Random Blogging – Page 10

Losing My Faith

I used to have faith in the good will and common sense of my fellow citizens. Over the past several years, I’ve lost that faith.

Good will?? The MAGA zealots who have taken over a previously normal political party routinely engage in outlandish accusations and escalating calls for violence. As David Frum recently wrote,

When a madman hammered nearly to death the husband of then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump jeered and mocked. One of Trump’s sons and other close Trump supporters avidly promoted false claims that Paul Pelosi had somehow brought the onslaught upon himself through a sexual misadventure.

After authorities apprehended a right-wing-extremist plot to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Trump belittled the threat at a rally. He disparaged Whitmer as a political enemy. His supporters chanted “Lock her up.” Trump laughed and replied, “Lock them all up.”

Fascism feasts on violence. In the years since his own supporters attacked the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election—many of them threatening harm to Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence—Trump has championed the invaders, would-be kidnappers, and would-be murderers as martyrs and hostages. He has vowed to pardon them if returned to office. His own staffers have testified to the glee with which Trump watched the mayhem on television…

Common sense??? Chris Lamb is a journalist professor at IU-Indianapolis who has documented (at length) the ridiculous “facts” that Republicans have to believe in order to cling to their insistence that the 2020 election was stolen.

Lamb began by referencing the Washington Post’s compendium of Trump’s lies–over 30 thousand of them– during his four-year presidency, and linked to the newspaper’s accessible data base of those lies. And as he reminds us, that figure was restricted to public statements.

There is no point fact-checking Trump because he uses no facts.

There is as much evidence that Donald Trump led American troops on D-Day as there is evidence that he won the 2020 Presidential Election.

And yet, as he points out, two-thirds of Republicans say Biden’s win of that election was illegitimate. In a post replete with links to sources of his evidence, Lamb deconstructs that claim, and enumerates the multiple ridiculous assertions that must be accepted as true in order to believe it.

The post points out what should be obvious: for one thing, that the massive award against Fox News for defamation could not have been won had there been any probative evidence of election fraud. (As he writes, “It’s worth noting that the truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. If news sites – and I use that word loosely – told the truth they would have been immune from defamation lawsuits”). He also points out that a significant number of the sixty-plus cases dismissed for lack of any evidence were heard–and dismissed–by judges Trump appointed.

Lamb’s post provides a meticulous and documented list of the claims MAGA folks have embraced, and copious evidence of their falsity. I won’t recite that whole list–which I encourage you to click through and read–but to say it is discouraging is an understatement.

The unanswered question, of course, is: what percentage of the American population actually believes these things? How many of my fellow Americans have listened to both Biden and Trump, to Democratic and Republican political figures, and actually concluded that Democratic rhetoric has stoked violence? What percentage of American voters truly thinks the 2020 election was stolen, despite a total and complete absence of any corroborating evidence?

And what is wrong with that cohort? Why do they cling to beliefs that are so clearly unsupported by reality?

So yes, until relatively recently, I was confident that most people in this country were people of good will and common sense. Yes, we have always had fringe elements–the bigots of the far Right and far Left, the discontented, fearful and well-armed “Second Amendment” contingent, the scary theocrats like Beckwith and Banks– but I used to believe those people constituted a relatively small part of our body politic.

In the age of MAGA, It’s harder and harder to believe that.

I tell myself that these deluded souls really are a minority; that it is only because they are so loud and “in our faces” that they seem so numerous, but it gets harder and harder to convince myself that the sort of people with whom I regularly interact (on this site and in “real life”)–people who are, by and large, normal, measured and evidence-based –are the real majority.

If they aren’t–if the hordes of angry MAGA Christian Nationalists return Trump to power–the rest of us will lose more than faith in our fellow Americans. We will lose America.

Comments

The Company Heritage Keeps…

Because I’ve been on the road, heading for a much-needed vacation (and hopefully, a brief hiatus from my daily contemplation of the various–and frankly terrifying– threats to my country and its Constitution), I’m taking the lazy way out this morning, and posting an eye-opening compendium of the contributors to Project 2025. These are the “think tanks” (note quotation marks) and other far-Right organizations that worked with Heritage to produce that document.

You can find the list here.

Some of these names will be chillingly familiar. I found others to be a mystery. Those I recognized, and a few unknown ones I was able to trace, are all members of a category we might dub “scary.” Or unAmerican–at least if one defines unAmerican as rejection of the underlying philosophy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (especially but certainly not exclusively the First and Fourteenth Amendments.)

Click through, take a look at the list, and–as the anti-science folks like to say–do your own research.

I’ll be back to my usual hectoring and too-wordy routine tomorrow.

Comments

How Awful Are Hoosiers, Really?

Consider this a follow-up to yesterday’s “Extra” post.

I have written before about Indiana Democrats’ self-defeating attitudes and behaviors. A recent conversation with two very savvy political observers reminded me–again!– how incredibly unhelpful those negative attitudes are.

It’s a conversation I’ve had repeatedly. Acquaintances who are committed Democrats refrain from donating to Hoosier Democratic candidates because “they can’t win in Indiana.” Rather obviously, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy–if these candidates lack sufficient resources to compete, they will lose. (During that recent conversation, when I reminded my friends that Obama had won Indiana, one responded “Yes, but he put significant resources here.” Yes–with sufficient resources, Democrats can win Indiana. Duh.)

This year, as I have documented, the Indiana Democratic Party has nominated a statewide (non-gerrymander-able) slate of truly excellent candidates. They are capable, moderate, and–unlike their GOP opponents–sane. Meanwhile, the Republicans are running a ticket of out-and-out White Supremecist theocrats, men who are personally repugnant supporters of an exceptionally far-Right agenda: anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-public education, anti-environment…candidates who enthusiastically support positions that survey research confirms are at odds with the positions of most Hoosiers, Republican and Democrat alike.

So why, you might ask (I’ve certainly been asking) do people who clearly recognize both the merits of the Democratic candidates and the threats posed by the Republican ones still insist that Indiana voters will opt for the Republican ones?

During that last discussion, I finally came to understand the roots of that belief. (I’m slow.)

These same people–people who care about their neighbors, who understand and worry about the current assaults on the Constitution and civil liberties, who recognize the nuanced nature of policy disputes–apparently believe that a significant majority of Hoosier voters are ignorant and hateful.

Too many of my Democratic friends view all Hoosier Republicans–especially but not exclusively rural Republicans– as uneducated and politically unsophisticated, resentful of social change and suspicious of anyone who isn’t a White Christian. They see all Republicans as MAGA bigots, mired in a Fox “News” universe, dismissive of information inconsistent with their prejudices, and they conclude that efforts to inform or persuade them are useless. (This belief actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the Democratic candidates lack resources to communicate their positions, many Hoosier voters will lack accurate information.)

I’m willing to concede that this picture of a committed racist rube accurately describes the base of today’s GOP–the MAGA folks who form the core of what has become Trump’s political party. But I refuse to believe that all Hoosier Republicans are cut from that same MAGA cloth. There are people who are relatively uninformed, but not hateful–many people who would reject the premises and promises of Project 2025 if they knew what those premises and promises really were.

The Democrats who are writing off Hoosier voters rather clearly believe that providing sufficient resources to disseminate accurate information widely around the state is a fool’s errand. They believe that the super-majority in our deplorable state legislature is an accurate representation of unenlightened, racist and misogynistic Hoosier sentiment–after all, those voters elected that super-majority. (They forget the substantial effects of gerrymandering and vote suppression.)

The only thing that would change the minds of these dismissive observers of Indiana politics is an election that upends their smug conclusions–but their unwillingness to fund their preferred candidates adequately makes such an election result infinitely more difficult.

I’ve been working with both the McCormick and McCray campaigns, and I can report that both are well-organized, strategically sound, and–most important–right on all the issues that matter. I am absolutely convinced that–with adequate funding–they can inform voters statewide of the enormous differences between them and the GOP’s Christian Nationalist ticket, and that adequate dissemination of that information would lead to victory.

I guess it’s up to those of us in Indiana who are politically “unsophisticated” to step into the breach. Those of us who care deeply about women’s access to abortion, civil rights for our gay friends and neighbors, support for public education, and the other immensely important rights threatened by today’s far far Right GOP candidates need to contribute as much as we can so that the good guys have enough to communicate their message.

They don’t need as much as their opponents; they just need enough.

Unless, of course, my “sophisticated” friends are right, and a majority of my fellow Hoosiers are contemptible.

Comments

The Hoosier Theocrats

Sometimes, what’s intended as dark humor isn’t very funny.

During a discussion with a cousin who shares most of my political views, I admitted that the possibility of a Trump victory–especially now that the Supreme Court has eviscerated the rule of law–keeps me up at night. He counseled me to dial it back, to live with what comes. “And besides, we won’t have to worry for long, because they’ll line the Jews up and shoot us.”

Ha ha.

The folks that the late Molly Ivins dubbed the “chattering classes” are mostly focused on the very real threat of autocracy, of dictatorship should Trump prevail. Fair enough: the MAGA base doesn’t really have a coherent philosophy other than their firm belief that White Christian men should run the country and all we “Others” should go back to subordinate status (or–in the case of gay folks– the closet). Less attention has been paid to the theocrats in the movement–those who do have a specific and frighteningly clear agenda that revolves around using government to impose their fundamentalist religious beliefs on everyone else.

That First Amendment is so last century….

Here in Indiana, the Republican statewide ticket is uniformly theocratic; Micah Beckwith, candidate for Lieutenant Governor and Jim Banks, candidate for U.S. Senate, are “true believers.” Mike Braun, the gubernatorial candidate, hasn’t demonstrated any core beliefs other than his obviously firm conviction that he’s entitled to be important–apparently, he’ll happily echo whatever policy positions are most likely to win him public office, much like our embarrassing Attorney General, Todd Rokita, who is running for a second term. Rokita has made pandering to the MAGA base into an art form. In Indiana, since pandering requires obeisance to the MAGA theocrats, the entire ticket can legitimately be labeled theocratic.

How concerned should we be?

In a recent opinion piece in the Indianapolis Star, James Briggs considered a question posed by a reader: “how scary is Micah Beckwith.” His response:

I caution against treating political figures as scary. There’s enough to worry about in life without catastrophizing politicians.

That said, the media, myself included, have correctly framed Beckwith as an extreme figure on the right. He is an avowed Christian nationalist who believes in harnessing political and governmental power to enact an agenda in line with his rigid interpretation of Christianity. He’s also uniquely effective at pursuing that agenda, in large part because he has charisma and communication skills honed by his work as a pastor.

Briggs argued that, in the event the GOP wins Indiana in November, what Hoosiers have to worry about, “in order of greatest to least probability,” are

State government will get worse.
Beckwith will embarrass Indiana.
Laws could get more extreme.
Beckwith could become governor.

It’s hard to believe our legislature could get worse….

As Briggs notes, elective office means a wider audience. “When Beckwith says crazy things going forward — like that God sent the Jan. 6 rioters — people across the U.S. will hear about it and assume Indiana is just a bunch of Beckwiths. That’s embarrassing.”

Yes, Beckwith is a true believer and a loose cannon, but Jim Banks isn’t far behind.

Known as Focus on the Family’s man in Washington, when he isn’t using loose fundraising rules to amass personal wealth, Banks uses his position as a Congressman to pursue decidedly theocratic goals. He wants a “godly country” where federal law bans all abortions, with none of those wimpy exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, and other laws reflect his vicious ongoing vendetta against LGBTQ+ people and especially trans children.

Well, at least Beckwith and Banks are sincere fundamentalist theocrats.

I have repeatedly posted about Todd Rokita, Indiana’s despicable Attorney-General. In his case, devotion to MAGA theocracy is transparently based upon political utility–my guess is that if he were to be politically active in a Blue state, his positions would align with those of Bernie Sanders. Of course, he isn’t in a Blue state, so he has consistently demonstrated his fidelity to the Beckwith/Taliban portion of the Republican party, hounding the doctor who performed an abortion on a ten-year-old rape victim, making an effort to obtain women’s private medical records, and endorsing a variety of far-Right, theocratic positions.

Indiana is often characterized as a state where voters will vote for a rutabaga if it has an R next to its name. In November, we’ll see whether that flippant description holds, or whether the extremely autocratic and theocratic positions of the GOP candidates causes Hoosier voters to turn to the competent, middle-of-the-road candidates nominated by Indiana’s Democrats.

I’ll post evidence of their bona fides after the Democratic state convention.

Comments

Words and Meanings

Can we Americans talk to each other? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no, and the intentional misuse of language is one reason we can’t.

I think it was GOP strategist Frank Luntz who first advised his party to obscure its goals by using phrases that softened/concealed meaning; he even wrote a book back in 2007 titled “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.” As Deborah Tannen pointed out in 2003 (link unavailable),

Take the repeal of the estate tax. An “estate” sounds like a large amount of money. Indeed, before President Bush persuaded Congress to legislate a phase out of the estate tax, only the largest 2 percent of estates were subject to this tax. But change the name to “death tax” and many more Americans become sympathetic to repeal. After all, everyone dies. Death is bad enough without being taxed.

How many would get all worked up about an exceedingly rare abortion procedure (that the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated represents less than one-fifth of 1 percent of all abortions performed in the United States in 2000)? But attach the name “partial-birth abortion” and a second-trimester fetus becomes a half-born baby.

Who among us wants to call ourselves anti-life? Win the name game and you’re more than halfway toward winning the battle. Win enough naming battles and you’re on your way to winning the war.

Since the demise of Roe v. Wade, we’ve all become familiar with arguments about what it means to be “pro life.” Nice human beings all want to be supportive of life, but Red state legislators are rather clearly unconcerned with the lives of rape victims or women with dangerous pregnancies; they are also unconcerned with the health and wellbeing of those babies they’ve “saved” once they’re born. (And how “pro life” is the GOP’s all-in support for gun “rights”? Is defense of permitless carry really consistent with calling oneself “pro life”?)

The use of language to mask what’s really going on is hardly limited to the abortion debate. Take the indiscriminate use of the word choice. Choice is a great term; it can be positive–as in citizens’ ability to choose a religion, a marriage partner, or whether to procreate (choices the GOP’s Christian Nationalists oppose), or it can be a word that masks less positive “choices”–destroying the public school system via “school choice,” or “choosing” not to open your place of business to Blacks or gays.

That latter “choice” brings me to another highly contested term: religious liberty. Who isn’t for religious liberty–the right to believe or live as one’s conscience dictates?

What today’s MAGA GOP means by religious liberty, however, is their right to remake the law of land in order to privilege fundamentalist Christianity–to return women, gays, non-Whites and non-Christians to the subordinate status in American society that their religion dictates. Requiring obedience to civil rights laws violates that dominance. (Serving that slice of pizza to a gay person clearly imposes upon their religious liberty…)

The publication of Project 2025 provides evidence that intentional misuse of language continues to shape far-Right discourse; for example, the effort to destroy the civil service is presented as a path toward “efficiency.” (In this case, that may even be a proper use of language–dictatorships are usually more efficient than messy democracies.)

Project 2025 is also strong on “family values”–another term favored by a political party that certainly doesn’t value “those” families. What Project 2025 calls “family values” are policies that discriminate against LGBTQ+ citizens and women, and emphasize the importance of traditional nuclear families.

There are other words that obscure rather than illuminate. A recent favorite is “weaponization”–an accusation hurled at government officials applying existing laws to Republicans. Another is actually a new word: “woke.” Woke-ism is basically a commitment to fundamental fairness for all American citizens, which raises the question why it produces so hysterical a negative response.

These newer terms join old favorites like “socialism”–the Rightwing’s preferred label for any social program. Social Security and Medicare were originally opposed (and still are) as “socialist.” (Again, as with “efficiency” the label isn’t incorrect–just pejorative. The U.S., like all modern societies, has a mixed economy, with a robust private sector protected by socialized efforts like police, fire protection, garbage collection and other collective services.)

I’m sure readers can come up with other examples. Disinformation would be impossible without the ability to disguise truth by misusing and distorting language. I believe it was French diplomat Charles Maurice De Talleyrand who famously said that “God gave humans language so they could conceal their thoughts from one another.”

No wonder Americans are having difficulty communicating….

Comments