent city concentration camps, Flake asked in dismay, "Is this the GOP? Is this who we are?"
Well..yeah, dumbass. Clearly.
Last night proved something once and for all. Donald Trump IS the GOP. Look no further than Virginia, where neo-Confederate Corey Stewart won the Senate primary or South Carolina, where Mark Sanford (a very mild Trump critic) lost to a Trumpist candidate.
The lesson here is twofold. First, you can forget about "principled" Republicans doing anything about Trump. They clearly have to fear their Republican electorate more than the mushy center. Any effort to call him out will result in a primary loss. It happened to Sanford; Corker and Flake are retiring rather than lose their primaries.
Second, the greatest threat that Trump may ultimately pose to American democracy is the creation of Steve Bannon's ethnonationalist/white supremacist political party. The Republican Party is on its way to becoming a "blood and soil" party - a sort of soft facism. Corrupt, sure, but ultimately one that embraces a racial definition of Americanism.
The obvious solution was put forward by David Roberts at Vox. If you truly believe what Jeff Flake says that he believes, then you can't vote for Republicans in the general election. No boutique third party candidacies. No protest by staying at home. Both of those might work, but to be 100% sure that the GOP does not turn into solely a white supremacist party, they have to lose - and lose mightily - in general elections. Perhaps a solid third party would have the same effect. If you deprived the GOP of 10% of their voters, they would struggle to get over 40% of the vote anywhere.
But the real check on Trump and Trumpist politics is to vote out as many Republicans as possible. Show them what happens when you turn your back on essential American political norms and values. That only happens when the GOP gets slaughtered in the next two general elections.
Recently, with the news of ICE agents ripping children from their families and building tent city concentration camps, Flake asked in dismay, "Is this the GOP? Is this who we are?"
Well..yeah, dumbass. Clearly.
Last night proved something once and for all. Donald Trump IS the GOP. Look no further than Virginia, where neo-Confederate Corey Stewart won the Senate primary or South Carolina, where Mark Sanford (a very mild Trump critic) lost to a Trumpist candidate.
The lesson here is twofold. First, you can forget about "principled" Republicans doing anything about Trump. They clearly have to fear their Republican electorate more than the mushy center. Any effort to call him out will result in a primary loss. It happened to Sanford; Corker and Flake are retiring rather than lose their primaries.
Second, the greatest threat that Trump may ultimately pose to American democracy is the creation of Steve Bannon's ethnonationalist/white supremacist political party. The Republican Party is on its way to becoming a "blood and soil" party - a sort of soft facism. Corrupt, sure, but ultimately one that embraces a racial definition of Americanism.
The obvious solution was put forward by David Roberts at Vox. If you truly believe what Jeff Flake says that he believes, then you can't vote for Republicans in the general election. No boutique third party candidacies. No protest by staying at home. Both of those might work, but to be 100% sure that the GOP does not turn into solely a white supremacist party, they have to lose - and lose mightily - in general elections. Perhaps a solid third party would have the same effect. If you deprived the GOP of 10% of their voters, they would struggle to get over 40% of the vote anywhere.
But the real check on Trump and Trumpist politics is to vote out as many Republicans as possible. Show them what happens when you turn your back on essential American political norms and values. That only happens when the GOP gets slaughtered in the next two general elections.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
The Singapore Fling
Here is my expert hot take on the US-PRK summit:
<yawn>
North Korea wanted a handshake meeting with a US president. They got it. The US wanted a denuclearized Korean peninsula. They didn't get it.
But because all of our media coverage - but especially or foreign policy coverage - is so fundamentally stupid, the fact that Trump accomplished no real world goals, only optics, will go unchallenged for a few days. Trump will get some broad sense of "win" (wait for the "at this moment he truly became presidential" takes), and then as the nothingburger proves to be even less than a nothingburger, people will have moved on.
Now, if only we could be as solicitous to Canada as to North Korea.
<yawn>
North Korea wanted a handshake meeting with a US president. They got it. The US wanted a denuclearized Korean peninsula. They didn't get it.
But because all of our media coverage - but especially or foreign policy coverage - is so fundamentally stupid, the fact that Trump accomplished no real world goals, only optics, will go unchallenged for a few days. Trump will get some broad sense of "win" (wait for the "at this moment he truly became presidential" takes), and then as the nothingburger proves to be even less than a nothingburger, people will have moved on.
Now, if only we could be as solicitous to Canada as to North Korea.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Not Feeling It
I try as much as possible to blog every day. Keeps me fresh. Keeps me writing.
The Trump Puke Funnel is just so exhausting though. I've taken to focusing on an extensive honey-do list, since that gives me at least the illusion of accomplishing things.
Let me know when it's time to go to the barricades. I've got a minivan than seats seven.
The Trump Puke Funnel is just so exhausting though. I've taken to focusing on an extensive honey-do list, since that gives me at least the illusion of accomplishing things.
Let me know when it's time to go to the barricades. I've got a minivan than seats seven.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Je Suis Canadian
The Trump Administration has decided that the biggest threat to America is...Canada? Seriously? Canada?
Clearly there is only one solution? It's been a good run, but the US has clearly outlived it's usefulness. Everything from Northern Virginia to the South, maybe Minneapolis in the middle, and then the Pacific Coast will have to become Canadian. Trump can rule over the new Red States of America. However, for the safety of the world the United State of Canada gets to keep all the nuclear weapons. Red States can keep all the privately owned AR-15s, you know, for liberty.
What a disgrace...
...and it's going to get worse.
Clearly there is only one solution? It's been a good run, but the US has clearly outlived it's usefulness. Everything from Northern Virginia to the South, maybe Minneapolis in the middle, and then the Pacific Coast will have to become Canadian. Trump can rule over the new Red States of America. However, for the safety of the world the United State of Canada gets to keep all the nuclear weapons. Red States can keep all the privately owned AR-15s, you know, for liberty.
What a disgrace...
...and it's going to get worse.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
The Puke Funnel Turns
So, I took a whole day to assimilate the news of Anthony Bourdain's self-demise, and I've been trying to complete a long list of chores. The upside is that I've been ignoring the news.
The G-7 Debacle has crept into my consciousness. As we dive deeper and deeper into Trumpistan, the question becomes what will it take to get out. Domestic institutions have largely survived, primarily because of the Courts and Trump's own incompetence, but we are one Mueller firing away from a constitutional crisis. It is perhaps internationally that the institutions will crumble first.
America has been the fulcrum for the Western world since 1942 and the entire world since 1991. We set up Bretton Woods, which created a network of global trade that has created decades of peace in the developed world. We created the UN and NATO to establish a collective security network that has preserved that same peace.
Trump is trying to actively align America with the likes of Erdogan, Duterte, Xi and, yes, Putin. He has broken American promises in the Paris Accord and JCPOA. He has proved that American foreign policy can be broken, and that could have an impact for years.
Everything is awful all the time. Isn't it?
The G-7 Debacle has crept into my consciousness. As we dive deeper and deeper into Trumpistan, the question becomes what will it take to get out. Domestic institutions have largely survived, primarily because of the Courts and Trump's own incompetence, but we are one Mueller firing away from a constitutional crisis. It is perhaps internationally that the institutions will crumble first.
America has been the fulcrum for the Western world since 1942 and the entire world since 1991. We set up Bretton Woods, which created a network of global trade that has created decades of peace in the developed world. We created the UN and NATO to establish a collective security network that has preserved that same peace.
Trump is trying to actively align America with the likes of Erdogan, Duterte, Xi and, yes, Putin. He has broken American promises in the Paris Accord and JCPOA. He has proved that American foreign policy can be broken, and that could have an impact for years.
Everything is awful all the time. Isn't it?
Friday, June 8, 2018
Anthony Bourdain
About a year ago, I started watching Bourdain's show on CNN. I had dipped in and out of his work over the years, but there was something about the latest iteration of his show that really grabbed me. First of all, it was beautiful. No matter where they went, they framed gorgeous shots in ways that made foreign landscapes come alive. Secondly, while I never really cared too much for the food segments, there was something about how the show used food to open up people and their culture. Depending on the episode, maybe a quarter of the show as eating, and I never found it that interesting. But it was clear that he used meals to open up the people he was talking to. For a trained chef, he was an outstanding interviewer.
There was always a darkness about his work. Rather he was never afraid to look into the dark places, either of his locales or himself. In one extraordinary episode, he went back to Massachusetts where he had had his first kitchen job in Provincetown. He was young, did drugs on the beach, fell in and out of love....But then he went to western Mass and visit communities ravaged by the opiod epidemic. He sat in on a NarcAnon meeting and told his own stories of battling heroin. In another episode in Sicily, a local chef took him snorkeling, and the chef's assistant started chucking frozen food into the water for them to "catch." The incident left him angry and sullen. He wasn't afraid to show that side. He was on speaking terms with his devils and let you know it.
The "creative" types have always been prone to suicide. I always felt that writers and painters were prone to it, because it is profoundly isolating work. You compose your work alone, with no one but the demons and doubts in your head for company. But Bourdain didn't work alone. He had a crew, he was surrounded by others collaborating on his work. He didn't die from the despair of looking at another blank page or blank canvas. He was with his friend, Eric Ripert, with whom he made some of the very best episodes of his show, when he decided to hang himself. He had a young daughter.
Suicide never makes sense from the perspective of those outside of the person taking their own life. For many of us, having a beautiful girlfriend and young child, while travelling the world and being acclaimed for your work would be more than enough. I've decided that the key to happiness in life is knowing that you are doing your best work and being recognized for that. That and a family to share it with. He had all that. Yet it wasn't enough. Maybe success is its own source of despair, especially if you feel it's undeserved. If the world tells you you're great, you live with the doubt in your own authenticity. And so you take everything you ever had and everything you ever will have and throw it away.
And that's ultimately the point of suicide. In taking your own life, you are rejecting the world itself. Nothing in the world is worth holding on to, so you let it go. My life was touched by depression when I was younger, and staring at that blank page alone in a shitty apartment. I still found something in the world to hold on to, and that makes me lucky. What is so baffling is that Bourdain clearly saw the beauty everywhere, too. He could glory in the Hong Kong skyline or an Armenian farm or a West Virginia holler. He rejected the very world that he had helped uncover and show the rest of us was so beautiful.
Somehow that glory slipped away from him, and that means it can slip away from any of us. If you feel it slipping away from you, please talk to someone. You can start here: National Suicide Prevention Hotline 1-800-273-8255.
There was always a darkness about his work. Rather he was never afraid to look into the dark places, either of his locales or himself. In one extraordinary episode, he went back to Massachusetts where he had had his first kitchen job in Provincetown. He was young, did drugs on the beach, fell in and out of love....But then he went to western Mass and visit communities ravaged by the opiod epidemic. He sat in on a NarcAnon meeting and told his own stories of battling heroin. In another episode in Sicily, a local chef took him snorkeling, and the chef's assistant started chucking frozen food into the water for them to "catch." The incident left him angry and sullen. He wasn't afraid to show that side. He was on speaking terms with his devils and let you know it.
The "creative" types have always been prone to suicide. I always felt that writers and painters were prone to it, because it is profoundly isolating work. You compose your work alone, with no one but the demons and doubts in your head for company. But Bourdain didn't work alone. He had a crew, he was surrounded by others collaborating on his work. He didn't die from the despair of looking at another blank page or blank canvas. He was with his friend, Eric Ripert, with whom he made some of the very best episodes of his show, when he decided to hang himself. He had a young daughter.
Suicide never makes sense from the perspective of those outside of the person taking their own life. For many of us, having a beautiful girlfriend and young child, while travelling the world and being acclaimed for your work would be more than enough. I've decided that the key to happiness in life is knowing that you are doing your best work and being recognized for that. That and a family to share it with. He had all that. Yet it wasn't enough. Maybe success is its own source of despair, especially if you feel it's undeserved. If the world tells you you're great, you live with the doubt in your own authenticity. And so you take everything you ever had and everything you ever will have and throw it away.
And that's ultimately the point of suicide. In taking your own life, you are rejecting the world itself. Nothing in the world is worth holding on to, so you let it go. My life was touched by depression when I was younger, and staring at that blank page alone in a shitty apartment. I still found something in the world to hold on to, and that makes me lucky. What is so baffling is that Bourdain clearly saw the beauty everywhere, too. He could glory in the Hong Kong skyline or an Armenian farm or a West Virginia holler. He rejected the very world that he had helped uncover and show the rest of us was so beautiful.
Somehow that glory slipped away from him, and that means it can slip away from any of us. If you feel it slipping away from you, please talk to someone. You can start here: National Suicide Prevention Hotline 1-800-273-8255.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Thanks A Lot
Read this piece and tell me why everyone who voted for that Cheetoh covered shitstain doesn't owe the rest of us an apology.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
"Democrats Concerned..."
Democrats fretting about elections is perhaps the easiest column for a political journalist to write. There are a host of structural issues that disadvantge Democrats in the Congress. Democrats cluster in cities; that forms a natural gerrymander. Democrats cluster in high population states that get the same number of Senators as lower population rural states, another natural gerrymander.
California is considered key for flipping the House back to Democratic control. The worry was that California's unusual "jungle primary" would deprive Democrats of fielding a candidate in swing districts. The way a jungle primary works is that all interested candidates appear on the ballot. The top two vote getters move on to the general election. Statewide, this usually means that two Democrats face off for the office, whereas if there are a host of Democrats running for a contested House seat, they could split support and two Republicans could advance with, say, 25% and 17% of the votes, while Democrats split the remaining 58%.
This disaster appears to be averted.
There is an argument for two-round elections that require the winner to get a majority. Let's say that you're electing a Senator, and the Democrat gets 48% of the vote, the Republican get 42%, the Green party 5% and the Libertarian 5%. This allows everyone to vote their conscious in round one, but then vote tactically in round two. The problem is that Americans both vote too frequently and therefore don't vote in higher numbers. Any two round election would need to incorporate active efforts to encourage voting, including removing barriers to voting.
The jungle primary, however, is a fairly flawed system, as it strips the party of much power to influence who the nominee might be. There looks to be a few cases where the preferred candidate lost to a neophyte by a few thousand votes. A party primary would have offered more clarity.
Like most things Democrats obsess over, this turned out not to be as bad as they feared, but it could have been a disaster. It will be interesting to see if California makes any changes.
California is considered key for flipping the House back to Democratic control. The worry was that California's unusual "jungle primary" would deprive Democrats of fielding a candidate in swing districts. The way a jungle primary works is that all interested candidates appear on the ballot. The top two vote getters move on to the general election. Statewide, this usually means that two Democrats face off for the office, whereas if there are a host of Democrats running for a contested House seat, they could split support and two Republicans could advance with, say, 25% and 17% of the votes, while Democrats split the remaining 58%.
This disaster appears to be averted.
There is an argument for two-round elections that require the winner to get a majority. Let's say that you're electing a Senator, and the Democrat gets 48% of the vote, the Republican get 42%, the Green party 5% and the Libertarian 5%. This allows everyone to vote their conscious in round one, but then vote tactically in round two. The problem is that Americans both vote too frequently and therefore don't vote in higher numbers. Any two round election would need to incorporate active efforts to encourage voting, including removing barriers to voting.
The jungle primary, however, is a fairly flawed system, as it strips the party of much power to influence who the nominee might be. There looks to be a few cases where the preferred candidate lost to a neophyte by a few thousand votes. A party primary would have offered more clarity.
Like most things Democrats obsess over, this turned out not to be as bad as they feared, but it could have been a disaster. It will be interesting to see if California makes any changes.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Nothing Matters
Trump more or less admitted to colluding with the Russians, Putin in particular. Meanwhile, he's among the most popular presidents ever among his party members. Hopefully, dear God hopefully, the latter number is warped by a decline in self-identifiying Republicans. Hopefully, center right citizens are denying that they are Republicans at the moment.
Because otherwise, the idea that Trump is overwhelmingly popular among the GOP faithful suggests that American Conservatism isn't just sick, but actively deranged and a danger to the American constitutional order.
Because otherwise, the idea that Trump is overwhelmingly popular among the GOP faithful suggests that American Conservatism isn't just sick, but actively deranged and a danger to the American constitutional order.
Monday, June 4, 2018
The Internet And Overreaction
The Supreme Court decision in favor of the gay-hating baker has been seen and represented as a major setback for LGBT rights. It's not. It's a very narrow decision that held that Colorado was too hostile towards religion in applying their ruling.
We need to find a common ground where people can practice their faith freely, while also not engaging in overt bigotry. This decision - joined by Kagan and Breyer - was simply about the state being disparaging of a particular faith.
The reaction to the decision was the worst sort of knee-jerk, reflexive outrage that typifies the internet age. This was not a major setback for gay rights, it was a victory for the state not acting prejudicial against faith. This would apply to Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Wiccans. Colorado acted badly. That's what the Court found. But the Internet Left was quick to wallow in the defeatism and recrimination that so often typifies that sector of our politics.
There is signal and there is noise. This was noise.
We need to find a common ground where people can practice their faith freely, while also not engaging in overt bigotry. This decision - joined by Kagan and Breyer - was simply about the state being disparaging of a particular faith.
The reaction to the decision was the worst sort of knee-jerk, reflexive outrage that typifies the internet age. This was not a major setback for gay rights, it was a victory for the state not acting prejudicial against faith. This would apply to Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Wiccans. Colorado acted badly. That's what the Court found. But the Internet Left was quick to wallow in the defeatism and recrimination that so often typifies that sector of our politics.
There is signal and there is noise. This was noise.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
The Disenthralling Of The World
At some point, religious organizations need to really - and I mean REALLY - examine why they tend to attract people like this.
Given the strong support that Donald Trump enjoys among Evangelicals, despite his demonstrably immoral behavior, it's fair to ask whether being an Evangelical represents some sort of clinical disorder along the lines of delusional ideation.
Or perhaps it is simply that most theologically conservative institutions are at their heart authoritarian institutions unable to change with the times because the men - and they are always men - can't bare a world were they aren't God's chosen leader.
Given the strong support that Donald Trump enjoys among Evangelicals, despite his demonstrably immoral behavior, it's fair to ask whether being an Evangelical represents some sort of clinical disorder along the lines of delusional ideation.
Or perhaps it is simply that most theologically conservative institutions are at their heart authoritarian institutions unable to change with the times because the men - and they are always men - can't bare a world were they aren't God's chosen leader.
Saturday, June 2, 2018
The Puke Funnel
The Trump Puke Funnel of news outrages is hard to follow. It just keeps coming and coming. North Korea are our friends and Canada is a strategic threat? Subsidizing failing coal plants by forcing grids to buy from them? I'm sure that's not corrupt. Abusing the pardon power to reward political cronies and send a message about his own legal troubles? Possibly allowing insider trading by releasing the jobs report early?
That's just two days in Trumpistan.
News stories that would dominate coverage for weeks disappear in hours before the avalanche of terrible policy and worse personal decisions that emanate from the White House. Democrats - always prone to handwringing defeatism - are concerned that the sheer magnitude of Trump's misconduct will allow him to escape judgment. Fareed Zakaria thinks that Steve Bannon and Donald Trump have a cunning plan to salvage the midterms on the back of the immigration and trade issues.
This is bullshit.
People don't vote policies. Not usually. If they did, Democrats would be the ones controlling all three branches of government. They vote narratives. Trump's narrative takes two forms: massive corruption and performative cruelty. They reinforce each other, too. Trump beats up on the little guy to empower and enrich the big guy. Consistently.
The Puke Funnel is simply the aggregate weight of these stories creating a narrative about Trump that should create a bigger wave than we might think.
We'd better hope so.
That's just two days in Trumpistan.
News stories that would dominate coverage for weeks disappear in hours before the avalanche of terrible policy and worse personal decisions that emanate from the White House. Democrats - always prone to handwringing defeatism - are concerned that the sheer magnitude of Trump's misconduct will allow him to escape judgment. Fareed Zakaria thinks that Steve Bannon and Donald Trump have a cunning plan to salvage the midterms on the back of the immigration and trade issues.
This is bullshit.
People don't vote policies. Not usually. If they did, Democrats would be the ones controlling all three branches of government. They vote narratives. Trump's narrative takes two forms: massive corruption and performative cruelty. They reinforce each other, too. Trump beats up on the little guy to empower and enrich the big guy. Consistently.
The Puke Funnel is simply the aggregate weight of these stories creating a narrative about Trump that should create a bigger wave than we might think.
We'd better hope so.
Friday, June 1, 2018
Time To March
I'm generally not a fan of street protests and political theater. I think they have limited uses, but then again these are unusual times.
There is a fair amount of outrage on center-left about the recent study that shows that more Puerto Ricans died in the botched recovery efforts than died on 9/11 and Katrina combined. That SHOULD be the main story on every news outlet. Not Roseanne or Ivanka or even the job numbers. It is a colossally big deal.
So, that would a good reason to march on DC. Remind people what happened, that Puerto Ricans are American citizens and that this didn't have to happen. Frankly, it should probably be a funeral march rather than a rally. Somber, sad and mournful. For the lives lost and what our indifference to it says about our moral standing as a country.
There is a fair amount of outrage on center-left about the recent study that shows that more Puerto Ricans died in the botched recovery efforts than died on 9/11 and Katrina combined. That SHOULD be the main story on every news outlet. Not Roseanne or Ivanka or even the job numbers. It is a colossally big deal.
So, that would a good reason to march on DC. Remind people what happened, that Puerto Ricans are American citizens and that this didn't have to happen. Frankly, it should probably be a funeral march rather than a rally. Somber, sad and mournful. For the lives lost and what our indifference to it says about our moral standing as a country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)