Category Archives: Random Blogging

Will We See A Dummymander?

I have a theory. Bear with me…

Trump is clearly concerned that Republicans will lose the House–and even, possibly, the Senate–in the 2026 midterm election. Because he’s Trump–aka stupid– and because he always opts to cheat rather than compete, he is pressuring Red state Republicans to engage in mid-cycle gerrymanders that he believes will add “safe” districts in those states and protect Congress from a Blue midterm victory.

My theory is that–rather than a traditional gerrymander–we may see what has been dubbed a “dummymander.”

Let’s look first at Texas, where state officials who bow to every Trumpian command have already completed their obedient mid-cycle redistricting. Several observers have pointed out that those revisions incorporate assumptions based upon data from the 2024 election–an election in which a larger number of  Latino voters than expected supported Trump. Current polling suggests that those voters have changed their minds–and that far from building on that incursion, Trump is now deeply underwater with Latinos in Texas. Republicans in that state are now worried that the new districts that mapmakers drew to be “safe”–based in large part upon data reflecting that unusual (and fleeting) Latino vote– are actually likely to make several existing districts competitive. 

Here in Indiana, the reluctance of several Republican lawmakers to engage in a mid-cycle gerrymander has been attributed to integrity (stop laughing!)– to the acknowledgement of those lawmakers that doing Trump’s bidding would constitute a wrongful and arguably unlawful “rigging” of the electoral system. Perhaps some of the members of Indiana’s pathetic super-majority do actually have consciences, but I think their reluctance is more likely based upon a recognition that Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering has already reached its demographic limit.

What do I mean by that?

After the last legitimate redistricting, I had coffee with a political science colleague who had examined the data the Republicans had used to draw their district lines. He noted that they hadn’t added any new safe districts, and attributed that decision to the fact that the populations of rural Indiana–the source of GOP dominance–have been thinning out. As a result, there simply weren’t enough reliable Republican voters to support creation of an extra “safe” district–doing so would endanger incumbents in the current districts.

The emptying out of rural Indiana has continued.

Furthermore, there’s another defect in the data our Republican overlords use to draw those district lines. As I’ve frequently noted in these posts, gerrymandering is first and foremost a voter suppression tool. The current, presumably “safe” districts are home to a number of Democrats, Independents and unhappy Republicans who simply haven’t been voting–they’ve been convinced that their votes wouldn’t make a difference, a conclusion supported by the lack of a Democratic candidate in many of those districts. (Disengagement from the democratic process isn’t unique to Indiana–the number of Americans who failed to vote in the last Presidential election was larger than the numbers who voted for either candidate–a shameful statistic.) A new gerrymander would begin with the use of data incorporating the absence of those disaffected voters from the polls.

But as investment advisers like to remind us, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

In this case, thanks to the Trump administration’s ongoing war against democracy and the Constitution, millions of Americans have become newly engaged. Indeed, evidence of that sizable public blowback is what has prompted Trump’s gerrymander push.  The millions of protesters insisting that America has “No Kings”–see you there tomorrow!– and the millions of Americans who participate in the growing number of weekly spontaneous protests aren’t likely to stay home next November. Assuming Democrats and Indiana’s newly active Independents give them a choice, a lot of those so-called “safe” districts won’t be safe.

My theory is that even the dimmer members of Indiana’s GOP super-majority have figured this out, and that their reluctance to do a mid-cycle redistricting isn’t just based upon the likely negative public reaction to such in-your-face cheating, although that does worry some of them.

It’s based upon a recognition that–as they say in those rural precincts–pigs get fed, but hogs get slaughtered.

 My theory (and yes, my hope) is that a mid-cycle redistricting, if it occurs, will turn out to be a dummymander.

Comments

An Absolutely On-Target Essay

I frequently disagree with the conservative New York Times opinion writer Bret Stephens, but a while back, he honed in on an under-appreciated aspect of America’s current dysfunctions--our lack of authentic argumentation.

Before you decide that both Stephens and I are looney–after all, sometimes it seems as if all we Americans do is fight one another–let me emphasize that this is another of my frequent diatribes about the importance of using terminology accurately. Because whatever we want to label the interminable angry and hostile encounters between MAGA ideologues and the multiple factions of citizens appalled by and opposed to them, I don’t think you can properly call them arguments.

Stephens attributes his own appreciation of proper argumentation to his time at the University of Chicago, an institution that requires its undergraduates to read the books that formed the Western tradition, to familiarize themselves with a philosophy and literature that was notable for argumentation meant to persuade, not put down.

Where did the anti-Federalists differ from the Federalists, or Locke from Hobbes, or Rousseau from them both? The curriculum made us appreciate that the best way to contend with an argument was to engage with it rather than denounce it, and that the prerequisite to engagement was close and sympathetic reading. Reading Marx didn’t turn me into a Marxist. But it did give me an appreciation of the power of his prose.

I don’t think Stephens is wrong or exaggerating when he focuses on the importance of genuine argumentation to democracy.

What is the soul of the Western tradition? Argument. Socrates goes around Athens investigating the claims of the supposedly wise and finds that the people who claim to know things don’t. The Lord threatens to destroy Sodom for its alleged wickedness, but Abraham reproaches and bargains with Him — that for the sake of 10 righteous people He must not destroy the city.

The virtue of Chicago’s curriculum is that it introduces students to a “coherent philosophical tradition based in reasoned argument and critical engagement that explained not only how we had arrived at our governing principles but also gave us the tools to debate, preserve or change them.” (In other words, students who were required to immerse themselves in these works received an actual education, rather than a job training credential; a distinction entirely lost on Indiana’s pathetic legislature. But I digress…)

It’s hard to argue with Stephens’ observation that the Internet and the digital transformation of the way we receive information has facilitated our ability to inhabit carefully curated bubbles of ideology and “facts” confirming our biases. But he argues that the deleterious effects might have been mitigated “if we hadn’t first given up on the idea of a culture of argument rooted in a common set of ideas.”

Which brings me to Charlie Kirk.

Kirk, to my way of thinking, was not a real conservative, at least in the American sense. The point of our conservatism is to conserve a liberal political order — open, tolerant, limited and law-abiding. It’s not about creating a God-drenched regime centered on a cult of personality leader waging zero-sum political battles against other Americans viewed as immoral enemies…

It’s too bad that Kirk, raised in a Chicago suburb, didn’t attend the University of Chicago. It wouldn’t have hurt getting thrashed in a political debate by smarter peers. Or learning to appreciate the power and moral weight of views he didn’t share. Or recognizing that the true Western tradition lies more in its skepticism than in its certitude.

But the larger tragedy by far is that it’s America itself that’s losing sight of all that. In the vacuum that follows, the gunshots ring out.

That last sentence sums up the central point of the essay–at least as I read it. A citizenry that has lost the ability to engage in genuine arguments–and the operative word there is “engage”–expresses its disputes and disagreements with insults and violence.

The utter inability to engage in actual debate may be the most prominent characteristic of the incompetent clowns who dominate the Trump administration, and it may explain why the administration eschews civility and relies on invective and militarized violence rather than efforts at persuasion.

Comments

An Insider Analysis

America’s “chattering classes”–to use Molly Ivins’ apt phrase for the pundits who pontificate on our social and governmental aches and pains–come in two broad categories: inside and outside.  Commentary by members of both groups ranges from puerile to perceptive, but I think there is a special value in the observations and regrets of former Republicans who belong to the “old too soon, wise too late” category.

Stuart Stevens is one of the “Never Trump” Republicans who have reacted to the current assault on constitutional democracy by reassessing their own complicity with the darker elements of the party’s history. Stevens published a recent essay in Lincoln Square that confronted today’s realities with insights derived from his years as a GOP strategist, and several of those insights speak to many of us who once believed the party’s rhetoric.

Stevens began by posing a question we’ve all asked: How did this happen? How did we get to a place where a major American political party is controlled by one man–a man who doesn’t have to worry about Republicans in Congress exercising their governing prerogatives?

To call it partisanship is to call Ebola an airborne virus like the flu. It’s both true and woefully inadequate. The level of subservience in the Republican Party is unlike anything we’ve known in American politics. Running for office is often humiliating, inevitably exhausting, rarely enjoyable. You must suffer fools to an enormous degree and do so while feigning interest and appreciation. All of these Republican Senators and Congressmen endured the dehumanizing gauntlet of election only to come to Washington and do what? Whatever it is Donald Trump requires.

Stevens looks back at the devolution of the GOP over the decades, and finds a system that increasingly “rewarded compliance and punished independence. The path to advancement was to go along, to wait your turn.” And he acknowledges the party’s growing reliance on racism.

Since the 1960s, the Republican Party has operated as a homogenous white party, with non-college-educated white voters the dominant subgroup…. To win an election, you had one simple task: appeal to white voters. Consider this under-appreciated fact: Over the last fifty years, no Republican has been elected to the House of Representatives, Senate, or won a governor’s race who did not win the majority of the white vote.

One of Stevens’ most perceptive observations is aimed at the numerous pundits and political operatives who constantly bemoan what they see as the Democratic Party’s lack of messaging savvy. As he notes, it’s much easier to message to a monolithic base than to the wildly diverse voters who range from disaffected Republicans to Democratic socialists.

It’s often said that Republicans are better at messaging, but it’s a false standard. It’s easy to stage a successful concert for an audience that likes the same kind of music. It’s much more difficult to do the same for a crowd that enjoys very different types of music.

That homogeneity has allowed the GOP to create what Stevens calls “a top-down hierarchy.”

Like a corporate headquarters laying out a marketing strategy for regional offices, a political party that needed to appeal to the same demographic for victory gave candidates no reason not to echo its message. You were graded within the party on your ability to articulate the proscribed message and penalized for being “off message.”

That process, Stevens writes, “curates a particular kind of candidate.” Those who advance are those who are willing to follow and conform. Deviation was punished.

And what about the values the GOP extolled? Free trade. The importance of character. Family values. A muscular foreign policy. Personal responsibility.

As Stevens and many others have concluded,  those supposed bedrock values turned out to be nothing more than marketing slogans.

When Donald Trump looked at the Republican Party, he saw through the artifice of values and understood it was a party of followers. The soul of the party was conformity, not values. The “family values” party would embrace a three-time married casino owner who talked in public about dating his daughter if he could give them power. The most “conservative” element of the party that was the fiercest opponent to the Soviet Union and an expansive Russian Federation would become the beating heart of the pro-Putin movement in American politics.

So here we are. The GOP has been bleeding non-racists and non-conformists for at least two decades. It is now–as Stevens notes–a homogeneous White cult. The problem is, in a system that privileges two major parties, the intellectual and moral collapse of one of those parties is a big problem.

Comments

The Morphing Of Civil War

Americans who know anything about the country’s Civil War tend to dismiss warnings of a similar eruption. After all, the War Between the States was a war between states, a conflict with antagonists defined largely by geography. Were there Union sympathizers in the South? Pro-slavery citizens in the North? Sure. But the war was largely between Americans who inhabited specific regions of the still-new country. As pundits like to point out, that’s no longer the case; deep Blue cities are located in even the Reddest states, and the nation’s suburbs have been turning purple for several election cycles. That absence of a geographical division means another civil war is somewhere between unlikely and impossible.

A book titled “The Next Civil War” begs to differ.

Lincoln Square recently interviewed the author, Stephen Marche. Marche’s essential thesis was that our notion of what constitutes “war” is outdated.

What counts as civil war isn’t cannons at Gettysburg but something closer to “Ireland in the Troubles,”…. Low-level clashes, targeted killings, the steady presence of fear — these don’t come with banners or declarations, but they tear at civic trust all the same. That’s why the term “political violence” undersells what’s underway: It’s governance by threat, a society reshaped by intimidation. Once fear becomes the organizing principle, there’s no real boundary left between war and politics.

Stuart Stevens, who conducted the interview, noted that Marche had documented the steady “sorting” that has given us two diametrically opposed “armies.” He began with a telling statistic: the party that once competed for nearly 40 percent of the Black vote under Eisenhower, now hovers at eight percent under Trump. Over the years, the GOP purposely collapsed its coalition, abandoning a “big tent” and diversity in favor of loyalty. Partisan rewards now go to those most willing to comply, and as Stevens writes–and as we can now all see– the result is a hollowed-out political class.

In the Republican Party, competence has been traded for obedience.

Blue state governors resisting the authoritarianism of MAGA and the Trump administration are–at least in Marche’s telling–engaging in what has been dubbed a “soft secession.” The result is an emerging patchwork that signals national fragmentation.

Marche reminds readers that authoritarian regimes around the globe provide ample evidence that control doesn’t equal competence. Meanwhile, democracy is fading every day, despite the lack of a formal death notice. More troubling, politically motivated violence is rising.

Reviewers have described “The Next Civil War” as a “chilling and deeply researched work of speculative nonfiction.” Marche conducted nearly two hundred interviews with experts—civil war scholars, military leaders, law enforcement officials, secret service agents, agricultural specialists, environmentalists, war historians, and political scientists–in order to produce a book predicting a terrifying collapse of the America most of us have inhabited. Marche also interviewed soldiers and counterinsurgency experts, asking what it would take to control the population of the United States, and he tells us that “the battle plans for the next civil war have already been drawn up. Not by novelists, but by colonels.”

Thanks in large part to a fragmented, partisan information environment that facilitates misinformation and propaganda, promotes conspiracy theories, and deepens suspicions and bigotries, MAGA Republicans inhabit a vastly different reality than the one Democrats and Independents occupy. Our divisions go deeper than geography. Marche concludes that the United States as we’ve known it is coming to an end, with the only question being “how,” and in his book, he offers several scenarios to illustrate the possibilities.

I’m not convinced.

Granted, America has never been Camelot. Our elected officials have always included grifters and blowhards and outright criminals; our public policies even today fall far short of the lofty–“woke”– aspirations of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This country has always been an experiment, and people like  Marche have evidently concluded that the experiment is failing.

Marche’s book is part of a burgeoning industry of doom and gloom. Although it’s important to understand where these predictions of disaster are coming from–important to recognize the severity of the threats to our always-fragile union– it would be a mistake to give in to those predictions, to give up in advance.

Remember, those “woke” abolitionists won the last Civil War–and although it won’t be easy, We the People significantly outnumber the Trumpers who want to turn America into a White Christian Nationalist autocracy. We can win this one too.

Comments

Call It What It Is

Yesterday, I posted about the importance of using accurate language, arguing that the media’s penchant for failing to distinguish between far-right ideologues and genuine conservatives blurs reality and distorts public understanding of where America finds itself.

Today, I want to address another issue of labelling: the common complaint that calling MAGA folks fascist or fascist-adjacent is an unfair aspect of the name-calling that Trump has made a prominent feature of our politics–that use of that label is no different from the claims of those so-called “conservatives” that advocates for national health care are all communists.

Yesterday, I compared the actions and rhetoric of Trump and MAGA to the definition of conservative, and found an obvious mismatch. Today, I want to compare them to the definition of fascist, in order to determine whether that label really is an example of uncivil exaggeration and misdirection, or whether it’s an accurate description of what we are seeing.

I’m not the first to engage in that comparison; The Bulwark recently provided an excellent overview of the similarities that justify the label. (Interestingly, The Bulwark is published by “never Trump” conservatives–actual conservatives who know the difference between conservative philosophy and far-Right radicalism.) The essay began by quoting John F. Kelly, a now-retired Marine Corps general who, for a year and a half during Trump’s first term, was the White House chief of staff.

Shortly before the 2024 election, in a New York Times interview, Kelly was asked whether he thought Trump was a fascist. Kelly began his response by reading a definition of fascism.

Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy.

Kelly then ticked off the ways in which Trump met that definition, concluding that he “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. . . . He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.”

It’s one thing to recognize that Trump himself is a fascist–that’s hard to deny, especially given his ramped-up megalomania since returning to the Oval Office. But what about his base? What about the MAGA movement? The Bulwark article cited a 1995 observation by Italian novelist and critic Umberto Eco, who defined the fascism he saw emerging as “a fuzzy totalitarianism” that he dubbed Ur-fascism. Eco proceeded to outline a list of its characteristics:

The most prominent feature of Ur-fascism, according to Eco, is the cult of tradition and the rejection of the modern world. In the irrational worldview of the Ur-fascist, disagreement is treason. Other prominent features of fascism that Eco detailed included the following:

“Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders.”
“Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.”
“At the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
“The Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo. . . . Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”

The Bulwark article ended with a plea to MAGA folks to recognize these similarities and leave the movement. I’m afraid that such a plea is hopelessly naive. Hard-core MAGA folks are all-in on their ahistorical devotion to “tradition” and their hatred of those “Others” who populate modern societies. They have perfected the informational bubble they inhabit, and far from being appalled by the inhumanity of ICE raids or the anti-Americanism of Trump’s Executive Orders or the damage being done to America’s global stature, they applaud Trump’s increasingly autocratic (and arguably insane) behaviors.

Calling this administration and its supporters fascists is neither an exaggeration nor an inappropriate epithet. It is a word–a label– that accurately describes both Trump and a significant percentage of his MAGA supporters. The rest of us need to acknowledge that, and the fact that most of those supporters are irretrievably lost to the American Idea.

It is up to the rest of us–to the majority of sane Americans– to reject the fascist project and save the Republic. The situation really is that dire.

Comments