Category Archives: Random Blogging

They Are Representative

A long time ago, when I was serving as Corporation Counsel in the Hudnut Administration, I had a conversation with an active Republican friend that I’ve long remembered. I don’t recall the issue, but at one point she offered an observation that has proved all too true: The problem with too many of our elected officials is that they are representative.

The clown car that is the Trump administration wouldn’t be possible but for the 40% of Americans who–polling tells us–approve of our would-be king and his demented court.

That figure absolutely terrifies me. How is it possible that some forty percent of our fellow citizens look at the daily disasters–the assault on reason, on education, on accurate history, on science–and disregard the effects of monumental ignorance and incompetence on their own daily lives? How do they look at nutjobs like RFK, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard and so many others and say, yep, those are our guys?

I recently came across two unrelated articles that raised that question once again. TNR recently profiled a new official hired by the odious and entirely unfit Pete Hegseth.  It noted that Hegseth is taking his cues from even-nuttier precincts.

Far-right extremist Laura Loomer says that she is now working with the federal government to identify individuals within the Department of Defense who are leaking information to the press.

Speaking with CNN in an interview published Monday, Loomer claimed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had personally turned to her for help quieting down the noise coming from his department. The self-appointed “loyalty enforcer” has had enormous success influencing the Trump administration from the outside: An analysis by The Daily Beast found that at least 16 individuals were fired from the federal government after Loomer singled them out.

And who did he replace them with? According to the article, Hegseth trusts only his wife and a small inner circle. (America feels safer already…)

Talking Points Memo has highlighted another “qualified” appointment.

It’s almost hard to be shocked anymore by the characters Trump has tapped for top positions in federal agencies, but at Puck News, this Julia Ioffe profile of Lew Olowski, who is running human resources for the State Department, is a stunning cascade of bizarre revelations.

Once a member of the legal team for convicted Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadžić, Olowski had been a first-tour foreign service officer since 2017 when Marco Rubio summoned him to Washington from an overseas assignment in January. He alarmed department veterans by giving weird speeches about God, prayer, the Bible, and dolphins.

“He quickly made a name for himself at Foggy Bottom by marching into the office of the ombuds and telling everyone that they were being put on administrative leave, and that their office was being dissolved,” Ioffe writes. “The office’s employees later discovered that they had been transferred to the Office of Civil Rights, whose chief counsel was Heather Olowski, Lew’s wife, and the minister of a church that the couple runs.” From there, Olowski set about rooting out all supposed DEI “by changing the way the State Department recruits and promotes people, including by introducing the concept of ‘fidelity’ as an attribute that diplomats should be graded on.” Fidelity to Trump, that is.

These examples bring me back to my unanswerable question: how did we get to the point where forty percent of Americans are satisfied with the appointments of these ignorant and deranged individuals–perfectly happy to place the prospects of this country in the hands of people lacking any expertise or qualifications?

I’m pretty sure that most of them are Fox viewers blissfully unaware of the situation, but that simply raises a somewhat different question: what explains the gullibility and the chosen ignorance of so many of our fellow citizens? Is the obvious answer–the virulent racism– that widespread?

Forty percent…..

Comments

A Lengthy Rerun

As I was scrolling through my past posts (admittedly, looking for something I could cannibalize during my recovery), I came across the “Last Lecture” I gave ten years ago. The Last Lecture is an annual address to the faculty by a member who is tasked with explaining the life experiences that shaped that member’s philosophy and perspective.

It occurred to me that readers of my daily rants are also entitled to understand how I’ve come to the conclusions I share each day.

This speech from ten years ago is long, and probably irrelevant to many of you, so feel free to skip the full linked version, but here are a couple of introductory paragraphs that help explain my development into the crotchety blogger you’ve come to know…

_____

I think I have always been a “political” person, in the sense that the question that has always fascinated me is: how should people live together? What sort of social and political arrangements are most likely to nourish our humanity and promote—in Aristotle’s term—human flourishing? If the old African proverb is right, if it “takes a village to raise a child,” what should that village look like, and how should its inhabitants behave? How do we build that kind of village? Is the human community headed in the right direction, or are we on the wrong road?  My conclusions have been shaped by my life experiences as much as by my scholarship, and for the last several years, some of them have been keeping me up at night.

Let me begin with an important caveat: unlike so many of you in this room, I am not a scholar in the traditional sense; in fact, I have been a lifelong dilettante. (I do prefer the term “generalist,” but as Popeye said, “I yam what I yam”…) I’ve done a lot of different things over the past 50+ years, and the result is that I know a little about a lot of things, but depth isn’t my strong suit. Over the years, however—probably as a defense mechanism—I’ve convinced myself that there is value in casting one’s intellectual net rather widely. In my case, at least, it has allowed me to connect some seemingly unconnected dots, even when my own mastery of the subjects involved is tenuous or superficial.

______

What struck me as I scrolled through this ten-year-old speech was the extent to which our current dysfunctions were already emerging–the rejection of reason and science that was already laying the groundwork for today’s disasters.  For those of you willing to slog through the whole speech, I’ll be interested in your comments…..

Comments

Apologies And An Explanation

I’ve been tardy in approving comments and posting these daily rants to Facebook and Bluesky. I am also likely to miss a couple of days, although I will try not to. I usually write ahead, but yesterday’s was the last full post I’d prepared.

On vacation in South Carolina, I was trying to help my son-in-law take my husband’s mobility scooter out of the rear of his van. I slipped (it’s heavy) and fell, and heard something crack (NOT a pleasant sound!) Turns out I fractured something called the T12 vertabra. I flew home rather than riding in a car for 15 hours, but the airplane trip didn’t help. Bottom line, I’m pretty much out of order for the next couple of weeks. Between the pain and the drugs to control the pain, it’s definitely interfering with my ability to read, think and analyze. So expect brief messages rather than extended conversations for the next few days, until sitting at my computer is easier.

ER folks tell me the fracture is the only problem, which is good, and that it should heal in 8-12 weeks–and the pain should subside well before that, so those of you who are kind enough to keep coming back to my cantankerous offerings won’t have a long time to wait for the “full experience.”

Meanwhile, if you have news that Trump’s hold on his cult is failing, the Epstein files are being leaked, Stephen Miller has disappeared–good news, in other words–please share it in the comments!

Comments

Epstein

The central mystery of MAGA’s devotion to Donald Trump has always been–at least to me–one incomprehensible question: how can any minimally reasonable person look at this man– an adjudicated felon and sex offender, a thin-skinned buffoon and bully constantly lashing out at any criticism with kindergarten-level insults and a third-grade vocabulary–and think, “yep, that’s the guy I want to entrust with the nuclear codes.” How can anyone who can read or watch news videos ignore the increasingly psychotic behaviors?

It’s understandable that people who don’t follow the news, or who get their “news” from Fox, et al, might have missed the copious evidence of his greed, and his use of the Presidency to enrich himself–although the most recent evidence (Paramount Plus’ payment of a bribe to get the government to approve a merger that will make its owner billions) has been very widely publicized.

Evidently, none of this matters to the MAGA cult: not the stupidity, not the ignorance, not the greed. Not the enormous damage he is doing to the country. Cult leaders can do no wrong.

So what explains the evident defection of so many MAGA cultists over the Epstein cover-up? Why of all things has the increasing likelihood that he participated in the rape of numerous young girls penetrated (no pun intended) MAGA’s “see no evil” devotion? After all, they were happy to ignore all the evidence of his predatory sexual behavior against adult women–E. Jean Carroll’s successful lawsuit, the 26 women who’ve claimed they were subjects of groping and other inappropriate assaults, his own taped admission that, being a “star” (at least in his wildly inflated opinion) he could grab women by the you-know-what.

Sane Americans are cheered by recent polling that shows Trump’s precipitous decline, but according to Gallup there are still 37% of Americans who approve of his performance as President. Thirty-seven percent of us look at this pathetic, criminal ignoramus and say “looks good to me.”

Psychologists tell us that one of the most important aspects of a cult–one of the most attractive attributes to members–is the reduction of the individual’s autonomy, the ceding of control over large areas of one’s life to someone else.  As one article I read put it, the cult controls people’s thinking and behaviour, their choices about who to associate with, what jobs to do, who to marry or have relationships with, what to believe, and depending upon how extreme, when to eat and sleep and even in some notorious cases when to die.

In addition to relieving the burden of thinking for oneself, in the case of MAGA, mountains of research have affirmed the central role played by racism. As American society has changed in ways that most of us would consider positive, White “Christian” men have experienced those changes as assaults on their status. How dare those uppity women take management positions? When did those Black and Brown people get the idea that they were entitled to equality? Gay people are getting married! There were plenty of straight White males who experienced the progress of others as an assault–as deprivation of their god-given right to dominance. Trump validated their anger and bitterness at a world that was failing to accord them the status they believe is their due. He made it okay to voice their racism, homophobia and misogyny.

Most of all, he provided them with stories to tell themselves. One of the most pervasive of those stories was that of the Deep State. Government was filled with horrible Democrats who sexually abused (and even ate) helpless children. Cult members were the good guys who were going to root out these terrible people and return control of the country to the good guys who deserve to control it. It was an article of faith, a part of the cult identity.

What happens when this article of faith encounters the reality that Trump–the man with whom they identified themselves in this holy war against evil– is one of the bad guys, one of the Deep State pedophiles? I think we’re about to find out.

Some of the faithful will simply reject the evidence, but as we are seeing, others will experience disillusion.

I don’t know what the outcome will be, but thus far, Trump’s usual tactics–lie, call out “fake news,” blame Obama and Hillary Clinton, manufacture distractions–haven’t worked. There are several possible outcomes: MAGA may burrow more deeply into denial and cognitive dissonance. They may double down. Or they may defect.

We shall see…

Comments

Framing

The most important thing I learned in law school can be summed up with the adage “he who frames the issue wins the debate.” The most consequential move a lawyer–or any debater–can make is to define what the argument is all about. (Our idiot-in-chief clearly does recognize that, at least at some subconscious level, since his response to any and all accusations is always to insist that the real issue is whether the accuser is “fake.”)

What reminded me of that old law school conclusion was a recent article in the New York Times, citing a communications professor from Texas A&M, one Jennifer Mercieca. According to the article, her recent book addresses that issue– what she calls “frame warfare.” Mercieca argues that the power to name things is the power to define reality, and she identifies that tactic as Trump’s most potent. As she points out, it’s a tactic that goes hand in hand with his constant assertions that fly in the face of facts and evidence. Redefinitions of reality, she writes, have been central to his success.

As Mercieca explains frame warfare, “What you call a thing determines the contours of the debate around it — or precludes debate altogether. Did you borrow a car without permission, or did you steal it? Was the crush of migrants at the Mexican border an invasion or a humanitarian crisis?”

The importance of framing is obvious in the fulminations of America’s White Christian Nationalists. One of the most obvious examples is the debate about abortion. “Christian” paternalists focus on the “sin” of terminating a pregnancy–on the propriety of the decision being made by a pregnant individual. Civil libertarians insist that the issue is really who decides? In our frame, we ask: is this a decision government should have the authority to make, or is it a decision properly made by the  individual woman? As I used to tell my students, the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is prohibited from deciding–what prayer you say (or whether you pray at all), what political opinions you hold, whether you have a right to travel without offering justification to authority…

Back when Republicans could credibly claim to be proponents of limited government, many weighed in on the side of  individual liberty. (I remember–back in the day– being part of a group called Republicans for Choice.) Barry Goldwater famously said that government didn’t belong in either your boardroom or your bedroom. (That belief also led him to support gay rights–he even got an award from PFLAG.)

Rather obviously, if we decide that the role of government is to require people to live in accordance with God’s will, we have to decide whose version of that will government should enforce. “Christian” nationalists are fine with giving government that power, so long as they get to be the arbiters of what is “godly.’ They also talk a lot about religious liberty–for them. They aren’t so solicitous about religious liberty for adherents of other (wrong) religions. Their version of religious liberty turns out to be their liberty to use government to impose their particular religious beliefs on those who don’t share them.

It isn’t just the “Christian” nationalists whose framing is perverse. It’s also MAGA. 

Just what makes America great? Or more properly, since “again” is a prominent part of that slogan, what DID make America great? If you listen to Trump’s base, it’s pretty clear that their version of “greatness” requires the social dominance of straight White males. 

Over the past several years, Americans have stopped debating policy–after all, policy debates require evidence, consideration of past experience ….FACTS. It requires respect for people who come to the conversation with a different–but rreality-based– perspective. The reason we can no longer engage in civil discourse is that MAGA has framed control of government as a fight between the resistance of those of us who live in the real world and their right-their need– to impose their “alternate reality”–their preferred frame– on the rest of us.

I think the proper frame for the culture war we are fighting is this: Both MAGA and the “Christian” nationalists want to take America back to a time that never was.

Comments