Thursday, December 16, 2021

SINEMA'S FAT-CAT DONORS DON'T WANT VOTING RIGHTS BILLS TO PASS, EITHER

This story was a gut punch to a lot of people:
Kyrsten Sinema supports the elections reform bill that Democrats are considering a year-end push to pass. She doesn't support a shortcut around the filibuster to get it done.

The Arizona moderate is making clear that she intends to keep protecting the Senate’s 60-vote requirement on most legislation and she isn’t ready to entertain changing rules to pass sweeping elections or voting legislation with a simple majority....

“Senator Sinema has asked those who want to weaken or eliminate the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation which she supports if it would be good for our country to do so,” said her spokesperson John LaBombard. He warned that legislation could be “rescinded in a few years and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law, nationwide restrictions on vote-by-mail, or other voting restrictions currently passing in some states extended nationwide.”
Of course, Republicans could someday eliminate the filibuster and pass voting restrictions by a simple majority if Democrats don't eliminate or modify the filibuster now to pass voting rights legislation. Meanwhile, legislation restricting voting rights is passing in many states where Republicans control the legislature, and it's passing by simple majorities, because somehow the filibuster isn't regarded as vitally necessary to democracy in the states.

We assume that when Sinema and Joe Manchin, her partner in obstruction, express objections to social spending legislation, it's because their wealthy donors don't want to be taxed to pay for the spending. But -- to state the obvious -- these donors also don't want laws on the books preventing Republicans from restricting the votes of Democrats. Democratic voters vote for Democratic candidates. Democratic candidates generally support more spending on the have-nots and more taxation and regulation of the haves. That's not acceptable!

So Sinema isn't defending the filibuster just so it will remain in place to block other bills that upset her donors. Her donors don't want voting rights to pass, either.

RESOURCEFUL WINGNUT FINDS A REASON TO PUNCH A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER EVEN WHEN COVID, CRT, AND TRANS KIDS AREN'T BEING DISCUSSED

Right-wingers love assaulting and intimidating school board members who don't march in lockstep with the GOP/Fox News/MAGA agenda -- you know, shrugging off COVID, rejecting critical race theory, ordering trans kids to use the bathroom God assigned them at birth rather than the one that feels comfortable for them. But what do you do when you're just hankering to punch a school board member and none of those subjects are on the agenda? Relax -- this is a problem that can be solved:
Glastonbury [Connecticut] police are investigating a disturbance at a Board of Education meeting Tuesday night during which a man punched a board member as tempers flared over whether Glastonbury High School should restore its Native American-themed mascot, which was retired in 2020....

During the public comment portion of the meeting, held in the Glastonbury High School auditorium, a member of the audience yelled at board members. After the public hearing closed, the board held a 10-minute recess, during which the same man accosted board member Ray McFall in an aisle of the auditorium....

McFall lightly pushed him away, to which the man responded by swiftly punching McFall, who fell to the ground. The crowd converged on the two men, separating them. It did not appear that McFall was seriously injured.

As a result of the fracas, the board adjourned without voting on the issue. The purpose of the special meeting was to revisit the school board’s decision to retire the Tomahawks mascot for Glastonbury High School.




Yes! That's the spirit! Push your (unmasked) nose right in the school board member's face, and when he responds with a light push, just sock him, just the way our Founding Fathers and the Baby Jesus would have!

At Gateway Pundit, the commenters believe McFall's light push was an act of brutal ultraviolence, while the punch that knocked McFall to the ground was a measured, proportionate response. Also, "Tomahawks" is a fine school nickname because Native Americans were primitive savages!
Tomahawks are a reminder that the indians were a stone age culture until the white man came. It consists of a stone fastened to a stick with leather strips.

****

Almost everyone on earth since time began has been conquered by someone. Native Americans used to kidnap other tribe members and use them for sex slaves or just slaves. Some of them were quite brutal but of course we're supposed to believe they all sat around and smelled flowers until the evil white man came along.

****

Its what the evil woke democrat wants you to think. Dont be fooled. Not all Indigenous peoples are snowflakes and democrats

****

Unless this video has been edited, the school board member is clearly at fault. He made the first contact of an insulting or provoking nature while the other man simply acted out of self defense.

Why isn't the fbi investigating the board member for being a violent domestic terrorist?

****

Hope this starts a trend

****

Looks like simple self defense. This is what you should be prepared for if you are getting in someone's face like this.

****

Let all these filthy Democrat board members take heed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's just begining !

****

That was an intimidation tactic being used by the board member.
The second he push the citizen... Mr. Board Member broke the law and the reflexive act by the guy is legal self defense.

****

We all want to buy that man a beer.

****

The board member made contact with the parent first and started it. The parent finished it.

****

That wasn't a punch to injure, the guy barely tagged the Board member...

****

But the push was?

****

The push warranted the punch it received. Now if the push was more aggressive then it would’ve warranted a harder punch with the shoulder and weight behind it.

****

The man defended himself from a violent assault with one punch. There was no "fight". The man who defended himself should sue. The man who violently assaulted the other should be in prison.

****

You can’t push someone and not expect to get a punch. The board member made FIRST CONTACT.

****

Keep poking the white bear and see where it ends. Whites are getting tired of being pushed aroud by racist.

****

Another violent lefty just got put down

****

Make no mistake, this is going to spread across the nation, as Parents begin to take back the schools from these Libidiot Regressive's. This is just a small example of the frustration that is building in this nation. Oh Nice Right Cross by the way.

****

Don't you just appreciate true vertu when a communist is correctly pummeled to the floor the original way, as he deserves it?

LET'S GET READY TO R U M B L E ! ! !
What nice people! I can't believe narrow-minded liberals don't want to befriend or date these lovely specimens of humanity.

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

THE FEDERALIST KNOWS THAT PEOPLE ONLY READ THE HEADLINES

At Talking Points Memo, Christina Cabrera writes about an attempted gotcha by The Federalist:
The Federalist, a reliable GOP media ally, tried to run interference for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Wednesday and ended up stepping on a nice big rake instead.

The outlet published what was apparently meant to be a rebuttal to House Jan. 6 committee member Adam Schiff (D-CA) revealing on Monday that Mark Meadows had received a text from an unidentified lawmaker arguing that “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”

Schiff didn’t identify the lawmaker by name at the time, but on Wednesday the Federalist went ahead and revealed that the sender was Jordan while simultaneously accusing Schiff of purposefully distorting the text.

... The Federalist claimed that the text was actually written by a lawyer named Joseph Schmitz who was summarizing to Jordan his legal theory that Pence could throw out Biden electors, and that Jordan had merely forwarded Schmitz’s summary to Meadows. This, the Federalist seemed to suggest, was quite different from Jordan personally proposing that Pence do so.

The Federalist also accused Schiff of doctoring the screenshot to add a period at the end of the message and crop out an em dash. According to the Federalist, the message continued: “— in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.” Schmitz’s purported summary to Jordan then continued for two more paragraphs.

Shortly after publishing its, uh, scoop, on Wednesday, the Federalist claimed in a triumphant follow-up post that the Jan. 6 committee had “admitted” to “doctoring” the text by ... adding a period.

Checkmate!
As Cabrera writes, "it’s unclear how Jordan forwarding Meadows someone else’s blueprint of how Pence could orchestrate a coup is any less damning than it would be for the lawmaker to have come up with it himself." So this "scoop" really is a non-scoop.

But it doesn't matter.

It's 2021. Many people don't read entire stories -- they just read headlines. And The Federalist's headline, in big red letters, is: "During January 6 Hearing, Schiff Doctored Text Messages Between Mark Meadows And Rep. Jim Jordan."

And the rest of the right-wing media knows that it has to move in lockstep with The Federalist. Headline at The Western Journal: "Corruption: Schemer Adam Schiff Played Dirty Tricks on Mark Meadows' Texts Before Others Saw Them." Headline at RedState: "Adam Schiff Gets Caught Doctoring January 6th Text Messages, Exposes His Imbecility in the Process." Headline at Gateway Pundit: "Dirty Schiff Does It Again! Pencil-Neck Doctors J-6 Text Messages to Build Case Against Trump #IndictLiarSchiff."

It doesn't matter if it happened. If headlines from everyone trusted by right-wingers say it happened, then they'll believe it happened.

NIKKI HALEY WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT, PART XCVII

Stand for America, "an advocacy group promoting public policies that strengthen America’s economy, culture, and national security," was founded by Nikki Haley, who wants to be president. (There's also a Stand for America PAC, of course, which is raising money for Haley.) Stand for America has now published a book in which Haley and other conservatives discuss current issues and propose solutions. At Townhall, the author of one chapter, Star Parker, discusses the book in a press release disguised as a column:
Nikki Haley's Christmas Present to America

Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has served up a kind of Christmas present to the nation in the form of a new comprehensive policy book, issued by her organization Stand for America, serving up conservative solutions for our nation's many challenges -- domestic and foreign.

Conservatives get a bad rap that they just say "no." That they're against everything but never clear what they are for.

Haley is one conservative that cannot be accused of not having a broad vision and not being forthcoming in sharing it.

It's all here in "American Strength: Conservative Solutions Worth Fighting For."
The book, you won't be surprised to learn, talks about America the way the GOP talked in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Our entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare -- have severe projected financing problems that make it impossible to continue without major reform.

Culturally, family and marriage are collapsing. Birthrates are at historic lows, and surveys show Americans of ages where families are formed indicate low interest in having children.
Parker names some of Haley's co-authors:
I was honored to write the chapter on Overcoming Poverty and Building Long-Term Wealth.

But I am in distinguished company with leaders such as Ken Langone, founder of The Home Depot; Sens. Tim Scott and Pat Toomey; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Pastor John Hagee; Dennis Prager; and others, covering the full gamut of domestic and foreign policy
So how is this being received? Here's every comment posted at Townhall:
Way to go Star! Nikki is as much of a RINO as Lizzy Chenney. Too bad that you are trying to promote this piece of work. As for myself , Im done with RINOS. Begining with Bennedict Pence. Screw Nikki.

****

Don't forget Haley sat next to Brennan on some BS panel. When called on it she pulled a BS response (how was I supposed to know). She is worse than a RINO.
(Haley sat on a meaningless current-events panel with former CIA director John Brennan and others in an event connected to the 2019 NBA All-Star Game.)
No thanks, this woman has worn out her welcome. Haley is a back-stabber.

****

Nikki is the hotest RINO out there. Easy on the eyes, but brutal on the logic and experience!

****

I'm disappointed. The headline led me to believe that Nikki the RINO was going away.

****

Lets tell this RINO to take her presents and shove it. Who needs any present from a backstabber?

****

This chick is a grifting RINO. How quickly you forget the bathroom mess she created.
(In 2016, when Haley was governor of South Carolina, she said that a bill preventing trans students from using the bathroom of their choice was unnecessary.)
NO to NH. I don't know why Parker is promoting her. Note to Star: whatever opinion Stand Up for America has it does NO GOOD when she stabbed POTUS in the back AND SAT NEXT TO COMMUNIST JOHN BRENNAN!

Good for you on writing a chapter but no thanks now to you or RINO Haley.

****

Nope. I'm disappointed and surprised Knut Gingrich and Dennis Prager have allowed Nikki to use their names.
And in a Free Republic thread citing Parker's column, here are the first five responses:
Typical Establishment consultant-driven strategy.

Write a book nobody will read (that was written by somebody else anyway)

****


please clap.

****

Which god is Christmas in her pantheon of paganism?

Does Ganesh celebrate Christmas?

This pig is the female Christie.
please clap.

****

She is not a Conservative.

She is NOT a natural born Citizen.

****

Barf alert!
Mainstream journalists persist in the belief that a "serious" pre-Trump Republican like Haley -- one who doesn't devote every waking hour to owning the libs -- could be the 2024 Republican nominee if Donald Trump dies or falters. Last month, The Washington Post's Aaron Blake listed Haley as the GOP's #3 prospect for 2024, just behind Trump and Ron DeSantis.

Sorry, mainstream pundits. It's not going to happen.

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

THE ANTI-DEMOCRAT BIAS IS SO INSTINCTIVE THAT THEY DON'T EVEN NOTICE IT

Here's a story from Axios's Margaret Talev:
Axios-Ipsos poll: The danger of vaccine mandates


Half of Americans say it should be illegal for companies to deny service or employment to the unvaccinated, according to the latest installment of the Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index.

Why it matters: This carries real political risk for Democrats as President Biden's mandates on federal workers and large employers meet legal challenges across the country and Republicans use try to use the implementation of mandates as a wedge issue.

The survey shows there's deep, bipartisan resistance — even from those who support vaccine and mask mandates — to imposing severe consequences on those who won't go along.
For the moment, let's ignore the fact that you get 105% when you add the 54% of respondents who say employers should require employees to be vaccinated to the 51% who say mandatory vaccines should be illegal, which means that at least 5% of respondents agree with both policies, even though they're contradictory. Let's also ignore the fact that "service" is cited in the first question complicates it -- it's likely that some respondents support vaccine mandates for employees but not customers.

What's more important is that Talev sees 51% opposition to mandatory vaccines as DANGER FOR DEMOCRATS!!! but believes that 54% support for mandatory vaccines somehow isn't politically dangerous for Republicans.

We're all supposed to believe that Democrats must practice "popularism" -- they should talk about popular Democratic ideas and only popular Democratic ideas; none of this woke "defund the police" or "Latinx" nonsense. Most Democratic politicians actually do just that, but word gets around that every Democrat is excessively woke because the right-wing media says so. But Republicans practice "unpopularism" -- they oppose even modest gun control measures even after horrific massacres, they oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest, they block increased taxation of the rich, they prevent increases in the federal minimum wage, they reject state Medicaid expansion under Obamacare -- and none of this is ever described as carrying "real political risk," presumably because they do it so defiantly that voters just shrug and accept it as inevitable.

In addition, of course, they benefit tremendously from the work of reporters and pundits like Talev who assume that there's political peril in everything Democrats do and nothing Republicans do. And these journalists don't even notice that they're doing it.

THE JANUARY 6 FOX TEXTERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT NOTHING

CNN's Brian Stelter writes about texts Fox News stars sent to Mark Meadows on January 6:
... Rep. Liz Cheney revealed that some of Fox's biggest stars pressed Mark Meadows for help during the siege of the Capitol.

"Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home," Laura Ingraham texted Meadows. "This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy."

... On Monday, Cheney read two other texts from Fox stars to Meadows from 1/6. One was from Brian Kilmeade: "Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished." The other was from Sean Hannity: "Can he make a statement, ask people to leave the Capitol?"

... Cheney shared just a tiny sampling on Monday. But the tiny sampling is deeply embarrassing for Fox and the Murdochs. As Maggie Haberman said, this "undercuts efforts by everyone whose name she read who might say Jan. 6 wasn't that bad."
Stelter states the obvious:
When [Ingraham] wrote "this is hurting all of us," I'm certain she wasn't thinking about America or the rule of law. She was thinking about "us" in the Trump-controlled Republican party.
But Ingraham was wrong -- it wasn't bad for them. The Republican Party regained its swagger almost immediately, as did Fox News. Ingraham and Kilmeade were wrong to worry about Trump's legacy -- Trump is on track to be the next president of the United States. The GOP is likely to have total control of the federal government by 2025.

The Fox hosts were wrong because they thought the attack would disgust people across the political spectrum, like 9/11 or Sandy Hook. But then, a few hours after sending those texts, the hosts did what right-wingers always do at fraught moments: they began writing the narrative before anyone else did. Stelter portrays this as an act of desperation:
... by the night of 1/6, Ingraham was spouting conspiracy theories about "ANTIFA" and excusing the peaceful "patriots" who, let's be clear, paraded into DC based on a lie she pushed over and over again. Fox's pro-Trump programming was partly to blame for the Big Lie, so when that lie led to violence, of course some of the hosts panicked and tried to put out the fire.

... Hannity and Ingraham also continued to lie about the election and strongly suggest that leftists were to blame for the Capitol chaos. And many Fox hosts have bashed other media outlets for continuing to report on the prosecutions and the probes -- in other words, for continuing to care about the terror. The memory-holing effort has been so extensive precisely because figures like Ingraham knew how bad it was.
But even if it was done out of fear, the rewrite of the narrative worked. And the Fox hosts should have known it would work. Democrats were appalled by January 6 -- that meant, automatically, that the Fox audience would have to disagree with the Democrats.

The right had turned 9/11 and Sandy Hook into narratives of evil Democrats vs. patriotic Republicans, so why were Fox hosts even momentarily worried that their skills would fail them after 1/6?

The Fox stars sent their texts, then their training and instincts kicked in. They needed several narratives, which contradicted one another -- the riot wasn't violent, it was violent but for good reasons, it was violent because Antifa and the FBI were agents provocateurs. But as soon as Democrats got angry about 1/6, Fox and the GOP, predictably, were in the clear.

Monday, December 13, 2021

ATLANTIC WRITER: WHO CARES IF YOU DIE?

This smug piece of garbage was meant to get me angry, and it worked. I hope the editors of The Atlantic are proud gthat they published it:


Are you concerned that 800,000 Americans have died of COVID? If so, Walther is here to tell you you're a doily-sniffing elitist:
In November, my wife asked me whether I had seen an article with the remarkable headline “Is It Safe to Go to Thanksgiving Dinner?”

“Is that from last year?” I asked.

“No, it’s a few days old,” she said, her voice sinking to a growling murmur. “These people.”

I am old enough to remember the good old days when holiday-advice pieces were all variations on “How to Talk to Your Tea Party Uncle About Obamacare.” As Christmas approaches, we can look forward to more of this sort of thing, with the meta-ethical speculation advanced to an impossibly baroque stage of development. Is it okay for our 2-year-old son to hug Grandma at a Christmas party if she received her booster only a few days ago? Should the toddler wear a mask except when he is slopping mashed potatoes all over his booster seat? Our oldest finally attended her first (masked) sleepover with other fully vaccinated 10-year-olds, but one of them had a sibling test positive at day care. Should she stay home or wear a face shield? What about Omicron?

I don’t know how to put this in a way that will not make me sound flippant: No one cares. Literally speaking, I know that isn’t true, because if it were, the articles wouldn’t be commissioned. But outside the world inhabited by the professional and managerial classes in a handful of major metropolitan areas, many, if not most, Americans are leading their lives as if COVID is over, and they have been for a long while.
You don't need to boast, Matthew. We know that much of America has been living as if COVID doesn't exist. And that's why the death toll is up to 800,000. Not that you give a shit, because it doesn't include you, anyone in your immediate family, or, apparently, anyone you know.

Walther has the luxury of living in a community with low population density.
In my part of rural southwest Michigan, and in similar communities throughout the country, this is true not despite but without any noticeable regard for cases; hospitalization statistics, which are always high this time of year without attracting much notice; or death reports. I don’t mean to deny COVID’s continuing presence. (For the purposes of this piece, I looked up the COVID data for my county and found that the seven-day average for positive tests is as high as it has ever been, and that 136 deaths have been attributed to the virus since June 2020.) What I wish to convey is that the virus simply does not factor into my calculations or those of my neighbors, who have been forgoing masks, tests (unless work imposes them, in which case they are shrugged off as the usual BS from human resources), and other tangible markers of COVID-19’s existence for months—perhaps even longer.
I bet those 136 deaths factor into some residents' calculations of something -- the cruelty of fate, the mercy (or lack thereof) of the God they undoubtedly believe in. It's possible that some of them think that the precautions they're hearing about from us evil elitist city slickers make sense and might have saved their loved ones, but they're reluctant to stand out in a community that treats rational concern about a sometimes deadly and often debilitating disease as woke nonsense.

Like many conservatives, especially rural ones, Walther is living in a bubble as impervious as the one he thinks we left-leaning urbanites live in. Not only does he see city-dwellers as comic stereotypes rather than human beings, he also doesn't see concerned suburbanites at all. Everyone is exactly like him, or is a posh fool living in a penthouse.

Walther has had a fairly charmed pandemic.
In 2020, I took part in two weddings, traveled extensively, took family vacations with my children, spent hundreds of hours in bars and restaurants, all without wearing a mask. This year my wife and I welcomed our fourth child....

COVID is invisible to me except when I am reading the news, in which case it strikes me with all the force of reports about distant coups in Myanmar.
He got lucky while traveling, but for the most part he's what some in the military would call an REMF -- a rear-echelon motherfucker, someone who's far from the front lines and thus far from danger, and is oblivious to conditions for those who are taking incoming.

But he knows better than the experts.
I am always tempted to ask the people who breathlessly quote what various public-health authorities are now saying about masking and boosters whether they know how the National Institutes of Health defines a “problem drinker”? The answer is a woman who has more than one “unit” of alcohol a day, i.e., my wife and nearly all of my female friends. These same authorities, if asked, would probably say that considerable risks are associated with eating crudos or kibbeh nayyeh, or taking Tylenol after a hangover. (This is to say nothing of cannabis, which is of course still banned at the federal level.)
That bit about cannabis is odd, because Walther has written op-eds for the New York Post with titles such as "Pols are rolling over for Big Pot, having learned nothing from opioids" and "Big Weed’s meteoric rise is a sad symbol of Rust Belt decline." But I guess on this subject he's like Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who recently praised COVID vaccines on CNN and denounced them on Fox.

I can't tell you how old Walther is, but to judge from his photos, the answer is "not very."



He clearly won't see my age -- 62 -- for a couple of decades, so I'm sure he just laughs off this New York Times story:
As U.S. Nears 800,000 Virus Deaths, 1 of Every 100 Older Americans Has Perished

... Seventy-five percent of people who have died of the virus in the United States — or about 600,000 of the nearly 800,000 who have perished so far — have been 65 or older. One in 100 older Americans has died from the virus. For people younger than 65, that ratio is closer to 1 in 1,400.

The heightened risk for older people has dominated life for many, partly as friends and family try to protect them. “You get kind of forgotten," said Pat Hayashi, 65, of San Francisco. “In the pandemic, the isolation and the loneliness got worse. We lost our freedom and we lost our services.”
Walther's answer to Pat Hayashi is: Nobody cares. Next time there's a pandemic, don't be in your sixties. Or, to him, Hayashi doesn't exist at all.

RELAX, THE PROBLEM IS JUST ONE GUY!

As you probably know, Chris Wallace is leaving Fox News to join the new streaming service CNN+. I don't like the way Eric Wemple of The Washington Post depicts the news organization Wallace is leaving behind. Let's start with Wemple's headline:
Chris Wallace bolts Tucker Carlson’s Fox News
Wemple writes:
In the last year of Chris Wallace’s tenure at Fox News, he’s had to watch as his colleagues on the opinion side of the network buttressed and amplified the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen from former president Donald Trump. That strain of programming culminated in the recent three-part Fox Nation series from host Tucker Carlson titled “Patriot Purge,” which pushed the idea that the Jan. 6 rioters are victims, not perpetrators.

... the network has found its voice in Carlson.... He was serving as a weekend host at Fox News in late 2016 when a prime-time slot opened up. Ever since then, his extremism — telling viewers that Democrats “hate” America; espousing the racist “replacement theory”; subverting science on the coronavirus — has emerged as the network’s defining ideology, a point of reckoning for colleagues wishing to practice anything approximating journalism....

The reward for Carlson was an elevated presence on Fox’s streaming service, Fox Nation.

The resulting fissures are on the public record. Two moderate conservative commentators — Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg — resigned last month over “Patriot Purge.” ... news anchor Shepard Smith ... left — also abruptly — in October 2019 following a tiff with Carlson that played out on-air.

Every day, in other words, Fox News takes another step toward its destiny as The Tucker Carlson Channel. And in that future, there’s no room for journalists.
I don't like this for the same reason I don't like punditry that blames all the pathologies of the Republican Party on Donald Trump. It suggests that the institution was just fine until one individual came along to spoil it (Trump in 2015, Carlson in 2016), and that everything would be fine again if that one individual would just go away.

Fox, of course, has been godawful since its inception:


Carlson is nasty and dangerous, but he doesn't act alone. Reuters recently reported on the harassment two Georgia poll workers have experienced ever since video was made public purportedly showing them committing electoral fraud during 2020 ballot counting. (In fact, they were counting ballots correctly.)
Death threats from angry Trump supporters forced Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman, a 62-year-old grandmother, to flee her home of 20 years. Some messages called for her hanging; one urged people to “hunt” her. Freeman showed hundreds of menacing messages to police and called 911 three times.

But a year after Donald Trump and his allies falsely accused Freeman - along with her daughter and co-worker Wandrea “Shaye” Moss - of election fraud, the threats have not been investigated by local police or state authorities, according to a Reuters review of Georgia law enforcement records. Federal agents have monitored some of the threats, but made no arrests.

... the two women told Reuters about threats of lynching and racial slurs, along with alarming visits by strangers to the homes of Freeman and her mother.
As Media Matters recently noted, Carlson was part of the pile-on...
On December 3, [2020,] Tucker Carlson played the footage on his show, saying it “appears to show poll workers pulling ballots out of suitcases after they told poll monitors to go home.”
... but so were many other Fox on-air personalities:
The following hour, Sean Hannity started his show off with coverage of the video, claiming the “mysterious suitcases” were “filled, we believe, with ballots” and that “partisan election observers [were] asked to leave the room.” ...

Next, on The Ingraham Angle, host Laura Ingraham played footage of Freeman and Moss that included narration from Jacki Pick claiming workers “mov[ed] into action and begin scanning ballots” and saying they acted “once everyone [was] gone, coast [was] clear.” ...

On the December 4 edition of Fox & Friends, correspondent Griff Jenkins reported that the claims had been refuted by state election officials, but the hosts continued to push the conspiracy theory, with co-host Ainsley Earhardt saying, “How about those suitcases that were pulled out from the table in Georgia?” and co-host Brian Kilmeade responding, “I was that last night. It’s pretty hard to dispute that there’s something going on that needs some explanation.

America’s Newsroom followed with yet another report from Jenkins, who explained that the claims were investigated and shown to be untrue. Again, the hosts undermined this evidence, playing the clip from the previous night’s Hannity where Moss was singled out on video. Guest and Wall Street Journal columnist Bill McGurn responded to the video, saying he thought “Sean’s right in the sense that it raises real concerns.”

During that night’s prime-time slate, guest host Trace Gallagher led off The Story with a report on the video, stating that a “senior source in the Georgia secretary of state’s office [told] Fox News that the claims had been ‘investigated and debunked’ and that observers were there the entire time and the case of the ballots in the video is a case that all ballots are supposed to be kept in.” He then brought on Trump legal team consultant Jenny Beth Martin, who repeated a series of false assertions in attempting to deny the video had been debunked and claimed the video showed “a violation of state law.” Later, during a panel discussion on the video, Gallagher said Martin “made a good point” in claiming that the video was “debunked in a heartbeat — very quick to debunk this thing without really taking a good look at all this and talking to all the witnesses involved.”
And on and on for days, across several more Fox shows.

In short, the problem with Fox isn't that it has become the Tucker Carlson Channel. The problem with Fox is that it's the Fox News Channel. Fox is rotten to the core, and it always has been.

Sunday, December 12, 2021

WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT MISSING CHILDREN

I'm back. Thank you, Yas, for going deep while I was away.

Today there's chatter about this tweet:


Most of the talk focuses on Boebert's botched rendering of the phrase "Therein lies." I don't care about that -- Boebert isn't well educated, and many people mock her for that, but you don't have to have a GED to make mistakes like this. Ask a college professor:


I'd rather talk about the number, because it's real but misleading. The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children finds it in this FBI report of statistics on missing and unidentified persons from the National Crime Information Center.

But what does this mean? Kaitlyn Tiffany has written a very good piece for The Atlantic about the right's current obsession with missing children. She notes that many right-wingers cite a figure of 800,000 missing American kids per year:
There is a widely circulated number ... : 800,000 children go missing in the U.S. every year.... But the number ... comes from a study conducted in 1999 by the Justice Department, and it’s an estimate of the number of children who were reported missing over the period of a year for any reason and for any length of time. The majority were runaways, children caught up in custody disputes, or children who were temporarily not where their guardians expected them to be. The estimate for “nonfamily abductions” reported to authorities was 12,100, which includes stereotypical kidnappings, but came with the caveat that it was extrapolated from “an extremely small sample of cases” and, as a result, “its precision and confidence interval are unreliable.” Later in the report, the authors noted that “only a fraction of 1 percent of the children who were reported missing had not been recovered” by the time they were counted for the study. The authors also clarified that a survey sent to law-enforcement agencies found that “an estimated 115 of the nonfamily abducted children were victims of stereotypical kidnapping.” The Justice Department repeated the study in 2013 and found that reports of missing children had “significantly decreased.”

...The Denver Post won a Pulitzer Prize for its 1985 story laboriously debunking the statistics that had caused such widespread alarm. The actual number of children kidnapped by strangers, according to FBI documentation, turned out to be 67 in 1983, up from 49 in 1982.
In the 2020 FBI/NCIS document, the total number of missing child reports (see page 5) is, in fact, 365,348. But as page 4 of the document makes clear, nearly as many reports were purged as were entered in 2020, presumably, in most cases, because the children had been found, or had never been missing. Page 2 of the document says that there are quite a few open missing persons cases involving juveniles, but the number is much lower than 365,348 -- it's 30,396. (Many of these cases presumably date back to earlier years.)

Boebert doesn't tell us what she believes is going on. Others are not so shy.

This is one of three identical posts I found at Gettr, from three different users, presumably bots.

Much of Tiffany's article focuses on the very conspiratorial organization Operation Underground Railroad.
... during a brief lull [a] volunteer, Ericka Gonzalez, drew me over to a corner of the tent to show me a video on her phone, which she thought might be called “Death to Pedos” but wasn’t. It was called “Open Your Eyes,” and Gonzalez pulled it up in the Telegram messaging app. “From the time we were little kids we revered the rich and famous,” the voice-over began, as images of celebrities and of battered children flashed on the screen. As I started to take notes, she pulled the phone away and wondered aloud if she had done something she shouldn’t have.

I watched the rest of the video a few minutes later, on my own phone. “We are digital soldiers, fighting the greatest war the world has never seen,” the voice-over explained. The bad guys: Barack Obama, Ellen DeGeneres, Lady Gaga, Chuck Schumer, Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton. The good guys, a much smaller team: Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Barron Trump, Jesus, and an unidentified soldier holding a baby swaddled in an American flag. And, by implication, me, the viewer. “Our weapon is truth,” the voice-over continued as music swelled in the background. “We’ll never give up, even if we have to shake everyone awake one by one.”
That's what right-wingers mean when they talk about missing children: It's QAnon Lite, the belief that all their enemies are pedophiles and all their heroes are anti-pedophile warriors. Much of the discussion and activity of these beliefs now takes place with no overt reference to QAnon.

All of this fits neatly into the long-established narrative of the right-wing media, according to which every Democrat is responsible for any bad thing done (or believed to have been done) by a Democrat, liberal, socialist, anarchist, non-white person, celebrity, college professor, or, at the point, I suppose, primary or secondary school teacher. We are deemed to have created a stifling, toxic, exploitative, fascistic, Marxist left-wing culture, and we're all to blame. (Our side has never managed to create a similar narrative about the right, even though we actually are stuck in their world with regard to guns, climate change, economic inequality, taxation of wealth, health care, labor rights, and, in many states and soon everywhere, reproductive rights.) Persuadec right-wingers that child exploitation is far more widespread than it actually is and telling them that it's all the fault of rich liberals and famous Democrats is a hell of a way to keep people voting Republican when the Republican Party does nothing for them, but it apparently works, and will probably continue to work until the GOP ends democracy in America.

Saturday, December 11, 2021

The Great Awokening: Can They Be Trusted?

  Update: Text a good deal more edited than it was when first posted. 

In the Forest of Illusion.

Newman, the sociologist and labor-left Substacker who's been influencing my own thinking an awful lot lately, posted a response to Brooks's big Atlantic article on his great awokening, or final departure from the conservative fold, around the same time I was writing my own

My post was mostly about Brooks's outline of the history of conservatism, in which Burkean "modesty" was invented decades before Burke was born, in reaction to the terrible religious wars in 16th- and 17th-century Europe, when they all decided to abjure fanaticism and have governments that did less, which would have come as a big surprise to intolerant Catholic Louis XIV and equally intolerant Protestants William and Mary, who all probably would have thought they were pretty conservative if anybody had been using the term at the time.

He's hiding, there, I believe, from the actual origins of conservatism, which were not in some kind of easygoing bothsidesism but in an absolute taking of sides, in favor mostly of royalty against more or less unwashed masses, from the English Roundheads of 1642 to the French radicals of 1789, and more generally any kind of democratizing tendency, and the philosophizing of conservatism, from Thomas Hobbes to Edmund Burke and down to the present, was always intended to rationalize keeping political power out of the hands of the lower orders and concentrated with the upper: political conservatism like Burke's to to persuade the lower orders, as much as possible, to refrain from taking power and leave it in the hands of their betters, who would not do anything extreme—to vote, in other words, against their own interests in favor of stability.

Brooks does a lot of hiding, in my opinion, in the essay, in the shelter of a No True Scotsman argument in which bad conservatives aren't really conservative. In his time in Brussels,

I became fascinated by a British statesman named Enoch Powell. If you were to design the perfect conservative, Powell would seem to be it—a classics scholar, veteran, poet, and man of faith, and the product of the finest Tory training grounds the U.K. had to offer. And yet in 1968, Powell had given his notorious “Rivers of Blood” speech, which was blatant in its racism and shocking in its anti-immigrant message. How, I wondered, had conservatism, which was developed in response to sectarian war, produced a statesman who was trying to start one?
I realized that every worldview has the vices of its virtues. Conservatives are supposed to be epistemologically modest—but in real life, this modesty can turn into a brutish anti-intellectualism, a contempt for learning and expertise. Conservatives are supposed to prize local community—but this orientation can turn into narrow parochialism, can produce xenophobic and racist animosity toward immigrants, a tribal hostility toward outsiders, and a paranoid response when confronted with even a hint of diversity and pluralism. Conservatives are supposed to cherish moral formation—but this emphasis can turn into a rigid and self-righteous moralism, a tendency to see all social change as evidence of moral decline and social menace. Finally, conservatives are supposed to revere the past—but this reverence for what was can turn into an abject deference to whoever holds power. When I looked at conservatives in continental Europe, I generally didn’t like what I saw. And when I looked at people like Powell, I was appalled.

Where to begin with this? The winners of sectarian wars in the 17th century intended to win them,  not to make everybody nice and tolerant. These vices are all present long before Burke invents the virtues that correspond. Anti-intellectualism is Cavalier jocks against Puritan nerds; racist animosity is the attitude of Cavaliers to the Jews after Parliamentarian Oliver Cromwell invited them to the Commonwealth. Powell's rage in 1969 was an amplification of the sainted Winston Churchill's anxieties in the 1950s:

Friday, December 10, 2021

Skowronek Season

 

xkcd


Ah, it's Skowronek Season already! Coming unusually early this term, when pundits gather to ask themselves what kind of relationship the current presidency is going to have with the longer-term current "regime", or complex of ideologies and interests out of which politics of a whole period are made, according to the framework put together by political scientist Stephen Skowronek in the 1990s: will it be a presidency of reconstruction, effectively opening a new regime, like those of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan?  Or of articulation, clarifying and maintaining the ideological goals of a reconstructive predecessor, like Madison, I suppose, Van Buren, Grant, Truman, G.H.W. Bush? Or of preemption, struggling for change against a resilient regime that remains more powerful than they are, like the Democratic presidents, A. Johnson, Cleveland, and Wilson, of the Lincolnian regime (Skowronek, I'm told by a critic of the theory, doesn't have a lot to say for this category), or of disjunction, over a regime in collapse (Quincy Adams, Buchanan, Hoover, Carter)? 

So Corey Robin, who came out strong in 2019 for the theory that the Trump presidency was a disjunctive one, is already out with a judgment on Trump's successor on the Times op-ed page ("Why the Biden Presidency Feels Like Such a Disappointment"), which is, well, that it's disappointing, or "feels" disappointing, which may come down to the same thing. Because while Robin doesn't say what kind of presidency Biden's is going to be, he's pretty sure it won't be reconstructive, and a lot of people, including himself, had hoped it might be.

In the first place, because the Trump presidency had been so extremely disjunctive, like nothing the nation had ever seen before, with a Congress unable to accomplish anything but preserve itself (tax cuts and deregulation to hold onto its donors, and judicial nominations, and judicial nominations to prolong such power as it was able to retain) and a president unable to accomplish anything at all, not even build his stupid wall or withdraw from Afghanistan, let alone his promised revolutions in infrastructure and health care. And then of course with the arrival of the Covid pandemic a situation of actual collapse from which it took the Democrats in the House of Representatives (and the Federal Reserve) to begin rescuing the nation, with the extraordinary "stimulus" bills of 2020. 

And then after the disappointment of Robin's own hopes for a Sandernista revolution, the disappointingly "moderate" Biden roused new hopes by beginning seemingly to transform himself with an idea of reconstructionism, to be trying to picture himself in the shoes of FDR or at least Obama with his "big fucking deal":

Thursday, December 09, 2021

OFF FOR A FEW DAYS

I'll be out of touch for a few days, but the relief crew will be here to respond to all the idiocy, so stop by. See you on Sunday.

Wednesday, December 08, 2021

FOR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, BIDEN IS NOT "THE PRESIDENT WE SUPPORT"

Dana Milbank recently argued that negative coverage of President Biden this year -- worse coverage, according to one analysis, than the coverage of President Trump in 2020 -- is giving Trump an opening to make a comeback and undermine democracy. Ross Douthat doesn't agree with the approach to journaliam Milbank is suggesting and doesn't believe that even the recent negative coverage of Biden is comparable to the coverage of Trump:
... my sense is that Trump’s negative coverage reflected more stalwart opposition (the president we oppose is being terrible again) while in Biden’s case the negativity often coexists with implicit sympathy (the president we support is blowing it, and we’re upset).
I don't accept Douthat's characterization of the Biden coverage.

For the mainstream media, Biden was never "the president we support." At best, he was, in 2020, "the guy running against the president we oppose." The "liberal media" isn't liberal; it sometimes speaks poorly of Republicans because they attack LGBT people, praise guns, restrict reproductive rights, and deny climate change. On the other hand, Democrats are sometimes economically liberal, seeking to tax wealthy people to pay for programs that benefit ordinary people, and the elite press doesn't like that at all. Elite journalists sometimes embrace bro-ish Democrats like 1992 Bill Clinton or 2008 Barack Obama, but if they get into office and seek to help the have-nots at the expense of the haves, their press coverage quickly turns negative. (The press's ideal president would be a socially moderate fiscal conservative -- Mike Bloomberg, Bill Weld, Larry Hogan.)

Joe Biden is probably the most New Dealish president since Lyndon Johnson, and the press hates him for it. The press never liked him much, not even in 2020, but at least he didn't seem socially "woke" or economically radical. But now he wants to help the non-elites rather than cut the deficit or reduce entitlements. Also, he was serious about getting out of Afghanistan at long last. He's hated for that, too.

"The president we support is blowing it, and we’re upset"? No, it's more like: The president we thought was a safe choice turns out not to be a neoliberal, and we’re upset. Thank God he's made mistakes, because we can use them to bury him. And the beneficiary of that will be Donald Trump.

TRUMP TRIES TO DISRUPT THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY, RUNS OUT OF BOOKS IN ONE DAY

At the end of November, Politico told us that Donald Trump was about to publish a new book independently, and the world of publishing might never be the same:
Trump allies launch publishing house with an eye on upending the book industry

Allies of former President Donald Trump are trying to rip up the traditional book publishing paradigm in politics by setting up a publishing house of their own. And they have the ex-president helping them do it.

Trump announced last week that he was publishing a coffee table book of photographs from his time in the White House — just ahead of the holiday gift rush — with Winning Team Publishing. The outfit is a new imprint with a decidedly MAGA flavor, run by former Trump campaign aide Sergio Gor and Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr.

The book, titled “Our Journey Together,” was marketed at $74.99, or $229.99 for a signed copy. But despite the high price tag, Gor said they already have exceeded sales of 70,000 copies in the first week of the preorder.

... “Publishers have become stagnant in their ways. We are incorporating the best of business, data, politics and media to reach a wider audience than ever before. We are striving to become the largest conservative publishing house,” said Gor, president of Winning Team Publishing.
Our Jouney Together went on sale yesterday. Newsmax tells us what happened next:
Publisher: High-Demand Trump Book Out of Print Due to Paper Shortage

The publisher of former President Donald Trump's newest book, officially released Tuesday, reports there have been over 130,000 copies sold, but supply chain issues are dogging printing.

Trump's "Our Journey Together" coffee-table, picture book is available at 45books.com, but those who order now will receive a Christmas card from the president in time for Christmas, followed by the book in early January, according to Winning Team Publishing's Sergio Gor.

"President Donald J. Trump has sold more books than any other author in the same week by a wide margin – an incredible success," Gor told Newsmax on Tuesday. "Only in Joe Biden's America have higher gas prices, out of control inflation, and printers running out of paper become the unfortunate norm. We look forward to delivering hundreds of thousands additional copies in the new year."
Actually, supply chain issues in book publishing began in the last year of the Trump administration, as The New York Times reported in August 2020:
The two largest printing companies in the United States, Quad and LSC Communications, have been under intense financial strain, a situation that has grown worse during the pandemic. LSC declared bankruptcy in April.... Quad’s book printing business is also up for sale; this spring, the company had to temporarily shut down its printers at three plants due to the pandemic.

At the same time, there has been a surprising spike in sales for print books, a development that would normally be cause for celebration, but is now forcing publishers to scramble to meet surging demand.
These issues still haven't been resolved -- demand for printing continues to exceed supply -- and now publishers are facing labor shortages at warehouses and distribution centers, as well as difficulties getting coffee-table books, which are mostly printed overseas, out of containers at ports. It's easy to blame Biden for this, but the biggest problem is strong consumer demand, along with a roaring job market that gives workers a lot of options.

Trump's book isn't the only glossy book that's become hard to get at Christmas. If you go to Amazon and try to order Paul McCartney's book The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present, you'll find that it won't ship until after the holiday; the promised delivery date is December 29 to January 2.

But at least you can still order it. Go to Amazon's page for Trump's book and you can't even place an order. Instead, you get this notice:

The established publishers whose industry Trump wanted to disrupt know that they need to work with Amazon (which sells approximately half the books in America). So they keep Amazon apprised of when books will be available -- and Amazon keeps taking orders. Everybody makes money. Trump, the great business genius, is forgoing that revenue stream.

And while Sergio Gor's claim that "President Donald J. Trump has sold more books than any other author in the same week by a wide margin" is questionable, it's clear that his book was going to be very popular. If his people had been smarter, they'd have printed enough copies to get them through more than one day. They didn't.

Our Journey Together is also out of stock at the Barnes & Noble online store (where the McCartney book is still available).

And no, this has nothing to do with anti-conservative bias -- Amazon will happily sell you a copy of Robert Kennedy Jr.'s The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (currently #3 on Amazon's bestseller list, even though it's also back-ordered) or Miranda Devine's Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide (currently #25, with a paperback edition at #71).

Trump could have had the #1 book in America this Christmas, but he and his associates were too busy boasting that they know how to publish books better than people who've been doing it for years. Can't wait for his social media site.

Tuesday, December 07, 2021

AXIOS REPORTS POLL NUMBERS THAT CONTRADICT THE DOMINANT NARRATIVE, STICKS WITH NARRATIVE ANYWAY

Here's how Breitbart reports a new Axios poll about COVID and the Omicron variant:
Eighty-two percent of Democrats are willing to wear face coverings indoors at all times due to fears of contracting the omicron coronavirus variant, a Tuesday Axios-Ipsos poll revealed.

Overall, 62 percent of Americans are willing to wear a mask indoors at all times, while just 38 percent of Republicans are willing to do so.

The poll also shows 94 percent of Democrats support private mask-wearing mandates at local businesses. Only 43 percent of Republicans agree. In total, 69 percent support private mask mandates.

When respondents were asked if they support preemptive travel bans to slow the variant’s spread, 67 percent overall said they would support the measure (72 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Republicans).
Breitbart's slant here is obvious: Those silly Democrats with their silly pandemic precautions! But give Breitbart credit: The numbers for Americans overall are right up front, in these opening paragraphs, and it's clear from those numbers that a significant majority of our fellow citizens want steps taken to prevent virus transmission.

Now, here's how Axios reports its own poll:
Axios-Ipsos poll: Shrugging off Omicron



Most Americans aren't willing to make big changes in their behavior to minimize the risk from the Omicron variant, like avoiding indoor restaurant dining or cancelling their holiday travel plans, according to a new Axios-Ipsos poll.

The big picture: The poll found support for some broader public responses, including one — travel bans aimed at people from other countries — that was widely supported by people across the political spectrum. But it found that Americans are only willing to do so much on their own.

The poll shows "how much the behavior is already baked in" at this late stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, with Americans mainly interested in ways to adapt so they can keep living their lives, Ipsos senior vice president Chris Jackson said.

"New facts don't seem to be changing people. They've already decided what they're going to do, and they're doing it."
It's only after this that we learn that, well, actually, a lot of Americans want something done. And even then, the spin is Well, yes, most Americans want this, but Republicans don't, so the majority opinion doesn't really count, does it?
A majority of Americans are willing to wear masks indoors in public at all times in response to Omicron. But naturally, that hides huge partisan differences: 82% of Democrats are willing to do so, but just 38% of Republicans are.

...Larger numbers of Americans are open to broad public responses to Omicron, like businesses requiring customers to wear masks indoors (69%), travel bans to keep people from other countries from entering the U.S. (67%), and local governments requiring masks in all indoor public places (65%).

Some of those responses have massive partisan differences too, like private business mask mandates (94% of Democrats support them to respond to Omicron, vs. just 43% of Republicans) and local government mask mandates (93% of Democrats vs. 34% of Republicans).
Hey, who cares if two thirds of Americans want a public health response. Republicans object! They have veto power over everything, don't they?

Even when we get facts from the mainstream media that contradict the media's preferred narratives, the narratives endure.

DAVID PERDUE IS ATTACKING DEMOCRACY. BRIAN KEMP IS NOT DEFENDING IT.

Yesterday, David Perdue announced a primary challenge to Georgia governor Brian Kemp. Perdue is already making the race about "election integrity." From his campaign announcement:
“Look, I like Brian. This isn’t personal; it’s simple. He’s failed all of us and cannot win in November,” Perdue said. “Instead of protecting our elections, he caved to [Stacey] Abrams and cost us two Senate seats, the Senate majority, and gave Joe Biden free reign. Think about how different it would be today if Kemp had fought Abrams first instead of Trump. Kemp caved before the election, and the country is paying the price today.”
But so far, it doesn't appear as if Kemp is running as a defender of democracy. Instead, he's trying to change the subject:
[The Kemp campaign's] view of Perdue as a weak challenger with a record ripe for exploiting was revealed in the lengthy statement issued Sunday by Kemp campaign spokesman Cody Hall....

“It may be difficult for David Perdue to see this over the gates of his coastal estate, but Joe Biden’s dangerous agenda is hitting hardworking Georgians in the wallet and endangering their livelihoods — and we all have David Perdue to thank for it,” Hall said. “Perdue’s only reason for running is to soothe his own bruised ego, because his campaign for U.S Senate failed to inspire voters at the ballot box — twice,” he added. “Gov. Kemp has a proven track record of fighting the radical left to put hardworking Georgians first, while Perdue is best known for ducking debates, padding his stock portfolio during a pandemic, and losing winnable races.”
Kemp and his allies are trying to portray Perdue as a rich self-dealer -- as if that's going to impress voters in a Republican primary:
... Georgians First Inc., a pro-Kemp political action committee, released an ad reminding voters of Mr. Perdue’s stock trades of companies whose business fell under the purview of his Senate committees.




The ad directs voters to FormerSenatorDavidPerdue.com, which has more of the same:


It looks as if this race is going to be all about how Democrats cheat in every election on Perdue's side, and about anything else on Kemp's side, because even though he defended democracy after the 2020 presidential election, he doesn't want to talk about that.

It's widely believed that this will be a brutal, vicious primary with the potential to drag Republicans down ahead of the general election. The lede in The New York Times is:
Former Senator David Perdue’s leap Monday into a primary challenge against Gov. Brian Kemp, his fellow Republican, ensured that Georgia will be at the hot molten core of the political universe next year, with costly and competitive races that will test the grip of Trumpism over the G.O.P. ...
But I think Perdue will coast to victory in the primary. A Republican poll reported by the Washington Examiner last month suggests that Perdue will start with a solid lead:
The survey, conducted for Republican operatives interested in figuring out the lay of the land in Georgia, showed Kemp leading Perdue 38% to 32%, with Democrat-turned-Republican Vernon Jones picking up 16%. When the pollster presented Perdue as endorsed by former President Donald Trump, he jumped ahead of Kemp and led the incumbent governor 41% to 34%, with Jones garnering 11%. In a head-to-head with Kemp with Trump’s backing, Perdue led 50% to 41%.
Trump endorsed Perdue yesterday, so that's settled. Assume Perdue already has a 7-to-9-point lead, and the Trump rallies haven't started yet.

The Times wants us to believe that Trump's endorsement might not decide the race:
For Republicans, Georgia has now become perhaps the most consequential proving ground in the party’s Trump wars. Should Mr. Perdue and other Trump-backed candidates lose their primaries, it will raise grave questions about the former president’s clout in the party as well as his own capacity to compete in a must-win state in 2024.
As if. From that GOP poll reported by the Examiner:
Trump’s favorable/unfavorable image is 84%/10%....

Seventy-eight percent of Republican voters in Georgia believe “significant fraud occurred in the 2020 election,” and just 31% “believe Kemp did enough to prevent voter fraud in the election.”
And as for "other Trump-backed candidates" ...
In the Republican Senate primary in Georgia, former professional football player Herschel Walker, who has been endorsed by Trump, led state Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black by a whopping 72% to 5%.
I can't predict the outcome of general election contests against Abrams, the likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee, and the sitting senator, Raphael Warnock, but this paragraph from the Times says less about Georgia than about elite-media groupthink:
If Mr. Perdue and Mr. Walker lead the Republican ticket next fall, Georgia voters will be forced to choose between revulsion for Mr. Trump and his incendiary politics, on the one hand, and, on the other, dissatisfaction with Mr. Biden and unease with the liberal politics that Ms. Abrams and Mr. Warnock embody.
This is said not about Georgia swing voters, but about Georgia voters overall. It seems not to occur to the authors of this story, Richard Fausset and Jonathan Martin, that millions of Georgians don't feel "revulsion for Mr. Trump and his incendiary politics" -- in fact, "Mr. Trump and his incendiary politics" are among the great pleasures of their lives. It also never occurs to them that many other Georgia voters strongly support Abrams, Warnock, and (yes, still) Biden. The paragraph does, however, sum up the political leanings of nearly every elite-media reporter covering national politics: Trump is horrible, but ick -- liberals!

Monday, December 06, 2021

WILL WE SAVE DEMOCRACY IN 2024? PROBABLY NOT.

In The Atlantic, George Packer is envisioning the death of American democracy in 2024:
Here’s one way I imagine it could happen: In 2024, disputed election results in several states lead to tangled proceedings in courtrooms and legislatures. The Republican Party’s long campaign of undermining faith in elections leaves voters on both sides deeply skeptical of any outcome they don’t like. When the next president is finally chosen by the Supreme Court or Congress, half the country explodes in rage. Protests soon turn violent, and the crowds are met with lethal force by the state, while instigators firebomb government buildings. Neighborhoods organize self-defense groups, and law-enforcement officers take sides or go home. Predominantly red or blue counties turn on political minorities. A family with a BIDEN-HARRIS sign has to abandon home on a rural road and flee to the nearest town. A blue militia sacks Trump National Golf Club Bedminster; a red militia storms Oberlin College. The new president takes power in a state of siege.

... Another, likelier scenario is widespread cynicism. Following the election crisis, protests burn out. Americans lapse into acquiescence, believing that all leaders lie, all voting is rigged, all media are bought, corruption is normal, and any appeal to higher values such as freedom and equality is either fraudulent or naive. The loss of democracy turns out not to matter all that much. The hollowed core of civic life brings a kind of relief. Citizens indulge themselves in self-care and the metaverse, where politics turns into a private game and algorithms drive Americans into ever more extreme views that have little relation to reality or relevance to those in power. There’s enough wealth to keep the population content. America’s transformation into Russia is complete.
Packer is trying to bothsides this, but it seems obvious to me that the first scenario is likely if the Democrat wins the 2024 election legitimately and the second scenario is what would happen if Republicans steal the election. Republicans have persuaded themselves that violence is justified in defense of their Cause, so, yes, they're likely to engage in it if they lose in 2024. The people on the left who are ready to engage in violence smash windows and set fires because that's their idea of fun, but they don't really care about righting wrongs -- for them, the subversion of democracy will be nothing more than a pretext for enjoyable mayhem. Meanwhile, most Democrats will fret over the destruction and bloodshed, and will feel a continuation of the sense of futility most are feeling right now.

We can assume Democrats won't riot because they haven't rioted as democracy has eroded in purple states like Wisconsin and Texas. Democrats didn't riot after the 2000 presidential election and don't riot when voters in predominantly Democratic precincts are forced to spend hours in line to vote, or are purged from voter rolls illegitimately. They didn't riot when Mitch McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from Barack Obama during one election year and didn't riot when Amy Coney Barrett's nomination was rammed through just days before another election. They're not rioting now over the blockade against election reform that's being maintained by Republicans and sold-out Democrats. So if Republicans steal the 2024 election, there's likely to be only a brief wave of non-violent protests that will be easy to wait out, with a smattering of violence (though it'll be enough for endless horror stories on Fox). By contrast, there will be real violence, plus a lot of menacing armed protest, if the Democrat wins -- or is declared the winner by the media. (Keep in mind that states run by Republicans won't acknowledge Democratic victories this time, partly out of fear of their own voters, but mostly because anti-democratic zealots will be in key postions three years from now. So the media's call of the election might be premature, as a GOP-controlled political process sets out to reverse the outcome.)

Packer thinks this is the major crisis of our times. He calls for a bipartisan, all-hands-on-deck defense of democracy, while acknowledging that even elected Republicans who pretend to be independent-minded -- Mitt Romney, Susan Collins -- are failing to step up. As for the rest of us:
Citizens will have to do boring things—run for obscure local election offices and volunteer as poll watchers—with the same unflagging energy as the enemies of democracy. Decent Republicans will have to work and vote for Democrats, and Democrats will have to work and vote for anti-Trump Republicans or independents in races where no Democrat has a chance to win. Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration will have to make the Freedom to Vote Act their top priority, altering or ending the filibuster to give this democratic fire wall a chance to become law.
I think what will happen is that democracy will fail, and anti-democratic Republicans will run the country for at least a decade, badly. They'll leave democratic institutions more or less in place, in a degraded form. And then, maybe, there'll be the popular front Packer envisions.

It took years, but a coalition of parties that don't agree on much got together to oust Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel. A similar coalition hopes to oust Viktor Orban in Hungary next year, though it's unclear whether that will be possible.

We're failing at this now. We might succeed later, after a tremendous amount of damage has already been done.

Sunday, December 05, 2021

EVERY PROBLEM IS A PROBLEM ONLY FOR DEMOCRATS, PART LXXVIII: MASCULINITY EDITION

These days, there's a consistent message in the opinion section of The New York Times: that the typical Times reader is a terrible person.



The headlines don't always give the bias away. Here's a piece by Liza Featherstone headlined "Josh Hawley and the Republican Obsession With Manliness." Even though Featherstone says she's a liberal, her argument is that Hawley really might be on to something:
... Mr. Hawley ... is tapping into something real — a widespread, politically potent anxiety about young men that is already helping the right.

... He is right about some things. Deindustrialization has stripped many men of their ability to earn a decent wage, as well as of the pride they once took in contributing to prosperous communities. Boys are sometimes overdisciplined and overmedicated for not conforming to behavioral expectations in school. And while more women than men are diagnosed with anxiety or depression, men are more likely to commit suicide or die of drug overdoses.
According to Featherstone's own source, men have been more likely than women to die of drug overdoses at least since the late 1990s. The difference became more widespread at the very end of the Obama presidency and remained widespread for several years of the Trump presidency:



Given the Trump-era numbers, I'm puzzled as to why this is a liberal problem.

And I'm puzzled as to why higher levels of anxiety and depression among females is a crisis of masculinity. If it's because more males commit suicide, that appears to be because -- again according to Featherstone's own souce -- more males use guns. Again, that's not the fault of liberals.

Featherstone writes:
None of these problems are caused by liberals. But liberalism hasn’t offered a positive message for men lately. In the media, universities and other liberal institutions, it sometimes seems that every man is potentially guilty of something. As Mr. Hawley puts it, men are being told by liberals that “they’re the problem.” Our side — the progressive side — has struggled to articulate what a “nontoxic” masculinity might look like, or where boys might look for models of how to become men.
But Hawley is saying that young men are engaging in toxic behavior. Why isn't that a negative message that drives those young men to despair (and away from his party)?

Nope, it's a problem for our side only:
This has set up an existential crisis for the left, threatening its ability to win elections. For years, young men have been flocking to the far right, finding its messages and disgruntled virtual communities on YouTube and Reddit. In 2016, Donald Trump won the male vote by 11 percentage points.
What Featherstone doesn't say -- again, according to her own source -- is that Trump won men by only 2 points in 2020, and that was largely because he won white men (and whites overall) by double digits.



So among male voters, Trump beat the Democrat by double digits in 2016. Gee, what was unusual about the person at the top of the Democrats' 2016 ticket? Thinking, thinking...

Featherstone acknowledges that Hawley and the GOP won't really help males:
... Mr. Hawley knows how to exploit the cultural anxieties of ordinary people to advance his brand of politics. But he hasn’t offered solutions to this “masculinity crisis” because neither he nor his party has any.

Men and boys need good jobs, affordable access to team sports, an education system sensitive to their social and emotional development, public parks, mental health support, access to substance abuse treatment and paternity leave. All of this requires public funding, which is far more likely to come from the left than the right. To thrive, many men also need the freedom not to be “men” at all, but rather to become sissies, scrawny historians or even women, a cultural evolution Mr. Hawley and his conservative ilk adamantly oppose.

... [A] vision of shared purpose and civic virtue won’t come from Mr. Hawley any more than funding for more public baseball fields will. He, after all, has opposed just about every common public project recently proposed, from the bipartisan infrastructure bill to the Build Back Better Act to the Green New Deal.
But somethow this failure to do anything for males isn't a crisis for the Republican Party. It's only a crisis for Democrats.
Meanwhile, the left will need to find a better way to talk to men; half of the population is far too many people to abandon to the would-be strongmen of the far right.
Who'll do nothing for them, which apparently doesn't matter, because, it seems, only Democrats face consequences for political or rhetorical failures.