Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

A Refreshing Reality Check

In the wake of the 2024 election, there was no escaping negative punditry. “Expert” political analysts declared the effective end of Democratic election victories, dubbed Trump’s slight incursions into minority voting blocs a “re-alignment,” and issued scathing criticisms of the Democratic Party.

Most of this was click-bait hogwash, and a “Never Trump” Republican recently cited data demonstrating just how far afield these “analyses” were. In a recent essay, Stuart Stevens has done just that. (After quoting some of those pontificating headlines, Stevens snarkily writes “This is how societies end up worshipping volcanoes. There’s a drought, the volcano belches, and it rains. Next thing you know, you’re sacrificing virgins to honor the Volcano God.”)

Donald Trump won the 2024 election by one of the smallest margins in modern history– a cumulative 230,000 votes, or 0.15% of the total. Furthermore, in polling right before the election, when Americans were asked whether they thought America was heading in the right direction” only 27% said yes. Stevens notes that no incumbent party has won a presidential race when the number choosing “right track” was below 45%.

2024 was a great year for a challenger to run against an incumbent president. It is entirely delusional to interpret Trump’s narrow victory as an endorsement of Trumpism. Any credible challenger would have done considerably better than Trump. Polls showed that Nikki Haley overperformed Trump by five to seven points.

The less-reported results of recent elections confirm Stevens’ thesis. In addition to Democrats winning statewide offices in Georgia, Republicans in Mississippi losing their legislative super-majority, Moms for Liberty losing every single one of their 31 contests– Republican margins dropped by 50% in Florida’s Congressional races, and Wisconsin saw a 12-point shift toward Democrats.

And when it comes to policy?

Turns out, Americans actually like the constellation of basic social net programs that ketamine-fueled weirdo Elon Musk is trying to slash. Nearly four in five Americans (79%) oppose any reductions to Social Security benefits. For all the hate MAGA piles on the Americans who depend on SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance, 41% say that the government should do more to help those in need; 27% say the government does too much.

How about those tax cuts? Guess what? Cut taxes for billionaires sucks as a political rallying cry. This isn’t some Bernie Sanders niche “eat the rich” issue. In 2020, only a quarter of voters thought the Trump tax cuts were positive. A recent Navigator survey found that by a 10-point margin, Americans believe that Trump’s tax plan will “hurt people like me.”

Not only is the Trump administration on the wrong side of major policy positions, the utter ineptitude of the clowns in the administration is enraging Americans daily. As Stevens writes,

Does anybody other than the MAGA faithful believe that gutting the Centers for Disease Control make their lives better? Or that a former heroin addict nutcase should be in charge of America’s public health?

Stevens calls the 2024 election the “Pickett’s Charge of MAGA. They were given the keys to the kingdom, controlling three branches of government. They squandered the opportunity with a train wreck of nutty policies implemented by a Star Wars bar of unlikeable freaks.”

Trump’s “policy” announcements, like making Canada the 51st state, or invading Greenland, certainly didn’t help. Neither did his far more serious efforts to weaken the West in favor of Putin, like pulling the US out of NATO and betraying Ukraine. Granted, MAGA folks aren’t typically interested in policy unless those policies are intended to marginalize those they consider “Other,” but the rest of us know stupidity (and graft) when we see it. As Stevens writes, the numbers don’t lie.

In 2020, Trump’s coalition was 85% white. Sure, he did better with the non-white vote in 2024. This time, only 84% of his vote was white. In a country that is 59% white. Republicans are celebrating that only 86% of African Americans voted against them and that only 63% of Asians and 54% of Hispanics voted Democratic. The base of Trump’s support is still non-college-educated whites. In 2000, that was 60% of the electorate. Now it’s 38% and is America’s fastest declining large demographic.

None of this should make us complacent. Americans appalled by the chaos and destruction, the overt criminality, the effort to turn America into a semi-fascist autocracy still have a ton of work to do. If nothing else, we need to motivate a significant faction of those who stayed home in November of 2024 to do their civic duty by pointing out how their lives have been worsened by the gang of incompetent grifters who–by a very slim margin–gained control of our government.

But the data should definitely encourage us. Happy Thanksgiving!!

Comments

Josh Marshall Hits A Home Run

Talking Points Memo just celebrated 25 years of online political reporting. It’s a “go-to” source for many, if not most, political observers. Heather Cox Richardson, among others, frequently cites publisher Josh Marshall, and TPM is one of my trusted sources for insightful political analysis.

In a recent column, Marshall proposed a basis for evaluating Senators, and I strongly agreed with his criteria for “purging” those who don’t pass his tests. He identifies a series of issues that he says can give voters “a clear indication of whether they are serious about confronting the challenge of the moment or battling back from Trumpism.” He analogizes the process to a status interview you might hold if you were a new manager hired to turn around a failing company–a “sit down” with every employee to determine whether they’re part of the solution or part of the problem.

Marshall identifies five issues. The first is the filibuster. He writes that lawmakers who support keeping the filibuster “are not serious about moving the country forward in any positive direction.” Support for the filibuster means that Senator should be primaried and removed from office, because absolutely none of the legislation that is required to repair America’s government can happen with the filibuster in place. As he writes, “If you support the filibuster that means that your response to Trumpite autocracy is to do nothing and hope for the best. That’s unacceptable and you need to go.”

The second identified issue is Supreme Court reform. Marshall notes that it is only within the past two or three years that he has reluctantly come to that conclusion, which has been forced by the corruption of the Court majority.

They have cut free not only from precedent but from any consistent or coherent theory of the Constitution, no matter how wrongheaded. The purpose of the high court is not to run the country. It is to render decisions on points of constitutional and legal ambiguity in a good faith and broadly consistent manner. It is now engaged in purely outcome-driven reasoning, mixing and matching doctrines and modes of jurisprudence depending on the desired ends, with the aim of furthering autocratic and Republican rule. That is the heart of the corruption. Passing laws doesn’t matter if they can and will be discarded simply because six lifetime appointees don’t like them. That’s a perversion of the constitutional order. I know this one is hard to swallow for many people. It doesn’t come easily to me either. But the facts of the situation and fidelity to the Constitution require it.

Like Marshall, this conclusion was difficult for me, but the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the majority has convinced me that we will not return to the rule of law without substantial Court reform.

Those first two criterions are Marshall’s “most important,” because without them, the next three won’t happen.

Number three is (finally!) making DC and Puerto Rico into states. He acknowledges that this isn’t as essential as the first two, but it’s very important, and it’s the right thing to do. DC and Puerto Rico should in fact be states. It really is bizarre–and unfair–that citizens living in two U.S. jurisdictions simply don’t have the political rights that every other American enjoys.

We now know that Marshall’s number four is especially important. He calls it “clearing the law books.”

As we’ve seen over the last year, the U.S. federal code is full of laws which assume the sitting president broadly supports the federal Constitution, civic democracy and the best interests of all American citizens. We know now that that is a dangerous assumption. There are lots of laws which grant the president vast powers if things get super weird. And the president is in charge of deciding whether they’re weird. A lot of this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But a lot of the laws are genuinely far too ambiguous. We need to change all of those laws. That involves potentially creating different harms by weakening the presidency. There are cases when you want a president to be able to move expeditiously and effectively in emergencies. Laws will have to be revised with that contrary danger in mind. But right now the balance is far too much in the direction of presidential power.

And number five? Here, Marshall proposes something near and dear to my heart: outlawing gerrymandering with a federal legal framework governing how maps can be legitimately drawn.

As Marshall acknowledges, it’s not an exhaustive list. But it would be a strong beginning.

Comments

THE Question

I know, I know. I keep coming back to what has been the most confounding question of the past decade: why on earth would any sane voter cast a ballot for Donald Trump? The man is personally repulsive, obviously both ignorant and mentally ill and just as obviously totally disinterested in the job of governing.

That question arises again in the context of the Epstein files. 

One of the newsletters I read each morning is Robert Hubbell’s, and a couple of days ago, it included a paragraph that amplified the sheer incomprehensibility of Trump support. Hubbell wrote,

Trump’s presidency began with and was facilitated by a cover-up of a sex scandal involving Stormy Daniels. Trump won despite the Access Hollywood tapes in which Trump described his behavior in a way that can fairly be described as that of a sexual predator. Indeed, the E. Jean Carroll defamation case led to a finding by a civil jury that Trump likely engaged in sexual abuse of Carroll that matched his modus operandi described in the Access Hollywood tapes.

No other president of the US—past or future—would have or could survive a single one of the multiple sex scandals that Trump has endured.

Add to that absolutely accurate observation a discussion in the Contrarian of where Americans currently find ourselves as the result of the “performance” of this petulant toddler: the job market has crumbled; the affordability crisis is getting worse with health insurance costs set to skyrocket; the rich and Trump-connected are making out like bandits; and an increasingly decrepit president couldn’t care less about Americans. (In fact, he’s willing to maximize their pain).

Why in the world do approximately a third of our fellow Americans support this bloated excuse for a functioning human? I can only assume that his obvious hatred for the people they hate–those despised “others”–is enough to outweigh not only the daily evidence that he is personally corrupt and despicable, but the incredible harm he is doing to the country–very much including his supporters.

Rather obviously, this conundrum leads to a second question: will the slow-rolling but seemingly inexorable Epstein disclosures be enough to finally shatter the MAGA cult’s inexplicable worship? It’s speculative, but Bill Moreau–founder of the essential Indiana Citizen–recently reminded me that last Thursday was the 100-year “anniversary” of the conviction of the KKK’s D.C. Stephenson.

The 1925 trial of D.C. Stephenson, the powerful Grand Dragon of the Indiana Klan, followed the abduction and assault of Madge Oberholtzer, a 28-year-old state education official. Oberholtzer’s dying statement, taken days after she was attacked, led to Stephenson’s conviction for second-degree murder on November 14, 1925. Once seen as untouchable, Stephenson’s downfall sent shockwaves through state government, revealing how deeply the Klan’s influence had reached.

That reminder brought me back to Hubbell’s observation–and the uncomfortable possibility that racist citizens will no longer desert a man who is demonstrably guilty of truly heinous behaviors. Trump has already been revealed as a felon and a predator–unless someone is immersed in MAGA’s alternate reality, they can’t help but be aware of the Access Hollywood tape, the payoff to Stormy Daniels, the 26 women who have accused him of sexual assaults, and the verdict obtained by E. Jean Carroll. (Is the fact that–at least as far as we know– he hasn’t killed and mutilated any of the complainants enough, in MAGA’s eyes, to absolve him?)

It has become abundantly clear that Trump’s disastrous presidential performance– his corruption and ignorance, his pathetic, incompetent Cabinet, his frenzied efforts to rig the upcoming midterm election, his insane rantings on Truth Social–haven’t shaken the support of his rabid base, or caused the defection of the cowardly Republicans currently “serving” in the House and Senate. Thus far, neither has the abundant and clear evidence of his sexual crimes.

Will the inevitable Epstein disclosures finally do to Trump what they did to D.C. Stephenson? I guess we’re about to find out. 

Comments

The Continuing War On Science

AP had a recent headline warning that the numerous anti-science bills hitting America’s statehouses are stripping away public health protections that have taken over a century to pass. The headline triggered my recollection of the MAGA “freedom” folks who refused to get vaccines or wear masks during the pandemic. Subsequent research tells us they died in far greater numbers than those who listened to their doctors.

According to the AP, more than 420 anti-science bills have been introduced across the U.S. just this year, attacking longstanding public health protections. Primary targets have been vaccines, milk safety and fluoride. The publication notes that the bills are part of an “organized, politically savvy campaign to enshrine a conspiracy theory-driven agenda into law.”The proponents of these bills like to portray the MAHA movement as a grassroots uprising, but it turns out that it is being fueled by a “web of well-funded national groups led by people who’ve profited from sowing distrust of medicine and science.”

Data confirms that globally, vaccines have saved more than 150 million lives since 1974, that cavities have declined dramatically since community water fluoridation began, and that milk pasteurization has saved millions from foodborne illness, but data and logic–not to mention those “elitist” doctors and dentists and scientists–are dismissed by the gullible targets of those “well-founded” groups as evidence of some sort of global conspiracy.

History tells us that science denial–especially in the field of medicine– has been a constant, especially among fundamentalist religious believers. (When smallpox vaccines first came on the scene, religious figures who embraced the new science, like Cotton Mather, were accused of being “ungodly,” since smallpox was obviously God’s punishment for sin, and man had no business interfering with God’s judgment.)

Science denial isn’t limited to medical interventions, of course. The Trump administration and its MAGA base firmly deny the reality of climate change, despite what should be the evidence of their own eyes. (As I type these words into a computer–a product of technology that is based upon science–it is nearly 70 degrees outside. In NOVEMBER. Not to mention the increasing intensity of storms, rising ocean levels…). The administration has withdrawn from international efforts to ameliorate the greenhouse gases that science tells us are responsible, and as I reported yesterday, has bullied other nations in order to keep others from doing so.

When the administration announced it would refuse to send representatives to the United Nations’ climate conference in Brazil, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he would attend to represent the country–demonstrating that some American politicians understand what’s at stake. Newsom pointed to the insanity of America doubling down on hydrocarbons while the rest of the world is “sprinting ahead on low-carbon green growth. For me, it is about our economic competitiveness, period, full stop.”

Newsom is right that science denial harms the country’s economic competitiveness, but it’s a lot worse than that. It’s evidence of unwillingness to accept–and deal with–reality.

When people reject well-supported scientific consensus, whether for social, political, or emotional reasons, the damage isn’t limited to public health, although that may be where the damage is most visible. Denial of facts makes for harmful (and stupid) public policies and makes productive political debate impossible.

In a recent book, “Science Denial: Why it Happens and What to Do About it,” two psychology professors explored the subject. In an interview, both noted the enormous effect of social media on the phenomenon–science denial is immensely amplified by social media algorithms, spreading disinformation globally.

And of course, denialism is exacerbated by widespread scientific illiteracy. Most people have no idea what the term “scientific theory” means.

In normal conversation, we use the term theory to mean “an educated guess.” But in science, the word has a very different meaning; a scientific theory is anything but a guess. The scientific method involves summarizing a group of hypotheses that have been successfully and repeatedly tested. Once enough empirical evidence accumulates to support those hypotheses, a theory is developed that can explain that particular phenomenon. Scientific theories begin with and are based on careful examination of observed–and observable– facts. Furthermore–unlike religious dogma–scientific theories are always open to revision based upon new observations or newly discovered facts.

People who don’t understand the way the scientific method works or the extent to which it relies on demonstrable facts are easy prey for disinformation and conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them–and a country governed by and populated with people who reject science is a country rapidly going in the wrong direction.

Comments

Trump: On The Wrong Side Of Everything

One of the most annoying aspects of living under the Trump/MAGA regime is the sheer extent of its venality and stupidity. When I first began writing these daily observations, there would come times when I would begin on “empty”–when I couldn’t readily come up with a subject, and would cast around for ideas. That’s no longer the case. Every day, when I sit down at my computer to produce another blog post, I’m confronted with an avalanche of harmful, corrupt and indecent actions of this administration. My issue these days is what to choose from the onslaught.

It turns out that Trump’s AI post after the No Kings protests was accurate–he really is shitting on the country.

Today, my chosen subject is the incredible, truly evil lengths this administration has gone to in its fight to undermine efforts to combat climate change.

The New York Times has reported on one such effort–an effort that was, unfortunately, successful.

More than 100 nations were poised last month to approve a historic deal to slash pollution from cargo ships. That’s when the United States launched a pressure campaign that officials around the world have called extraordinary, even by the standards of the Trump administration’s combativeness, according to nine diplomats on its receiving end.

I have previously compared Trump to a Mafia Don, and the report amply confirmed the resemblance. An Asian ambassador was warned that if he voted for the plan, sailors from his country wouldn’t be allowed to disembark at American ports. Caribbean diplomats were threatened with being blacklisted from entering the United States. And according to the Times, Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state, “personally called officials in several countries to threaten financial penalties and other punishments if they continued to support the agreement to cut ship pollution.”

These and other threats, including tariffs, sanctions and the revocation of diplomats’ U.S. visas, effectively killed the deal, according to the nine American, European and developing-nation diplomats directly involved in the negotiations. They spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution from the Trump administration.

Although officials of the White House, State Department and Department of Energy denied making personal threats or engaging in tactics of intimidation, they did acknowledge derailing the deal and repeated their strong opposition to efforts to address climate change. They justified their opposition by asserting that the shipping fee would have hurt the American economy. (Like Trump’s insane tariffs haven’t done enough to hurt it all by themselves…)

But foreign diplomats said they were stunned by what they described as “nasty” and “very personal” threats made by State Department officials, which were mostly aimed at leaders from poorer or small countries that are economically dependent on the United States. Some of the delegations were summoned to the U.S. Embassy in London for these discussions, these people said.

Most countries had been ready to vote for the plan, which would have imposed a fee on heavily polluting vessels to push the industry to clean up. It was negotiated over several years by the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency that oversees shipping policy.

But the Trump administration was able to block the vote, the nine diplomats said, after numerous countries backed away in the face of the threats from the Americans.

The Trump administration has consistently denied the reality of  climate change and has opposed any and all climate policies that might negatively affect fossil fuel interests . Promoting the sale of U.S.-produced oil, gas and coal is said to be a top administration priority. The administration has refused to send a representative to the UN climate summit in Brazil, to emphasize Trump’s rejection of the reality of climate change, and Trump is–once again– withdrawing the U.S. from the 2015 Paris agreement. Trump–arguably the most intellectually-limited person ever to occupy the Oval Office–has called global warming the “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” and has said that the science was developed by “stupid people.”

The shipping fee had been negotiated over decades and would have been a major step toward the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions from the shipping industry. Under the deal, large cargo ships would have paid a fee if their carbon dioxide emissions exceeded a certain level.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had a reaction to the administration’s tactics that was very similar to mine. He reportedly compared the administration’s bullying to that of  “a bunch of gangsters coming into the neighborhood and smashing windows and threatening shop owners.” He described the administration’s strategy as a “shock-and-awe thuggery approach.”

Does anyone have a horse’s head handy?

Comments