Skip to content

Lessons from Italy

Monday, February 13, 2017

My son gave me a subscription to Jacobin Magazine for Christmas. It’s a quarterly, and I received my first post-election issue today. I didn’t read much in the last issue, because it was pretty much premised on the certain Clinton victory.

Unfortunately, I can’t link to the article about which I’m writing, as it isn’t on line yet. It’s by David Broder (no, not that David Broder) titled Being Anti-Trump Isn’t Enough. I’ll summarize, because I think he makes some excellent point.

His central thesis is that what happened here in 2016 happened in Italy when Silvio Berlusconi was elected. The opposition pretty much united in a single party. Ideology and policy pretty much went out the door, and their sole focus was attacking Berlusconi. As with Trump, he was a crypto-fascist with kleptocratic tendencies. It didn’t work, or at least it didn’t work well. The opposition was perceived as standing for nothing, and when, after too many years, they finally got power, they had no agenda other than the austerity politics that has destroyed the economy there.

The lack of an alternative message was at least one of the reasons Hillary Clinton lost. People sensed on a visceral level that she was more of the same, only more so. Going forward, if we’re going to get rid of Trump, we have to not only oppose him at every turn, but we have to stand for something that is more than simply being against Trump. Broder concludes:

The Left’s alignment with neoliberal centrists against Berlusconi did nothing to thwart right-wing populism or keep racism out of politics. It guaranteed these forces’ unchallenged hold over millions of voters, while destroying its own alternative voice. Looking over the wreckage of the 2016 campaign, the US left must avoid making a similar mistake.

 

The article should be on the Jacobin website soon, or you can download the magazine when it become available (Winter 2017 issue). It’s well worth reading.

Filed in Resistance, The Donald | | Comments (0)

Happy Birthday, Abie Baby

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Today is the natal day of the greatest American president. The fact that he became president at all should give us hope. He succeeded a string of mediocrities who had, at best, stood by while the nation careened toward destruction. What were the odds that a man of his abilities would occupy the White House just when we needed him most? In a different universe, the Republicans nominated John Fremont again, and this time, he won.
So there’s always hope. If the present day Republican Party (so removed from the party of Lincoln) does not completely destroy free elections by 2020, some person may arise to lead us back to a republican form of government. It will probably take another Lincoln to get the job done, and I’m not sure even he would be up to it. At the moment, I can’t see that anyone fits the bill, but then, in 1860, no one knew that Lincoln would belong to the Ages.

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

Democrat’s worries; no surprises here

Sunday, February 12, 2017

This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy about the Democratic Party:

At congressional town hall meetings, on the patchy grass of the National Mall, and in the flood of comments posted on Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Facebook page, it seems painfully obvious: Liberals are getting energized and exercised.

They have found a rallying cry in opposing President Trump’s policies on immigration, health care, and just about everything else that comes across his Twitter feed.

But a more subtle conversation is taking place among Democrats — particularly those in the Rust Belt states that lifted Trump to the presidency — who are feeling anxious about the tricky balancing act that lies ahead, between harnessing the base’s outrage and being devoured by it.

Their worry is that the party’s fired-up base, reacting to Trump, could push the party to the left when they have to figure out how to connect with the middle.

via The Boston Globe

There are two things that got Trump over the top in the Rust Belt states: racism and “populist” rhetoric.

We can’t compete on the first (Republicans own racism), and we shouldn’t. As to the second, the issues that Trump pressed were issues that should be owned by Democrats: opposition to trade deals, opposition to Wall Street, support for Social Security and Medicare, etc. Except for the racism, Trump will betray his base on each and every one of these fronts. Those votes are ripe for the picking, not from the right or the non-existent “middle”, but from the left. You can make a coherent argument that Bernie would have won some of those Rust Belt states because he was not only way more credible on those issues than Hillary, but he was also more credible than Trump. If you were a rust belt voter convinced you’d lost your job or your economic security to trade deals (which may in fact have been the case) it might have seemed to make sense to take your chances with the devil you didn’t know for sure would betray you than with the devil you knew for sure would do so. Let’s face it. Had Hillary won, right now we’d be seeing her pushing for a “modified” TPP. In reality, the trade deals have already done their worst, for the TPP  was not really about “free trade”, but the perception mattered.

What these folks are worried about is the prospect of Wall Street dollars drying up if they double down on winning issues. The idea of connecting with “the middle” makes no sense in this context. Since when did Trump occupy the “middle”, even in a country where the “middle”, as defined by the punditocracy, drifts ever rightward.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Yet another modest proposal

Friday, February 10, 2017

The Democrats must be doing something right, as the Republicans are beginning to give them well meaning advice, about how all this resistance is just such a bad idea. You always know that Republicans are running scared when they start telling Democrats where they are going wrong.

Anyway, along the resistance front, an idea occurred to me while reading Paul Krugman’s column this morning, in which he makes the point that the Trumpists are poised to take maximum political advantage of any terrorist attack that might occur. Similar, but more extreme than what the Bushies did after 9/11.

It seems to me that the Trumpists are not just warning about the risks of a terrorist attack. They are actively inviting one and, in fact, hoping that one occurs. What better way to achieve a number of ends. The “Patriot Act”, would look constitutional next to whatever repressive measures they would enact following any type of terrorist incident, and it would come in so handy to distract the yahoos from the fact that he is betraying them on the domestic front.

So, given this reality, which is obvious when you think about it, wouldn’t it make sense for the Democrats, with one voice (ha, ha, I know what Will Rogers said), to pre-blame Trump for any terrorist attack. They should be explicitly accusing him of wanting a terrorist attack and inviting it by his actions. It has the merit of being true and it might serve to inoculate the body politic once the inevitable occurs. They should, of course, be prepared to go the next step, and continue blaming him after it happens.

UPDATE: That was quick. Fearless leader Chuck Schumer still hasn’t read the writing on the wall.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

How do you measure success?

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

This is interesting:

“Yemen has withdrawn permission for the United States to run special operations and ground missions against suspected terrorists in the wake of the recent raid there that claimed so many civilian lives,” NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked Spicer during his daily press briefing. “Do you stand by your assessment that it is a success?”

“It’s absolutely a success, and I think anyone that would suggest it’s not a success does a disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens,” Spicer replied.

via Talking Points Memo

So, Trump has something to build on. If he scores a success by getting only one serviceman killed, imagine how successful he’ll be when he gets scores of them killed.

Filed in Hypocrisy, Lies and Lying Liars, The Donald | | Comments (0)

What would the Bard think of all this?

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

I stumbled upon this article from the American Prospect today, and I thought I would pass it along to my legions of fans. If you’re a fan of Shakespeare’s it will interest you, as it takes on the question of how the Bard would have treated the Donald, and what, if any characters are similar to him. Allyn Burrows, the Shakespeare scholar being interviewed, sees many echoes of Shakespeare in the various hangers on around the Trumpster, and the various cabals with which he is surrounded, but sees no obvious analog to the Donald in the Shakespeare canon, due to the Donald’s apparent lack of self awareness and inability to reflect on his situation. I don’t consider myself a Shakespeare expert, but I think he’s on to something there.

One interesting thing here is that it is pretty much taken as a given that Trump is not of sound mind. In response to a question from the interviewer (Robert Kuttner):

Well, the classic madman was Macbeth, or Richard III. But Trump is less interesting as a madman than either of those, because I’m not sure Trump is capable of introspection, or regret or remorse. Steve Bannon is a lot more interesting, as a villain, a Iago kind of figure. And in the play Henry VIII, for example, a play that’s rarely done, Cardinal Wolsey was very much a Iago figure to Henry VIII. He was able to manipulate the mind of the man and also was in it for money.

I suspect that over the coming months we will see more of this: matter of fact acknowledgment that the person who holds the office of President of the United States is mentally ill. I think that’s a first.

One thing that was quite amusing in this interview is the almost pathetic insistence by Robert Kuttner that John McCain might emerge as the good guy in the tragedy, the MacDuff to Trump’s MacBeth. It is truly amazing how the Beltway types have held fast to their conception of McCain as heroic “maverick” despite massive evidence to the contrary. McCain is capable of making some anemic noises that suggest that he knows right from wrong, but he has proven totally incapable of putting his vote or his influence where his mouth sometimes strays. His performance in the last few weeks merely proves that point. We must look elsewhere for a Republican good guy, if such an animal exists.

UPDATE: More on the McCain mythology. Here we find that John McCain is perceived as more credible than Donald Trump. If polled, I would have said the same thing, but my question is: Why was this question even polled? I can understand polling about whether the media or Trump is perceived as more credible. But why, of all politicians, poll on McCain? Do they think he’s the leader of the loyal opposition or something? What concrete thing has he done to establish his credentials for that position?

Filed in The Donald | | Comments (0)

Alternative facts in the making

Monday, February 6, 2017

You have to hand it to them. When it comes to manufacturing facts, the Republicans have no peers in the real world, and they’re rapidly catching up to the fictional Big Brother. Latest case in point:

Vice President Mike Pence will lead a commission to investigate voter registration issues, President Trump said Sunday.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly before Super Bowl LI, Trump – who shortly after taking office told congressional lawmakers that 3 to 5 million illegal votes had cost him the popular vote against Hillary Clinton – reiterated his concerns about voter irregularities, saying he planned to task his vice president with looking into concerns over voter registration.

“I’m going to set up a commission … headed by Vice President Mike Pence, and we’re going to look at it very, very carefully,” Trump said.

Despite no credible evidence that any massive voter fraud occurred, especially on the scale Trump suggested, during the 2016 presidential race, the president has continued to push the theory, much to the chagrin of some of his aides and many congressional leaders.

via the New London Day

Now, this will end in one of two ways, both of which will involve creation of alternative facts.

Option 1 is that they will go full crazy and find that there were in fact 3 million or more fraudulent votes and that to remedy the problem it is necessary to engage in even greater voter suppression.

Option 2 is that they will go a limited crazy, and announce that while there is insufficient evidence to prove there were three million or more fraudulent voters, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there are serious problems with the voter registration process and that to remedy the problem it is necessary to engage in even greater voter suppression.

Inasmuch as these findings will be the result of a “commission” they will have sufficient legitimacy to withstand the debunkers who will immediately prove that they are baseless. Whatever the commission finds will become a fact, both to Trump and to his brain dead adherents. Either way, millions of people will be disenfranchised based on a lie.

One of my biggest fears about Trump’s electoral college victory was the prospect of a Supreme Court that would legalize voter suppression. He is either one or two votes away from having that court, and he’ll be one vote closer no matter who he ultimately gets to replace Scalia. That court will be happy to accept whatever alternative facts are “found” by Pence’s commission.

And don’t look for Pence to bring any integrity to the process. The result is preordained. Let’s leave 1984 and go through the Looking Glass for what we can expect, for as the Red Queen said: “Sentence first-verdict afterward”.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars, Orwellian | | Comments (0)

It’s a fact free, fact free, fact free world

Sunday, February 5, 2017

The Trumpers may have brought the world of alternative facts to fruition, but that doesn’t mean it started with them.

Over the course of the last six months or so I’ve noticed a new type of spam in my office in-box. During that time you would be amazed at the number of awards that I or my firm have won. Or, more precisely, the number of awards we could win, so long as we were willing to pay for the honor. Here’s the introductory paragraphs to the latest missive:

Hi John,

Here at Corporate America we?re looking to celebrate the most successful lawyers from across the US legal landscape.

Following extensive research by our in-house team, taking into account your achievements over the past 12 months, we?d be delighted to profile you within the upcoming issue of Corporate America as the only lawyer within Connecticut.

We have selected just one individual from each state to be featured in the forthcoming edition, ensuring that you stand out from the competition for services to clients. And if you would like to showcase your expertise to our 135,000 subscribers and our 40,000+ per month website visitors, we offer the following for just $425:

1-page interview and profile, detailing your expertise and what you can offer your future clients.
Featured in the e-newsletter, sent directly to all 135,000 subscribers
Your content reproduced on the homepage of our website, visited by 40,000 each month.
PDF of your inclusion to use in your own marketing and branding.
To confirm your inclusion within Corporate America, simply respond to this email with ?Agreed at $425?.

Now, my first reaction to this would be to suggest that they fire their in-house team, because even I would never claim to be the best lawyer in Connecticut, or even close. I’m just not that in to lawyering, to be honest.

But we are living in a fact free world. If I want to be the best lawyer in Connecticut, all I have to do is pony up $425.00 (which is actually rather cheap compared to some of the other hucksters), and I am free to say that I have been named the best lawyer in Connecticut by Corporate America, whatever that may be. That is a fact, albeit of the alternative variety.

I’m certainly not going to pay Corporate America $425.00 to be the best lawyer in measly little Connecticut, when I’ve been offered best lawyer in America by a number of other groups. He’ll, I’ve been offered the chance to be best investment advisor in America, and I can’t even figure out what to do with my own 401k.

It’s my understanding that these sorts of “honors” have been for sale for years, but I don’t believe it was ever so blatant or so widespread in the past.

We live in a fact free world. Trump didn’t invent this world, he simply thrives in it. It probably helps that he can’t distinguish truth from falsehood, and that, if he can, he sees no merit in telling the truth when lies are so convenient, and seem to work so well.

Filed in Dysfunction | | Comments (0)

Noted in passing, another impeachable offence

Friday, February 3, 2017

It was widely reported that Trump named Steve Bannon (or more accurately, Bannon named Steve Bannon) to the National Security Council. The law provides that certain people are automatically members of the NSC, and others must be confirmed by Congress. Apparently, Bannon is so unpopular that even the present lickspittle Senate Republicans can’t be counted on to rubber stamp the nomination, so Bannon/Trump are simply resorting to breaking the law:

Concern is building nationally over the rise of neo-Nazi Trump advisor Steve Bannon. As we mentioned Wednesday, the law says Bannon’s bizarre elevation to the National Security Council requires Senate approval– approval which would not be forthcoming… and approval the fascist regime is not seeking, something that will eventualy come up in Trump impeachment hearings. (The Regime is circumventing the law by claiming Bannon isn’t actually a “member,” just a permanent “invitee.”) (Emphasis added)

via Down with Tyranny

Speaking of impeachment, this is rather incredible:

PPP released new polling this morning. A majority of Americans wish Obama was still president. And where last week, everyone was stunned that 35% of the country were already hoping Trump would be impeached, in just 7 days, that number has already increased to 40%! Only 43% of Americans are glad Trump is president. (The polling didn’t ask about it but evidence is that Trump’s strongest support comes from the counties with the heaviest prescription drug abuse and opioid addiction. It could be a coincidence… sure it could.)

via also Down with Tyranny

I’m of two minds about impeachment. In the best of all worlds, none of the non-crazy members of the Supreme Court would die, and Republicans would become progressively more panicked as Trump becomes ever more unpopular. Democrats meanwhile (of course they won’t do this), would drive a wedge between Bannon and Trump by constantly referring to Bannon as the real president, driving Trump to fire him. This scenario is not totally improbable. So long as we’re able to avoid a war, which is a big “if”, chaos with Trump may be preferable to stability with Pence. Everything would have to fall into place, but one can dream.

By the way, I think this is impeachable offence #6, but who’s really counting. I’ve probably missed 10 for every one I’ve written about.

Filed in Impeachable | | Comments (0)

Winston Smith takes up his pen

Friday, February 3, 2017

Lots of folks are having fun with Kellyanne Conway’s latest alternative fact about the Bowling Green Massacre. She’ll probably have the last laugh. After a few days pass, in the alternative universe of millions of Trumpists, it will have happened.

UPDATE: Just because it’s funny. 

Filed in Alternative Facts, Lies and Lying Liars | | Comments (0)