<b>January 25, 2021</b>

 The Wreckage left behind

Whether Donald Trump will be a force or even a continuing focus of attention for very long after this month is unknown.  However, there grew up around him a political and cultural malaise which may persist without his help.  This is not due to anything created by him; he is the epitome of negative leadership.  In effect, he removed a dam which held back a reservoir of antisocial tendencies which have flooded the landscape.  His effect on the country was epitomized by the mob scene at the Capitol on January 6.   

There are numerous manifestations of the Trump disorder.

1. Stupidity of opinion leaders

There really is no other way to describe the statements and attitudes of some of Trump’s defenders, including lawyers who have served him in one capacity or another.  L. Lin Wood hinted at armed rebellion,  calling on the soon-to-be-former-president’s supporters to “stock up on Second Amendment supplies.”¹  Last year Joseph DiGenova was more explicit:  he advised us to buy guns because we “are in a civil war.” He declared that there would be no “civil discourse in this country for the foreseeable future;”² certainly there will be none by him.  Lest anyone think that he had come to his senses, he offered this in late November: "Anybody who thinks the election went well, like that idiot Krebs who used to be the head of cybersecurity. That guy is a class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot."³  DiGenova and Wood are embarrassments not only to the legal profession, but to the educational system; Trump uncovered quite a few of those.

Sidney Powell, although ousted from the elite Trump team led by — more examples— Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, turned up on Lou Dobbs’ show to agree with him that “this president has to take, I believe, drastic action, dramatic action to make certain that the integrity of this election is understood or lack of it, the crimes that have been committed against him and the American people.”  Picking up on Dobbs’ compliant about the failure of the Justice Department to uncover imaginary fraud, she sad: “ I'm about to think the entire FBI and the entire Department of Justice need to be hosed out with Chlorox [sic] and fire hoses.”⁴ 

The following day, Dobbs decided that Attorney General William Barr, having failed to find all of that alleged fraud, was part of the “deep state” who “joined in with the radical Dems.” Referring to some charge or other about vote tallying, Dobbs wondered: “Could it be that antifa was running the election for Democrats in that room?”⁵

One of Rudy’s witnesses, Melissa Carone, not content with her foolishness at a hearing, declared on sarahpalin.com: “The Obamas funded that Wuhan lab to make COVID.”⁶

At the recent pro-Trump rally in DC, Alex Jones, apparently having tuned in to QAnon, bleated this: “We will never back down to the satanic pedophile globalist new world order and their walking-dead reanimated corpse Joe Biden.”⁷

Another speaker at the rally, Republican Congressman-elect Bob Good, offered up the freedom-is- ignorance line.  Addressing a maskless crowd, he declared: “This looks like a group of people that gets it. This is a phony pandemic.”  “It’s great to see your faces, you get it. You stand up against tyranny. Thank you for being here today, thank you for saying ‘no’ to the insanity.”⁸

Incoming Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a QAnon fan, said that Republicans who don’t continue to contest the election results are supporting “the Chinese Communist Party takeover of America.”⁹  (That was one of her more rational comments). Lin Wood, in a series of tweets on January 1, proclaimed the following:   

(1) For two months we have focused on accusing the Democrats of attempting to steal the 20/20 election for Biden. . . . Over time, we have learned that the Democrats were joined by CCP & other foreign countries.

(2) We have also learned that the Globalists like George Soros & the Elitists like Bill Gates were involved. CIA too . . .It all seemed so clear we overlooked one of the main participants in the theft of the election: THE REPUBLICANS.

(3) These groups aspire to the goals of Communism. A ruling elite & an oppressed class of people who exist to serve those in power.

When arrests for treason begin, put Chief Justice John Roberts, VP Mike Pence . . ., & Mitch McConnell . . . at top of list.¹⁰  

2. Conspiracy theories.

The use of convoluted tales to explain, or explain away, developments is not new.  Conspiracy theories long have been a part of American politics, the claims of Senator Joseph McCarthy being a prime example. “False flag” stories have been used to explain away inconvenient events, such as school shootings; more  recently, the Capitol invasion has been so dismissed.  (See below, at footnote 32). The Trump years have seen an explosion of conspiracy mongering, the evidence-free claims of election fraud being the most widespread and the most dangerous.

3. Lying.

Falsehoods in the service of political advantage also hardly are novel, but Trump lied so constantly that he encouraged the same conduct by his aides and supporters.  Consider this, offered by his staff as cover for Trump’s playing golf in Florida while the pandemic raged, after vetoing the defense bill, and after his veto threat put the aid bill in jeopardy and threatened a government shutdown: “As the Holiday season approaches, President Trump will continue to work tirelessly for the American People.”¹¹

Much of what I described as stupidity also falls under this category if we assume, as I think we must, that some of those who say foolish things or spread tales of evil conspiracies realize that their statements are ignorant or false.  Trump has encouraged this tendency to say whatever seems to advance an agenda.  Certainly the repeated, ludicrous claims of election fraud straddle these categories.

In another sense a lie has come to the fore, the pretense of the Republican Party to a principled theory of governance.  The pretense, and its falsity, were described by Stuart Stevens in his recent book: ”Donald Trump did not change the Republican Party as much as he gave the party permission to reveal its true self. . . . We were only now seeing what they always were, freed from any need to pretend.”  “A party rooted in decency and values does not embrace the vicious hate that Donald Trump peddles as patriotism.¹²  I discuss this further under item 9 below.      

4. Public ignorance.

If the leaders are fools, it’s hardly surprising that followers are. At a rally in Michigan on September 10, Trump shamelessly boasted: “We brought you a lot of car plants, Michigan! We brought you a lot of car plants. You know that, right?”  The crowd roared its assent.  As one observer put it, any “member in good standing of the ancient ‘reality-based community’ could have told you that since the coming of Trump no new car plants had been built in Michigan, that since his ascension not less than three thousand Michiganders had lost jobs in the vital auto sector.”¹³  Perhaps Trump was citing alternative facts. 

The crowd’s response illustrates a category of foolishness: willful ignorance.  Millions going maskless is a major example.  Denial of the reality of climate change and human contributions thereto is another.  As with the auto plant issue, people have been misled, but the capacity for credulity or rejection of facts was there to be used.  Anti-vaccine agitation no doubt will arise again as the coronavirus vaccines become widely available.

5. Faux populism.

Trump has tapped into, pandered to, and encouraged feelings on the part of many that their world is disappearing, that they are being left behind, that they are ignored — when not harmed — by ill-defined “elites.” Believing, somehow, that he was on their side, they became his base, or part of it.  As Trump and Republicans have no intention of serving their interests, of making their lives better, this is a false populism, a swindle.  Hacker and Pierson have labeled this “plutocratic populism,” an alliance between “organized money and organized outrage.”¹⁴ 

An abiding question about the popular support for Trump is whether it really is primarily by the  “working class.”  Those who attend his rallies may fit that description, but, assuming that we define the class by income, those who  vote for him do not.  Exit polls show that Biden won the votes of those making under $100,000 per year, and Trump won those making more than that.¹⁵   The makeup of the mob at the Capitol demonstrates that many of his followers do not fit the supposed model.  

6. Tribalism; terror of liberalism.

The success of the populist ploy has been aided by the increasing tribalism of American politics.  It is a factor in the willingness of Trump’s followers to believe, or at least claim, that the election was stolen.  Tribalism has been fed by both sides; it will be interesting to see whether Biden can suppress that tendency among Democrats sufficiently to achieve the unity he aims for. 

A factor in the tribalism of the right, and of Republican success in creating a pseudo-p0pulist revolt, is a resentment of liberalism, and hence of Democrats.  There are legitimate and strong differences of view between conservatives and liberals, but resentment often is disproportionate to real differences and degenerates into claims that liberals are un-American (and communist; how quaint!), a tendency manipulated by the right into irrational fear and hatred.  Trump constantly played the victim, culminating in his claims that the election was stolen, which reenforced a sense of victimhood in the base.  

7. Race-related bias and inequality.

It is no secret that racial bias and inequality persist, the former seemingly embedded in police departments.  Trump refused to acknowledge the problem, demanded “law and order,” denigrated racial-justice protesters and underlined his disdain by insisting that Confederate names remain on military bases. The agitation by white supremacist groups suggest that racial tensions will endure and may even be exacerbated by efforts of the Biden administration to improve conditions for minorities. 

8. Religious delusions.

In a recent column, Michael Gerson aptly noted that supporting and justifying Trump’s attempts to overturn a fair election “has driven some Trump evangelicals to the edge of blasphemous lunacy.”¹⁶  He offered as an example the mumblings of a radio talk-show host named Eric Metaxas, who has said: “This is a fight for everything. God is with us. Jesus is with us in this fight for liberty.”  Also: “Trump will be inaugurated. For the high crimes of trying to throw a U.S. presidential  election, many will go to jail.”       Another example is Guillermo Maldonado, a Florida pastor and Trump supporter, who has advised his congregation not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, but to “believe in divine immunity” instead.  He claims that God warned him about a “satanic global agenda” that is trying to “bring the Christian church under governmental control.”  These evil forces “want to stop President Trump because he’s against that agenda.”¹⁷  

That’s our Donald: defender of the faith.

9. Decline of the Republican party and conservatism: repudiation of democracy; authoritarianism.

In the comments that follow, I will refer to characteristics of Republicans or the Republican Party.  There are exceptions to the negative picture I’ll paint, including election officials who would not be intimidated, members of Congress who rejected plans to manipulate the electoral vote and those who voted to impeach.  There are numerous Never Trumpers and other critics, some of whom, in a sense, aren’t exceptions, having left the Party.  Senator Romney projects honesty and sense, but Senator Ron Johnson, peddling election-fraud theories,¹⁸ Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene babbling about the Biden Crime Family, and the last proposing to impeach President Biden,¹⁹ are more typical.

The decline of the party has been underway for decades.  A <i>Washington Post</i> article in 2002 by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein summed it up: “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”²⁰ Trump’s presidency was made possible and supported by that condition, which grew worse.

A tendency to manipulate elections has been part of the Republican playbook for some time, utilizing such tools as gerrymandering and closure of polling places.  Refusal to accept the recent election result built on that tendency. It is not just partisan fervor or ignorance; it is an abandonment or an active rejection of democracy, of the right of the people to elect their leaders. Beyond a point, long since reached, claims of fraud are an attempt to undermine the system.   

On Dec. 1, Michael Flynn, newly pardoned, put forward a plan in authoritarian form to overturn the election.²¹  He tweeted a link to a lengthy paid advertisement placed in the Washington Times by a group named We The People Convention.  The ad spoke of  “the current threat to our United States by the international and domestic socialist/communist left.”  We face, it said, “well-funded, armed and trained marxists [<i>sic</i>] in ANTIFA and BLM strategically positioned in our major cities acting openly with violence to silence opposition to their anti-American agenda.”²²  Of course, Trump’s loss was due to fraud.   His enemies used “this corrupt and provably fraudulent” election “to illegally and un-constitutionally deny the American people their most sacred honor, right and privilege - which is the right to elect their Representatives!”  Irony obviously is lost on this group. 

What is the remedy for this crime? “When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote.”  Undo a fictional election theft with a real one. 

L. Lin Wood also endorsed the ad, and Sidney Powell retweeted a call for military tribunals and for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.²³     

A Republican Washington State Representative waved the flag of rebellion.  He, declared that “Joe Biden is not now, nor will ever be my President.”  That led him to ponder: “Is the ‘coup’ against the sitting President the start of a second ‘Civil War’ here in the USA?”  Stand up: “This is about America. It’s being destroyed by evildoers. Patriots, will you join with me? I need to know. Lets [sic]  raise the banner.”²⁴  Other GOP state lawmakers endorsed martial law and use of the Insurrection Act to keep Trump in power.²⁵

One of the stranger attempts at overturning the election was a motion by Texas in the Supreme Court for leave to file a complaint designed to overturn the results in other states.  The exact relief requested was that the Court “Declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the  Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.”²⁶  Trump filed a motion to intervene in support of the complaint, and 106 House Republicans submitted a brief in support. Texas rather obviously did not have standing to challenge elections in other states and, on December 11, the Court denied Texas’ motion to file on that ground.²⁷

Stranger yet was a suit filed in a US District Court in Texas by Republican Representative Louie Gohmert of that state, supported by some Republicans from Arizona,  attempting to force Vice President Pence, as presiding officer in the Senate, to throw out Biden electoral votes and, apparently, replace them with self-appointed Trump electors.  Again, not surprisingly, the complaint was dismissed.²⁸ 

Most of the lawsuits alleging fraud were frivolous, but at least they stayed, barely, within the constitutional system.  Efforts to persuade legislatures to appoint Trump electors in place of those pledged to the winner of the election in swing states (i.e., Biden electors) cited a provision of the Constitution, but misused it.  Trump pushed this remedy in Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania.²⁹  His aide Stephen Miller also backed that scheme.³⁰

The same ploy was endorsed in an open letter, signed by many alleged conservatives: It demanded that legislatures in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Michigan “exercise their plenary power under the Constitution and appoint clean slates of electors to the Electoral College to support President Trump.”  Standing alone, that would accomplish nothing.  Therefore, “both the House and Senate should accept only these clean Electoral College slates and object to and reject any competing slates in favor of Vice President Biden from these states.”³¹  No such “clean” slates were submitted by states, so the alternative would be to accept self-appointed electors, as blatant repudiation of an election as could be imagined.

In order for this ploy to succeed, one member of the House and one Senator had to challenge electoral votes from several states.  Representative Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) announced his intention to challenge, and was joined some days later by Senator Josh Hawley (R- Missouri).  Hawley’s political stance had been dubbed “performative populism,” <i>i.e</>., populism for show; his electoral ploy certainly fell into that category.  Eleven more Republican Senators and more than one hundred Republican Representatives then jumped on the anti-democratic bandwagon-to-nowhere. 

This scenario began to play out, but the assault on the Capitol disrupted the session.  Upon resumption,some objectors backed down, but Senator Hawley, apparently still believing that following Trump will lead to the White House, went ahead with his challenge to the Pennsylvania votes, joined by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on the path to nullification. They lost, 92 to 7, a fitting end to another show of pretended indignation at pretended electoral fraud.  The House, where Republican opposition to democracy is stronger, defeated the challenge 282-138.³²

The invasion of the Capitol encouraged by Trump caused a good deal of soul-searching on the part of Republican officeholders, but that appears to have been a temporary phenomenon.  The assault wasn’t enough to test the loyalty those attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee two days later.  “Party members, one after another, said in interviews that the president did not bear any blame for the violence at the Capitol and indicated that they wanted him to continue to play a leading role in the party.”³³  The Oregon Republican Party organization issued this exercise in irresponsible fantasy: “The violence at the Capitol was a ‘false flag’ operation designed to discredit President Trump, his supporters, and all conservative Republicans; this provided the sham motivation to impeach President Trump in order to advance the Democratic goal of seizing total power.”³⁴

10. Disregard for public welfare.    

Republicans have not, for some time, demonstrated any concern for the lives of ordinary people which, of course, makes their populist ploy stunningly dishonest.  Tax cuts for the rich and deregulation are not benefits to the average citizen.  Economic inequality and the concentration of wealth at the top have increased over time, aided by Republican policies.  Tables appended to Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty, demonstrate the changes.  As of 2010, the top 10% of the population by income received 47.9% of total income, the top 1% 1received 19.8% of the total, and the top .1% 9.5%.  The corresponding figures for 1980 were 34.6%, 10.0% and 3.4%.³⁵  Not surprisingly, charts of marginal tax rates for the wealthy show a change in the opposite direction.³⁶  The 2017 tax cuts will make matters worse.

A table showing the full distribution of income further demonstrates the degree of inequality: rounding off the Piketty figures, in 2010, the top 10% received 50% of total income (the top 1% received 20%), the next 40% received 30% of the total, and the bottom 50% received 20%.³⁷

Another measure of the failure of equitable distribution of income is the minimum wage.  In real terms, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.68 (in 2016 dollars). It was last raised in 2009 to $7.25 per hour but, by 2017 had lost about 9.6% of its value to inflation.³⁸  The House passed a bill in 2019 to raise the federal minimum to $15 by 2025. Mitch McConnell responded with the usual excuse: “Research shows that hiking the minimum wage to $15 would kill jobs and depress the economy at a time when it’s thriving for the American people. We are not going to be taking that up in the Senate.”³⁹

Trump and the Republican Senate acted irresponsibility regarding the pandemic. Trump’s principal contributions have been inaction, in which he was joined by some Republican governors, combined with dangerously inane suggestions. As part of his flirtation with herd immunity as a substitute for useful action, Trump reportedly mused: “Why don’t we let this wash over the country?”  In other words let the coronavirus spread unchecked.  As Dr. Fauci pointed out, many would die.⁴⁰  As I noted earlier, Senator Rand Paul and a Republican state representative also toyed with that “solution.”       A tragic part of Trump’s legacy is the death toll from covid, which passed 400,000 on his last full day in office.  To be sure, he could not have prevented all of the deaths, but sensible, responsible attention to the crisis could have saved many, especially if he had set the right example, rather than reenforcing strong tendencies toward dangerous behavior.

For months, the Republican Senate also responded to the coronavirus crisis with inaction, then demonstrated its policy priorities during debates in December on the aid bill by demanding an employer-liability shield and a meal/entertainment deduction for businesses, while refusing to aid struggling states and cities.  No doubt this approach to lawmaking would have persisted had the Republicans retained a majority, and may still do so through obstruction.

The Party had nothing left but floundering attempts to overturn the election.  It has no principles, not even a program other than pandering to the Trump base while serving the interests of the rich.

11. Political violence; mob rule.

The potential for violence in the streets has been with us for a long time due to political polarization and the ready availability of guns, but tribalism and supremacist impulses have made it far worse.  Violence, occupation and vandalism are not unknown to demonstrations on the left, but it is primarily on the right that volence exists as a deliberate tactic and as an automatic reaction.  Louie Gohmert provided an example of the reaction; after the District Court dismissed his complaint he, in keeping with the right-wing mood, pronounced: “Basically, in effect, the ruling would be that you got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM (Black Lives Matter).”⁴¹ Steve Bannon mused about putting the heads of FBI Director Christopher Wray and Dr. Anthony Fauci on pikes “as a warning to federal bureaucrats.”⁴²       The gathering of armed protesters outside the home of the Michigan Secretary of State, protesting non-existent fraud, is an example of the tactic. Proud Boys prowling Washington DC was a more dangerous manifestation, as was a protest in Olympia, Washington; several people were stabbed in DC, one shot in Olympia.  

Trump encouraged violent, anarchic behavior by his claim of a rigged election — which prompted threats to election workers — and more directly by some of his comments, such as calling for followers to “liberate” states which annoyed him and, more recently, encouraging protests against the counting of electoral votes, tweeting on Dec. 19: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6^th. Be there, will be wild!”⁴³  That succeeded, bringing protesters to Washington who, with Trump’s further encouragement in his speech to the crowd, became a mob which invaded the Capitol.     

There may be more such events. The Capitol mob may have been Trump fans but, even if he fades away in disgrace, there will be many ready to carry on the destruction.  The mob, and the base generally, seem to epitomize the line from an old movie: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”  Never mind whether the grievances are real; the heart of Trumpism is simply grievance — real, exaggerated or imaginary — and increasingly it is accompanied by violence..

12. Repudiation of the Union.

The Civil War did not end thoughts of disunion.  Several states have taken a step in that direction by toying with nullification of federal laws. The League of the South is a “Southern nationalist organization . . . whose ultimate goal is ‘a free and independent Southern republic’.“⁴⁴ Refusal by Republicans and by Trump’s fans to accept the result of the election taps into this secessionist mood, shown by the waving of Confederate flags at protests, including the occupation of the Capitol, and by explicit threats.  After the Supreme Court rejected the ploy by Texas, talk of secession surfaced.  Among those suggesting it was Texas GOP Chairman Allen West, who  said that “perhaps” it’s time for “law-abiding states to bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”⁴⁵  A Republican Texas state representative announced that he is “committing to file legislation this session that will allow a referendum to give Texans a vote for the State of Texas to reassert its status as an independent nation.”⁴⁶  The chairman of the Wyoming Republican Party mused: “Many of these Western states have the ability to be self-reliant, and we’re keeping eyes on Texas too, and their consideration of possible secession.”⁴⁷  If this gained traction, it would be the final repudiation of its history, tradition and character by the party of Lincoln.

<br>__________________

<br>1. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lin-wood-firearms-stock-up-trump_n_5fd8124ac5b 62f31c1ffb41d

<br>2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-america-talk-turns-to-something-unspoken- for-150- years-civil-war/2019/02/28/b3733af8-3ae4-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html? utm_term =.c87d3f657d86

<br>3 https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/politics/joe-digenova-attorney-trump-campaign-chris-krebs-violence/ index.html

<br>4. www.mediamatters.org/lou-dobbs/lou-dobbs-urges-trump-take-drastic-action-over-alleged- election-fraud

<br>5. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-lou-dobbs-trump-election_n_5fc94c2cc5b68691fc 380d38

<br>6 https://archive.is/e6228

<br>7 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-jones-joe-biden-trump-rally_n_5fd625fbc5b62f31 c1fe0b72

<br>8. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bob-good-congressman-elect-pandemic-phony-trump-lrally_n_5fd58c8 bc5b6218b42e9c2949g

<br>9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/16/trump-mcconnell-election-biden-president/?utm_ campaign=wp_politics_am&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_politics

<br>10. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/l-lin-wood-pence-execution-treason_n_5fef9625c5b6fd33110 de8de

<br>11. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-golfs-in-florida-while-covid-relief-hangs-in-the-balance_n_ 5fe6268bc5b6ff747980ffea

<br>12 It Was All a Lie, pp. 199, 201

<br>13. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/11/19/the-con-he-rode-in-on/

<br>14. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/07/republican-party-uses-populist- politics-advance-plutocratic-policy/

<br>15. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html

<br>16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/prominent-evangelicals-are-directing- trumps-sinking-ship-that-feeds-doubts-about-religion/2020/12/07/5ad8eb0c-38c3-11eb- 9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2d64530%2F5fcfadae9d2fda0efb8267bd%2F5b65de00ade4e2779564ed94%2F18%2F69%2F5fcfadae9d2fda0efb8267bd

<br>17.  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/guillermo-maldonado-covid-19-vaccine-evangelicals _n_5fcfef83c5b 6787f2a9b8cc3

<br>18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/16/weve-finally-identified-source-fraud-2020-election-its-ron-johnson/

<br>19. https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/marjorie-green/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign= 6366

<br>20. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

<br>21. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-flynn-martial-law-new-election_n_5fc7d3e6c5b6f3 fe59724a45

<br>22. https://wethepeopleconvention.org/articles/WTPC-Urges-Limited-Martial-Law

<br>23 https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/right-wing-media-figures-call-trump-use-military-overturn-election

<br>24. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/prepare-for-war-a-local-gop-official-goes-all-in- with-election-conspiracy-theories/

<br>25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/16/north-carolina-republican-trump-insurrection/ ?utm_campaign=wp_politics_am&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_politics

<br>26. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/ SCOTUSFiling.pdf

<br>27. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf26

<br>28. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/texas-judge-dismisses-ghomert-suit-against-aimed- overturning-election-n1252658

<br>29. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-overturn-pennsylvania-2020-election_n_5fceebf0c5b63 a15345453e727

<br>30. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-miller-alternate-elector-fox-friends_n_5fd77e00c5b 62f31c1ff0b9f

<br>31. conservativeactionproject.com/conservatives-call-on-state-legislators-to-appoint-new-electors-in-accordance-with-the-constitution/

<br>32. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/electoral-vote

<br>33. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/trump-republican-national-committee.html?action= click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

<br>34. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/26/oregon-republican-false-flag- capitol/

<br>35.  http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014FiguresTablesSuppLinks.pdf. Table S 8.2

<br>36. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014FiguresTablesLinks.pdf. Figure 14.1

<br>37. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014FiguresTablesLinks.pdf. Table 7.3, column 3 (High Inequality)

<br>38. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/

<br>39. https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1151885990862237697?s=12

<br>40. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-task-forces-coronavirus-pandemic/2020/04/11/5cc5a 30c-7a77-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html

<br>41. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pence-louis-gohmert-lawsuit-tossed-out_n_ 5feffffcc5b6fd33110e0652

<br>42. https://www.mediamatters.org/steve-bannon/steve-bannon-and-his-co-host-discuss-beheading-dr-anthony-fauci-and-fbi-director

<br>43. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-inciting-chaos-on-jan-6-both-in- and-outside-the-capitol/2020/12/30/7c4196b0-4ad2-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html

<br>44. https://leagueofthesouth.com/

<br>45. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-secession-supreme-court-election-case-allen-west_n_5fd42d47c 5b62f31c1fd43a3

<br>46. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/529713-texas-lawmaker-to-file-bill- calling-for-vote-on-secession-from

<br>47. https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-gop-chair-western- states-paying-attention-to-texas-effort-to-secede/article_0f06d7df-6351-555e-89fc-11e2f4841e31.html

<b>November 24, 2020</b> 

<u>Have we touched bottom?</u>

It would be pleasant, and soul-refreshing, to be able to think about something other than politics, other than Trump.  Unfortunately, that’s about like not thinking of wind in the midst of a hurricane.  Even after Trump is ushered out of the White House, he’ll hover over us, in person or through the destructive movement of which he became the symbol.

Twice before I have speculated as to how low Trumpism could go, reacting to the cruelty of the anti-immigration policy of separating children from parents, then the irresponsible arguments of his lawyers and the craven behavior of his Senate enablers during the impeachment trial.  Not surprisingly, Trump and his minions have set a third benchmark, this time undermining democratic government by refusing to accept the result of the election and disrupting the transition.

Donald Trump is such a pathetic figure that one could feel sorry for him if he didn’t cause so much suffering.  He cannot face having lost the election, in part because the Presidency protects him from some of his numerous legal challenges, but partly because he is afraid of being labeled a loser.  He may, at some depth, know that he is one.  His reputation for business success was partly an illusion, given multiple bankruptcies, and to the extent it was real, it depended on help from his father.  As the saying goes, he wasn’t really a tycoon; he just played one on television.  His real success was — as he would put it — as a star, in that sham, <i>The Apprentice</i>. Similarly, he wasn’t really a president; he just played that part, bragging about the ratings for his news conferences.  He was in his element at rallies, where he was a star again.  All of this reminds me of a book title, <i>President Reagan: the Role of a Lifetime</i>.¹  However, Ronald Reagan, however one ranks him, was in an entirely different class from the incumbent player.

Trump won the Presidency four years ago only because of our anti-democratic electoral system.  He lost the popular vote by 2.8 million, an embarrassment so great that he was forced to dream up theories of fraud to explain it.  Now, having lost the electoral vote, and the popular by a larger margin, he again claims fraud and searches for ways to parlay that baseless claim into victory.

The most extreme gambit was described November 19 on Fox, by one of his attorneys, Sidney Powell: the election “in all the swing states should be overturned, and the legislatures should make sure that the electors are selected for Trump.”²  His recent meeting with Michigan lawmakers may have been an attempt to push that plan.  If so, it failed.  It probably will fail in other states as well, but the mere fact that it has been considered marks another milestone on the road toward the destruction of democracy.

Consistency is not Ms. Powell’s strong suit (nor, to be fair to her, is it of the man she attempts to serve and protect).  Also on November 19, at a press conference with Rudy Giuliani, she asserted that “President Trump won by a landslide.”³  However, in that same meeting she  claimed this: “What we are really dealing with here and uncovering more by the day is the massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba and likely China and the interference with our elections here in the United States.”  If Trump won decisively, why demand that legislatures overturn the election and why trot out a nutty theory to explain how Biden won unfairly?  Perhaps she means that Trump would have won —of course by a landslide — if not for the massive conspiracy, a conspiracy so obviously imaginary that she must fall back on communists as the bad guys.

Giuliani added to the fun by seeming to assert that votes somehow were counted in Germany and Spain and by claiming that a truckload of (no doubt fraudulent) ballots mysteriously appeared at a Detroit election center at 4:30 a.m.

Ms. Powell’s comments, at the press conference and later, apparently crossed a line heretofore invisible in a campaign built on fantasy and falsehood.  Giuliani and  Jenna Ellis, Trump campaign “senior legal adviser,” disowned Ms. Powell on November 22.  She is, according to them, “not a member of the Trump Legal Team,⁴ even though she had been so described by Trump and was introduced as such by Giuliani, in Ms. Ellis’ presence, at the press conference.⁵  She is also “not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity;” she is merely “practicing law on her own,” but somehow was allowed to attend the press conference and speak at length.  True, Ms. Powell later attacked the Republican Governor of Georgia, but Trump also criticized his handling of the election.  Ms. Ellis is still on the team despite having called Trump an idiot and denounced his supporters for not caring that he was an "unethical, corrupt, lying, criminal, dirtbag."⁶  That was in 2016; perhaps there is a statute of limitations.

Trump’s refusal to admit defeat may soothe his bruised ego, but it led to his administration’s failure to cooperate in the transition.  That underscored the irresponsibility which has characterized his term of office by, among other effects, making it more difficult to combat the pandemic.

To the extent that he acknowledges his loss, his reaction is to lash out, firing officials who annoy him, and ordering or considering dangerous actions.  He sacked Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the Department of Homeland Security, who had declared the election free of fraud, and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.  Despite the turmoil that caused in the Defense Department, Trump considered an attack on Iran and ordered troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bowing to reality, Emily Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, now has announced that the transition may begin.  Trump, still straddling his world and the real one, tweeted: “Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.”  Emily says it was her idea, not his.⁷

All of this thrashing about may be a challenge to the loyalty and gullibility of the base, but they probably are up to the task.  Even the Powell theories may survive her downfall.

Whatever tendency toward tribalism existed before 2016, however far the Republican Party had fallen  by then, the dire situation we now find ourselves in would not have developed, nor would disunion have reached its present dimensions, had it not been for Trump.  Perhaps he can console himself with that achievement as his legacy.

<br>____________________________

<br>1. Lou Cannon (1991)

<br>2. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-election-overturn-biden_n_5fb73d38c5b618e45b46baca

<br>3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/fact-checking-craziest-news-conference-trump- presidency/?utm_campaign=wp_fact_checker&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_fact&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2ce3707%2F5fb804409d2 fda0efb6e8504% 2F5b65de00ade4e 2779564ed94%2F31%2F45%2F285070d1b362510abc7aa221a64d66bc

<br>4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/22/giuliani-releases-statement-distancing-trump- campaign-lawyer-sidney-powell/?utm_campaign=wp_politics_am&utm_medium=email&utm_source= newsletter&wpisrc=nl_politics

<br>5. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sidney-powell-trump-legal-team-disavows-association/

<br>6. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/politics/kfile-jenna-ellis-2016-trump-comments/index.html

<br>7. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/23/us/joe-biden-trump#gsa-biden-emily-murphy

---

¹

<b>November 1, 2020</b>

<u>A mixed but troubling picture

One way to evaluate the Supreme Court’s performance is to rank its decisions as liberal or conservative.  The debate over the replacement of Justice Ginsburg proceeded along those lines, and a scholarly appraisal of recent decisions, written before the issue of a replacement arose, largely analyzed them in those terms.  I’ll look at that before attempting a different approach.

In the August 20 issue of <i>The New York Review of Books</i>,¹ David Cole found that “the Court’s term was much less conservative than anyone had expected . . , declaring that federal civil rights law bars LGBTQ discrimination, striking down a Louisiana restriction on abortion, and invalidating President Trump’s effort to rescind deportation protection and work authorization from ‘Dreamers’. . .”  Also, the Court held that “about half of Oklahoma belonged to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation for purposes of authority to prosecute Native American defendants.”  (There had been other, earlier, liberal results, including the granting of constitutional protection to same-sex marriage²).

The Court went both ways on efforts to see Trump’s financial records, holding that the  Manhattan District Attorney had authority to pursue the president’s personal and business financial records, but that Congressional subpoenas for Trump records did not take into account the separation of powers.  As noted below, I don’t think that the Court always applies that rule to itself.

On the conservative side the Court “restricted immigrants’ rights to judicial review of deportation orders, and required states to fund scholarships for religious schools if they funded secular schools. It excused Catholic schools from abiding by civil rights laws in hiring and firing teachers who provide religious instruction, and upheld President Trump’s order permitting employers to deny their employees contraceptive coverage.”

On October 13 the Court added another decision to the conservative list, in effect terminating the census count.³  That, as <i>The New York Times</i> reported,⁴ “would only worsen existing undercounts of the people census workers have had the most trouble reaching, including those in racial minority groups, poor people and young people,” i.e., likely Democratic voters.

Professor Cole added: “in a series of unexplained or barely explained decisions reviewing requests for emergency stays of lower court orders, the Court four times ruled against efforts to protect voting rights, and twice cleared the way for federal executions by summarily overruling lower courts that had identified serious legal questions that still needed to be resolved.”  (More recent rulings on voting have gone both ways.)  Those issues and contraceptive coverage also appear in the cases discussed below).

My reaction to the Court’s work, over a period of years, is based primarily on its record as to normal and proper principles of adjudication. The list that follows isn’t neutral or representative of all of the  Court’s work; I have selected decisions in which the Court failed to adhere to those principles.  However, there are enough of them to reveal, I think, a Court which is not functioning well. (The results in these cases also were wrong on the merits, and all tilted to the right).

What follows is a brief summary; the decisions referred to below were discussed in greater detail in previous posts, which are noted.  My comments refer to decisions of the Roberts Court or, in the case of item 1, its intellectual predecessor.  I’ve identified the author of the lead opinion in each case.

1.  Engaging in partisan politics.   

In <i>Bush v. Gore</i>,⁵ the Court decided the 2000 election by halting recounts in Florida, the electoral votes of which would determine the election, in the process overruling the State Supreme Court, which had directed the recount.  By doing so, it gave the presidency to George W. Bush, who had lost the national popular vote by 543,895 but, after the recount was halted, won Florida by 537, and the electoral vote 271 to 266.  Although the <i>per Curium</i> opinion signaled its departure from precedent by noting that ”[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances,” and although the decision has not, until now, been relied upon, it may be resuscitated.  In a concurring opinion last week, in a case which produced another negative result regarding the counting of ballots⁶, Justice Kavanaugh cited <i>Bush v. Gore</i> in a way which may portend similar Supreme Court intervention in this year’s election.  Add  that three members of the Court — Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett —worked for the Bush forces during the 2000 controversy⁷, and that decision looms larger.

2.  Going beyond the issues presented.  

One basic principle of adjudication is that a decision should not be based on an issue which has not been briefed and argued by the parties; otherwise, they have no opportunity to address matters the Court may find determinative.  The Court violated that rule in <i>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i>.⁸  If that is done innocently, it is a failure by the court to do justice, as an unfair and possibly erroneous result may be reached.  If it is done intentionally, it reveals that the court has an agenda which it needs a case to serve.  <i>Citizens United</i> almost certainly falls into the latter category.

 Some opinions are transparent attempts to make a case which does not exist legitimately. <i>Citizens  United</i> is an example; it substituted a parade of hypothetical evils for evidence.

3.  Misinterpreting the Constitution.

The Roberts Court has been inventive in its reading of the Constitution.  Possibly the most egregious example is <i>Heller v. District of Columbia</i>.⁹  In that decision, the Second Amendment was rewritten: its limiting reference to militia was expunged, and unmentioned uses for firearms were inserted and thereby given Constitutional protection.

<i>Shelby County v. Holder</i> ¹⁰ struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.  The Court relied on the Tenth Amendment (after misstating it) to find that Congress did not have power to treat states differently regarding voting procedures, ignoring the grant of authority to Congress under the Fifteenth Amendment, which deals, as the Tenth does not, with voting rights.

<i>National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius</i>,¹¹ the Obamacare decision, is odd in more than one respect, but its significance here is that it misinterprets, and limits, the Commerce Clause.

5.  Misuse of precedent.

Several problems exist; the first is that precedent has been ignored.  <i>Heller</i>, to add to its sins, is an example; it brushed aside <i>United States v. Miller</i>, which had relied on the inconvenient reference to militias.

The second problem is that, instead of applying the holdings in prior cases, which is the legitimate form of precedent, the Court has relied on quotes from majority opinions which are not necessary to the holding, <i>i.e., obiter dicta</i> or, worse, from dissenting opinions.¹²  As Justice Stevens put it in <i>Citizens United</i>, “the majority opinion is essentially an amalgamation of  resuscitated dissents."

Also, the holdings of prior opinions have been misstated or misused.  In <i>McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission</i>¹³, involving campaign contributions, the Court cited <i>Sable Communications of California v. FCC</i>,¹⁴ which didn’t involve campaign spending or contributions, or money in any way. It dealt with regulating content — actual speech — and there is nothing in <i>McCutcheon</i> about regulating content.

In <i>Sebelius</i>, the Court quoted a rule recited in <i>Maryland v. Wirtz</i> as authority; however, <i>Wirtz</i> didn’t follow that rule.  As a bonus, the opinion misconstrued a quote from <i>The Federalist Papers</i>.

<i>Shelby</i> cited, in support of a theory of state sovereignty, <i>United States v. Louisiana</i> (1960), in which the state asserted sovereignty as a defense to a claim by the federal government (and lost), and <i>Texas v. White</i> (1869), which referred to state sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation, hardly relevant.  The <i>Shelby</i> opinion also claimed: "Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation ‘was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority:’ Coyle v. Smith" even though, as it acknowledged, <i>Coyle</i> concerned a different issue, the admission of new States, and <i>South Carolina v. Katzenbach</i> (1966) limited the principle of equality to that context.

<i>McDonald v. Chicago</i>¹⁵ applied the Second Amendment to the states, based on <i>Heller</i>, the holding of which is as follows: “the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."  Instead, McDonald claimed this:“Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller . . . , we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. . . ."  Later, it was somewhat closer to the mark, stating that <i>Heller</i> established “a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home," but that still spreads gun rights far and wide, limited only by an undefined concept of “lawful purpose.” The <i>Heller</i> opinion encouraged such mis-construction by stating that various largely irrelevant sources “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”  The loose language of both opinions is a gift to the gun lobby.

6. Substituting the Court’s opinion for Congress’ findings.

In <i>Shelby</i>, the Court ignored Congress’ findings of fact, thereby invalidating part of the Voting Rights Act.  Its excuse was that those findings were obsolete, although only seven years old.  In effect, the Court held that it had the authority to approve or disapprove of any finding of fact by Congress, a departure from basic practice, and an incursion into the separation of powers.

The Court’s arrogance was revealed also in <i>McCutcheon</i>: “[W]e do not doubt the compelling nature of the ‘collective’ interest in preventing corruption in the electoral process. But we permit [!] Congress to pursue that interest only so long as it does not unnecessarily infringe an individual’s right to freedom of speech . . . ."  Allegedly protecting First Amendment rights, the Court will decide whether any given law, enacted by the people’s representatives, is inconsistent with the Court’s political outlook which, in <i>McCutcheon</i>,  had less regard for the “collective” than for those who can spend money on elections.

7.  Misinterpreting statutes.

In general, the Court doesn’t think much of Congress’ ability to draft statutes, but if the Court wanted to ignore a statute, the one involved in <i>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</i>¹⁶ would have been the perfect candidate, as it made little sense.  Instead, the Court rewrote it to suit its aim, which was to allow a corporation to avoid providing contraceptive coverage — as required by regulations under the Affordable Care Act — as part of its health care plan for employees.   Along the way, it confused corporations and owners, granted corporations religious rights, and found that the possible use of a contraceptive by a third party (an employee) violated the owners’ and corporation’s religious beliefs, or maybe it was their “exercise of religion.”

8. Avoiding the issue.

In <i>Rucho v. Common Cause,</i>¹⁷ the Court chose not to interfere with partisan gerrymandering.  That probably should not have been a surprise; the Court already had declared, in Shelby, its lack of interest in protecting the right to vote.  It excused its inaction in part by confusing the terms “political” and “partisan,” allowing it to protect partisan motivation by pretending it was merely part of a valid political process.  It cited <i>Baker v. Carr</i>¹⁸ for the proposition that a “political question” is non-justiciable; however, <i>Baker</i>, which established the one-person, one-vote principle, did not apply that rule.

9.  Misplaced deference to views of the founding era.

<i>Bucklew v. Precythe</i>¹⁹ denied a challenge to a state’s method of execution; the prisoner’s claim was that, because of his  medical condition, that method would cause great suffering.  The Court held against him, applying the standards of the Eighteenth Century regarding cruelty and ignoring the principle that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," a principle reaffirmed in 2002, in another Eighth Amendment death penalty case.²⁰  The <i>Bucklew</i> opinion is originalism run riot.

As a result of these dubious decisions, we have a troubling attitude toward elections, and bad law on money in politics, gun control, voting rights and state sovereignty, gerrymandering, the Commerce Clause, religious rights of corporations and the death penalty.    It may get worse.

¹ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/08/20/roberts-court-declarations-independence/

² Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

³ Ross v. National Urban League, 592 U. S. ____ (2020)

⁴ https://www.nytimes.com/article/census-supreme-court-ruling.html

⁵ 531 U.S. 98 (2000). My comments are scattered; see 8/10/13.  The opinion was per Curium; of the majority, only  Justice Thomas still is on the Court.  

⁶ Democratic National Committee v Wisconsin State Legislature

⁷ https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts- supreme-court/index.html 

⁸ Kennedy; 558 U.S. 310 (2010); discussed on 2/6/10.

⁹ Scalia; 554 U.S. 570 (2008); 7/6/08

¹⁰  Roberts;  570 U.S. 529 (2013); 7/1/13, 2/24/16, 10/8/19

¹¹ Roberts; 567 U.S. 519 (2012); 7/6/12, 11/15/15

¹² I discussed this on 5/13/14 in connection with McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

¹³ Roberts; 572 U.S. 185 (2014); 5/13/14

¹⁴ 492 U. S. 115 (1989)

¹⁵ Alito; 561 U.S. 742 (2010); 7/11/16

¹⁶ Alito;  573 U.S. 682 (2014); 7/15/14

¹⁷ Roberts, 588 U.S. ___ (2019); 10/8/19

¹⁸ 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962)

¹⁹ Gorsuch; 583 US __ (2019); 4/13/19

²⁰ Atkins v. Virginia, 536 US 304 (2002)

October 7, 2020  

Herd immunity to clear thinking

President Trump made a mangled reference to herd immunity as a strategy for defeating the pandemic.  Others, including Senator Rand Paul, also have proposed that theory.  It may be for some, such as Senator Paul, a libertarian position but, with or without that philosophical gloss, its popularity has less to do with its viability as a method of control than with its usefulness as an excuse for avoiding sensible measures, such as masks, distancing and shutdowns.  A Republican State Senator was semi-candid about what that theory contemplates, more people infected: “I’m not as concerned as much as the number of cases, in fact quite honestly, I want to see more people because we start reaching an immunity as more people have it and get through it.”¹  Will they all “get through it?”  Let’s not think about that. 

An aspect of the herd mentality is an inability to grasp simple concepts.  An example is a tweet by DeAnna Lorraine, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress: “Does anyone else find it odd that no prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on?”  Could it be that Democrats are following medical advice?  That, of course, is not an acceptable answer, as it would violate the tribal doctrine that masks and other precautions are just more damned liberal bullying.  There must be a plot.

There are those who refuse to wear masks because they are symbols of political correctness or, as an anti-mask lawsuit put it, a “virtue signal.”  Some, possibly sincerely but inanely, oppose wearing masks because it restricts their freedom, thereby defining that concept as the ability to do anything one wants regardless of consequences.  That is a definition of freedom which would make civilized society impossible which, I sometimes think, is the true agenda of some on the right. 

Some make no effort to think, demonstrating what might be described as herd stupidity.  Perhaps inspired by Trump’s what-me-worry rallies, many have gathered and partied in a manner incredibly dangerous to self and others.      

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) adopted a blithely dismissive position toward the pandemic: it’s no big deal and we can’t do anything about it anyway.  There is “a level of unjustifiable hysteria” about the virus, he said; after all, it has only, as of October 7, infected a little over 7,567,800 Americans, (42,553 the day before), and killed 211,453 (721 the day before).²  In any case, it’s hopeless: “Why do we think we actually can stop the progression of a contagious disease?”³

Trump continues to demonstrate his aversion to science, in this case medical.  After being infected and hospitalized, he returned to the White House prematurely, still probably carrying contagion, removed his mask and mingled with those of his staff not already infected and quarantined.  The White House, rather than being the source of leadership, has become a microcosm of the national disaster. 

All this anti-intellectualism reminds me of an exchange in Inherit the Wind. Matthew Harrison Brady, when faced with inconsistencies in a literal interpretation of the Bible, said: "I do not think about things I do not think about." Henry Drummond responded: "Do you ever think about things that you do think about?"

<br>1 https://www.bamapolitics.com/54520/al-sen-del-marsh-says-he-wants-more-covid-19-cases-in-order-to-get- immunity-from-virus/

<br>2. https://www.bamapolitics.com/54520/al-sen-del-marsh-says-he-wants-more-covid-19-cases-in-order-to-get- immunity-from-virus/

<br>3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-coronavrius-republicans-election/2020/10/05/fdc570ea-071a-11eb-a166-dc429b380d10_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_ medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2. washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2c0000d%2F5f7c94f19d2fda0efb40c816%2F5b65de00ade 4e2779564ed94%2F24%2F62%2F285070d1b362510abc7aa221a64d66bcy-from-virus/

 

 

September 30, 2020

Rage

Bob Woodward’s latest book about Donald Trump as President gives some examples of his angry  outbursts, one occasion described as “ranting and raving” by one on the scene.  The book’s title, Rage, perfectly describes Trump’s out-of-control behavior at the first debate.  If there had been any doubt that the prospect of losing the election terrifies him, it evaporated during that performance.

Commentary on the debate has been uniformly negative about Trump, but oddly varied regarding Biden.  My first impression was that he should have been less combative, interrupted less often and displayed more dignity but, on reflection, realized that was to some degree unrealistic.  Trump had asserted that Biden was, in effect, senile (an exercise in projection?), calling him “Sleepy Joe.”  Biden needed to crush that claim, and did.  Some of the commentators missed that point; at the other extreme, one somehow found that Biden had been too passive.

There had been suggestions, by Biden among others, that the debate be fact-checked in real time.  Given Trump’s continued lying, that would be a good idea.  Setting the record straight the day after, or even the hour after, has less impact.  For most voters, immediate impressions are all, and allowing Trump to get away with lies lends him undeserved aid.  Biden and the moderator could do only so much in that line, given the restraints of time and format and Trump’s continuous interruptions.

There is a tendency to treat the debates as contests, declaring winners and losers rather than analyzing arguments or testing knowledge.  This reflects and reenforces the public reaction which relies on general impressions.  Applying that superficial test, commentators — and, allegedly, voters — gave Biden only a slight edge; however, that, apparently was considered enough of a win for him, as he leads in the polls.  It doesn’t seem likely that Trump persuaded any undecided voters to move his way, which may be the point that the horse-race analysis intends to make.

The most troublesome aspect of Trump’s bluster, on and off the debate stage, is the threat, implied by his panic, but also expressed, that there will be interference in the election and refusal to accept an adverse result. Telling the Proud Boys to “stand by” was an unsubtle hint.  

We have reached one of the low points in this nation’s history, and it’s by no means clear that the path  leads upward from here.

September 22, 2020

More institutions

I was reminded that there are institutions in need of repair other than the Supreme Court and the ones I discussed on September 11.   Respect for  Justice Ginsburg should postpone  discussion of the Court.

1.  The news media

In a way, it’s difficult to evaluate the news media, because the nature and even definition of those entities is in flux. Fox no longer can be grouped with legitimate news organizations, having become a right-wing propaganda outlet.  Some, such as Facebook, would not qualify  by any normal definition, but are the prime source of information for far too many.  Various web sites scatter tales of conspiracies so ridiculous that the proper response would be laughter, but many swallow the bile.  In a sense, the sad state of information dissemination brings us back to the sad state of the people, of their political and cultural ignorance and bias. 

However, let’s look at the mainstream media, which still have standards and a sense of responsibility.  The fact that Trump refers to them as enemies of the people demonstrates that they are paying attention to his failings and, to some degree, challenging them.  I am most familiar with The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Seattle Times and NBC-TV, so my comments will refer to them.

As I’ve noted before, all of them, notably NBC, have been reluctant to mention climate change, even when reporting extreme weather.  The western forest fires have forced some departure from that policy, but more direct, critical attention is required.

Another area in which there has been some change is the usual tendency of news reports to create false equivalence by presenting nonsense as sensible comment, in an attempt to achieve balance (or avoid attacks). The Trump administration is so vile, corrupt and incompetent that news articles, notably in The New York Times, often have been telling it like it is. 

However, an example, although a marginal one, of the more usual approach appeared in The Seattle Times on Sunday.  A long front-page article profiled the Republican candidate for Governor, Loren Culp.  He is police chief of Republic, a town of about 1,300 people. (Due to budget cuts, Culp is now the entire police force).

The article notes many negative aspects of Culp’s views, actions or associations.  However, it in effect brings him into the mainstream and confers respectability by describing him as “a proud conservative.”  He is, more accurately, a right-wing extremist.  (The article notes that “Culp has maintained associations with some controversial far-right organizations.”)  

Culp refused to enforce the gun-control mandate of  Initiative 1639.  He also opposes a ban on bump stocks: “I don’t see where the government gets the power to ban any attachment to my car, or an attachment to my rifle.”  He “says government should be small and mostly butt out of people’s lives,” leading him to oppose “mandatory mask orders and shutdowns of businesses meant to slow the spread of COVID-19.”  His campaign has been  “built on rallies across the state flouting COVID-19 restrictions.” 

Culp’s campaign paid $7,000 in June, for reasons not clear, to Peter Diaz, founder of a group called American Wolf, which “has sent armed civilians to act as self-appointed, pro-law-enforcement ‘peacekeepers’ at protests against racism and policing.” Elsewhere American Wolf was described as an “armed far right group” which “has aggressively inserted itself in a quasi-policing capacity into protests addressing the murder of George Floyd.”¹

Use of the “proud conservative” label might be justified on the ground that conservatism has fallen so far that Culp legitimately can be so described.  (An indication that this may be so is an ad by Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., which claims she’s “more conservative than Attila the Hun.” She has a “100% Trump voting record.”)² However, I think that any genuine conservative would be offended by the suggestion.   

The Culp article leads us to another institution in serious need of reform.

2. Law enforcement agencies

There is a group known as the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) which, among other odd views, has an inflated notion of the authority of sheriffs.  It asserts: “Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff” “will not be allowed or tolerated.”  It opposes gun control; also among the acts which will not be allowed or tolerated is “Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.”³ It opposes federal ownership of land, demanding that it be transferred to the states. 

The opposition to gun control, while dangerously illogical for a law enforcement agency, is not unusual.  Thirteen Washington sheriffs announced that they would not enforce the control provisions of Initiative 1639.  As noted, Loren Culp takes that view, for which, the Times reported, he was named “Police Chief of the Decade” last year by the CSPOA.

The recent killings and other assaults on blacks have exposed racism and other serious flaws in police departments, which must be addressed and resolved. Greater federal oversight probably is necessary, although any meaningful effort along that line must await another administration.  The foolish defunding reaction won’t solve the problem.

3.  Our health care system

One of Trump’s lies, in this case a continuing fraud, is that he will replace the Affordable Care Act with something “better.”  (The mere fact that it is called Obamacare would be enough to persuade Trump to oppose it). After four years, nothing has appeared. 

Meanwhile — in the midst of a heath crisis — he supports an effort to persuade the Supreme Court to find the ACA unconstitutional.  This is another example of the tendency by Trump and company to do or say things which, in a rational world, would be self-destructive.  As a Republican strategist put it, it’s “pretty dumb to be talking about how we need to repeal Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic.”⁴  This ploy is so irresponsible and harmful that eyes finally may be opened. 

As to that pandemic, Trump had another typically brilliant observation: the virus  “would go away without the vaccine.”  How?  Well, “you’ll develop herd — like a herd mentality. It’s going to be — it’s going to be herd-developed, and that’s going to happen.”⁵  Presumably he meant herd immunity, but correcting his diction would not erase the fact that, without a vaccine, many more would die in order to reach that goal.

(Trump’s blunder prompted a pertinent comment by Andy Borowitz: “Scientists Believe Congressional Republicans Have Developed Herd Mentality. According to a study, G.O.P. lawmakers have developed ‘near-total immunity’ to damning books, news reports, and audio tapes.”)

Although the ACA has improved our health care system, the failings of that system are no secret; in short, it produces worse results at greater cost than in comparable countries.  The job losses due to the pandemic have provided another indication that we cannot rely on employer-provided coverage.  Some form of universal medical insurance is needed. Whether the best answer is Medicare for all or something else is can be debated once we have a government which cares about the health of its citizens.

<br>______________________________

<br>1. https://www.irehr.org/2020/06/18/three-percenters-pose-with-olympia-police-officer- sparks-need-for-thorough-investigation/

<br>2.  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kelly-loeffler-attila-the-hun-ad_n_5f694c4fc5b6 a9b19b 3d785e

<br>3. https://cspoa.org/2014-resolution/

<br>4.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/obamacare-trump-administration- supreme-court.html

<br>5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/16/problem-with-trumps-herd- mentality-line-isnt-verbal-flub-its-mass-death/