Democracy falling into authoritarian darkness
These comments are mostly between salitcid and PD in the post here a couple of days ago, The Role of Fox News in the Slow Motion Unraveling of The American Polity and Society. There are things worth remembering as we watch the horror of democracy falling to Republican Party authoritarianism. If the authoritarians get full control, they will do their best to erase as much of this as possible from the public record. At present, they downplay, distort and/or deny it.
Comment: The Democratic coalition is that in name only. Schmidt himself is a right wing Democrat, a "Never Trumper" with almost nothing in common with the Progressive Caucus except that both deplore the Trump movement. Blue dogs, moderate dems, old-style liberals and self-described socialist progressives combine in uneasy alliances at best. I worry that most of them (centrists, liberals, progs, whatever) really underestimate the extent of danger to our democracy right now. I'm not sure Schmidt's message will resonate with those on the left who see him and other "Never Trumpers" as marginal in light of their poor performance in "moving the needle," as you put it, in 2020. Maybe a Democrat who is respected by both moderates and those on the left in the Dem Party would make a better messenger. Who? Not sure. Though some on the Left don't like him, I think Obama still has just about the most popularity of any major Democratic figure today. About 60% of Dems still say he was the best President in recent history. I wish he would weigh in more vigorously, since he is aware of the problem and still--I believe-- has the ability to galvanize Democrats.
Response: I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt that "He Knows Joe" and much of his inner circle are the same as Obama's. I very much doubt that if Obama were prez today that he'd perform any better.
There was no way Pelosi was gonna accept impeaching Trump 1.0 or 2.0 without the groundswell of outcry from the common peeps who then would hold their representatives to account. It was only when Pelosi saw in black and white that she had more political points to lose by not acting that she was moved to act. This was achieved by strong rhetoric and sentiment that first motivated citizens and worked its way up from the bottom. I don't think her strong reluctance to impeach for a long time (for both times) was due to cognitive decline - but rather just out of touch political calculus that is epidemic with the "old guard."
Comment 2: Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that Obama was a very good president when he was, nor that he would be the right person for the job now. I said among Dems he is (right now) the *most popular* former president. Personally, I have mixed feelings-- at best-- about his legacy. But that's a different topic.
I also said, based on what he wrote on 1/6 he seems to see the wider picture of what is happening to the GOP, and that he has Biden's ear. So he might be a good choice of a "spokesperson" for the kind of awareness campaign you suggest. I would not want to see him as prez either, not only because I did not like many of his policies and constant attempts to "compromise" with Republicans who openly despised him and were never going to budge, but also because his mere presence in the WH would only fan the flames of the authoritarian GOP insurgency which began largely as a backlash against him (largely due to race).
But you mentioned the divisions among Dems, and many of them are preoccupied with fighting each other rather than uniting in an anti Trumpist coalition in earnest. Obama *might* be able to convince some of them, and many of the rank and file Dems out there who still respect him so much, that the top priority right now is to thwart this assault on our political system rather than get drawn into party infighting between progs and mods and so forth. That, I think, should take a back seat to preserving our democracy before it's too late. And I have been convinced of this since 2015-2016 should Trump win. When he did, I worked with Indivisible immediately and through 2017. Originally, Indivisible was created by former Obama staffers who had seen the organizing skills of the Tea Party which they had to deal with in the early 2010s. They wanted to use similar tactics to stop Trump-- didn't work. But none of this is to say Obama was a particularly good president in my view, nor that Pelosi (how did she get into the discussion?) was a strong, principled opponent of Trump.
I could be wrong about Obama appreciating the severity of the situation at this point. I based it on the statement he made, and other statements he has made warning Dems to focus on unity against the GOP over "circular firing squads" and party infighting at this time. On these things I agree.
I've sometimes said that I'm now a single-issue voter, because so much else now depends on the single issue (i.e. preserving our democracy, such as it is, against Trumpism). For the time being this seems, to me, to be the sine qua non for those who want to live in a reasonably open and representative democracy. There may be better suited spokespersons for such a call for party unity in the name of overcoming Trumpism, and I am open to suggestions. Obama might make a reasonable pick based on the factors I emphasized. But I am not a great admirer of his track record.
Edit: Re: Steve Schmidt and others--
Originally we were weighing the pros ad cons of Steve Schmidt serving as spokesperson. I don't know how you see it, but I sometimes remind those who admire him now that he made his career as a cynical Republican (no matter what he says) who gave us Sarah Palin just to make it possible for McCain to win. He put the proto-Trumpian idiot, and faux populist (with her guns and Pentecostalism and "alternative facts" about US history, geography, policy and politics) in a position, along with the equally culpable McCain and Nicole Wallace, of being one heart beat away from the presidency. This cynical calculus was undertaken in a situation where McCain's health was extremely fragile. This was the first time that such a fringe red-meat Republican had been plucked from obscurity and granted instant legitimacy as a GOP candidate at the highest level. It fired the imagination of what was to become the alt-right. It made people like Pat Buchanan wax eloquent on TV praising Palin's greatness. It contributed to the Birther mentality, if not the actual claim about Obama's status as a citizen ( which came from others). Nativism, the uniquely American combo of "guns and Jesus," deadly ignorance in history/policy/ current events, and the ability to swap real facts for "alternative ones" when in a jam-- all this was first put on broad public display at a high level in politics by Palin. She was important as an early supporter of Trump (so were people like David Duke-- who Trump refused to denounce for months-- and Alex Jones among other fringe lunatics). Palin brought the previously unrepresented fringe of right wing loonies into the circus tent we call national politics. As the movie Schmidt (I believe) profited from aptly put it, she was a "gamechanger."
Another pet peeve of mine is MSNBC stalwart, "Morning Joe," who gave Trump inordinate air time during call in sections, and also vouched (along with Mika Brzezinski) for his "generosity and good character." Really! Even after Trump won, he and Mika were visiting Trump Tower on a near-daily basis-- probably in a bid for a job in the incoming administration. When conservative guest, Bill Kristol broke down and reprimanded Scarborough for "helping to give us Trump" on a post-election sequence of Morning Joe, it got so bad that they broke for a commercial and showed Kristol out. When the break was over, "Joe" told his audience, "The center will hold, ladies and gentlemen. The center will hold."
Only when he Joe Scarborough became one of Trump's many victims after criticizing him for something, only when Trump outed Joe and Mika as a couple (both were married) did Scarborough suddenly find his moral compass and leave the GOP as a "conservative Democrat" (something Steve Schmidt also did during the Trump years).
I say this because, before Obama we were discussing the merits of Schmidt qua spokesman for anti-Trumpism. I've supported him, and "Joe" and anyone else who can influence people to get busy doing what they can to fight Trump and his movement. But, after you made understandably critical comments about Obama, I thought it was a good time to mention these less well-remembered facts about people often lauded as the "consciences of conservatism," viz. Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, McCain in memoriam, and Joe and Mika. All were complicit in the rise of what we now call Trumpism, and in some cases (like that of Joe S and Mika B) Trump himself. I'll never forget how my jaw dropped when, with a straight face, "Joe," Mika and alleged all-purpose TV wise-man, Danny Deutsch all went on and on about how "Trump is a true gentleman. This aggressive guy we see on TV is an act. We've known him for years. And his boys turned out so well. People just don't know this. I wish he would run on his genuine personality and not this act he puts on. He's a really nice guy." etc. etc. I wanted to punch the screen. And I rarely watch TV, I just happened to see this, and then decided to track it--follow this breach of ethics in which Morning Joe served the Trump agenda by actually promoting him and giving him far more air time than Clinton, whom they covered negatively-- emails included.
I wondered why the putatively "liberal" MSNBC allowed this nonsense, and allowed "Joe" to all but smear Clinton with the email nonsense while neglecting to say much-- if anything-- about the fact that Trump and his team were already being investigated for their potential ties to Russia and--in the case of Manafort who was forced to leave-- Ukraine. It was when Manafort was arrested in Sept. 2016 that Trump did something unusual to change the subject on a Friday afternoon. He used that day to make front page news that insured the Manafort story would be buried. How? By saying (after years and years) that actually Barak Obama WAS a US citizen after all. This allowed the media (who fell for it) to focus on this as Kellyanne Conway seamlessly moved in to replace the scandalized Manafort, helping to deliver Trump's victory.
OK, enough, sorry. I still get upset and angry about this largely neglected history. I could go on and on about how other media figures were complicit in the "lead-up" to Trump just as was the case in the "lead-up" to Gulf 2. No circus barker had ever gotten the attention and respect that idiot-Trump did in 2015-2016. But already, social and political scientists were warning of autocracy or "neo-fascism" should he win. Trump got billions in free exposure and media time-- a story for another time. Sorry for the length of this screed. (emphasis added)
I also said, based on what he wrote on 1/6 he seems to see the wider picture of what is happening to the GOP, and that he has Biden's ear. So he might be a good choice of a "spokesperson" for the kind of awareness campaign you suggest. I would not want to see him as prez either, not only because I did not like many of his policies and constant attempts to "compromise" with Republicans who openly despised him and were never going to budge, but also because his mere presence in the WH would only fan the flames of the authoritarian GOP insurgency which began largely as a backlash against him (largely due to race).
But you mentioned the divisions among Dems, and many of them are preoccupied with fighting each other rather than uniting in an anti Trumpist coalition in earnest. Obama *might* be able to convince some of them, and many of the rank and file Dems out there who still respect him so much, that the top priority right now is to thwart this assault on our political system rather than get drawn into party infighting between progs and mods and so forth. That, I think, should take a back seat to preserving our democracy before it's too late. And I have been convinced of this since 2015-2016 should Trump win. When he did, I worked with Indivisible immediately and through 2017. Originally, Indivisible was created by former Obama staffers who had seen the organizing skills of the Tea Party which they had to deal with in the early 2010s. They wanted to use similar tactics to stop Trump-- didn't work. But none of this is to say Obama was a particularly good president in my view, nor that Pelosi (how did she get into the discussion?) was a strong, principled opponent of Trump.
I could be wrong about Obama appreciating the severity of the situation at this point. I based it on the statement he made, and other statements he has made warning Dems to focus on unity against the GOP over "circular firing squads" and party infighting at this time. On these things I agree.
I've sometimes said that I'm now a single-issue voter, because so much else now depends on the single issue (i.e. preserving our democracy, such as it is, against Trumpism). For the time being this seems, to me, to be the sine qua non for those who want to live in a reasonably open and representative democracy. There may be better suited spokespersons for such a call for party unity in the name of overcoming Trumpism, and I am open to suggestions. Obama might make a reasonable pick based on the factors I emphasized. But I am not a great admirer of his track record.
Edit: Re: Steve Schmidt and others--
Originally we were weighing the pros ad cons of Steve Schmidt serving as spokesperson. I don't know how you see it, but I sometimes remind those who admire him now that he made his career as a cynical Republican (no matter what he says) who gave us Sarah Palin just to make it possible for McCain to win. He put the proto-Trumpian idiot, and faux populist (with her guns and Pentecostalism and "alternative facts" about US history, geography, policy and politics) in a position, along with the equally culpable McCain and Nicole Wallace, of being one heart beat away from the presidency. This cynical calculus was undertaken in a situation where McCain's health was extremely fragile. This was the first time that such a fringe red-meat Republican had been plucked from obscurity and granted instant legitimacy as a GOP candidate at the highest level. It fired the imagination of what was to become the alt-right. It made people like Pat Buchanan wax eloquent on TV praising Palin's greatness. It contributed to the Birther mentality, if not the actual claim about Obama's status as a citizen ( which came from others). Nativism, the uniquely American combo of "guns and Jesus," deadly ignorance in history/policy/ current events, and the ability to swap real facts for "alternative ones" when in a jam-- all this was first put on broad public display at a high level in politics by Palin. She was important as an early supporter of Trump (so were people like David Duke-- who Trump refused to denounce for months-- and Alex Jones among other fringe lunatics). Palin brought the previously unrepresented fringe of right wing loonies into the circus tent we call national politics. As the movie Schmidt (I believe) profited from aptly put it, she was a "gamechanger."
Another pet peeve of mine is MSNBC stalwart, "Morning Joe," who gave Trump inordinate air time during call in sections, and also vouched (along with Mika Brzezinski) for his "generosity and good character." Really! Even after Trump won, he and Mika were visiting Trump Tower on a near-daily basis-- probably in a bid for a job in the incoming administration. When conservative guest, Bill Kristol broke down and reprimanded Scarborough for "helping to give us Trump" on a post-election sequence of Morning Joe, it got so bad that they broke for a commercial and showed Kristol out. When the break was over, "Joe" told his audience, "The center will hold, ladies and gentlemen. The center will hold."
Only when he Joe Scarborough became one of Trump's many victims after criticizing him for something, only when Trump outed Joe and Mika as a couple (both were married) did Scarborough suddenly find his moral compass and leave the GOP as a "conservative Democrat" (something Steve Schmidt also did during the Trump years).
I say this because, before Obama we were discussing the merits of Schmidt qua spokesman for anti-Trumpism. I've supported him, and "Joe" and anyone else who can influence people to get busy doing what they can to fight Trump and his movement. But, after you made understandably critical comments about Obama, I thought it was a good time to mention these less well-remembered facts about people often lauded as the "consciences of conservatism," viz. Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, McCain in memoriam, and Joe and Mika. All were complicit in the rise of what we now call Trumpism, and in some cases (like that of Joe S and Mika B) Trump himself. I'll never forget how my jaw dropped when, with a straight face, "Joe," Mika and alleged all-purpose TV wise-man, Danny Deutsch all went on and on about how "Trump is a true gentleman. This aggressive guy we see on TV is an act. We've known him for years. And his boys turned out so well. People just don't know this. I wish he would run on his genuine personality and not this act he puts on. He's a really nice guy." etc. etc. I wanted to punch the screen. And I rarely watch TV, I just happened to see this, and then decided to track it--follow this breach of ethics in which Morning Joe served the Trump agenda by actually promoting him and giving him far more air time than Clinton, whom they covered negatively-- emails included.
I wondered why the putatively "liberal" MSNBC allowed this nonsense, and allowed "Joe" to all but smear Clinton with the email nonsense while neglecting to say much-- if anything-- about the fact that Trump and his team were already being investigated for their potential ties to Russia and--in the case of Manafort who was forced to leave-- Ukraine. It was when Manafort was arrested in Sept. 2016 that Trump did something unusual to change the subject on a Friday afternoon. He used that day to make front page news that insured the Manafort story would be buried. How? By saying (after years and years) that actually Barak Obama WAS a US citizen after all. This allowed the media (who fell for it) to focus on this as Kellyanne Conway seamlessly moved in to replace the scandalized Manafort, helping to deliver Trump's victory.
OK, enough, sorry. I still get upset and angry about this largely neglected history. I could go on and on about how other media figures were complicit in the "lead-up" to Trump just as was the case in the "lead-up" to Gulf 2. No circus barker had ever gotten the attention and respect that idiot-Trump did in 2015-2016. But already, social and political scientists were warning of autocracy or "neo-fascism" should he win. Trump got billions in free exposure and media time-- a story for another time. Sorry for the length of this screed. (emphasis added)
My response to comment 2: My God, your memory must be prodigious.
Comment 3: I think it's highly selective. These things, at the time, angered me. When events register at a stark, emotional level, they often get etched into long term memory. Many of the people I'm talking about, I think, sold America down the river for fairly trivial perishables like TV ratings, career status, money and other interests that just pale in comparison with the consequences of their actions. I was not just angered, but by 2016 moved to take action, so I remember the early formation of Indivisible to fight back Trumpism. But most people I tried to persuade to join and fight, thought this was all overkill. I still remember being told by "Liberal" friends here on NY's upper west side, that our "system" is strong, and it's designed to ultimately ferret out pests like Trump-- this was a short term hassle, not a long term threat. Others, including family members, said things like, "Well, we didn't want him, but now that he won, let's keep an open mind and maybe he'll grow into the job." Obama, himself, promoted this rosy idea of T "growing into the job, as he comes to appreciate his awesome responsibilities." (paraphrase). It's hard to forget the widespread downplaying of danger after the really frightening preview we all had witnessed during Trump rallies and the like. These interpretations had no basis in reality, and, yeah, it stuck with me.
Immediately, on his arrival at the WH, Trump did everything you'd expect would strip away such Candide-like optimism. Yet despite pursuing unconstitutional "Muslim bans," assaulting the integrity of American judges and members of the army who had ethnic or religious backgrounds that were not lily white, northern European (the "Mexican judge who ruled against him, and the posting of false anti-Muslim videos on Twitter that continued after taking office in 2017)/ Back then, Lindsay Graham joined Jeff Flake and others not yet fealty to Dear Leader in denouncing Trump for these things, as did international leaders including conservative, Theresa May (then Brit PM). I remember that these stories were covered more to sell soap in US media then truly ring the alarm bells that--back then-- were mainly being rung by academics in history and pol. science in various books and journals most Americans never read.
So, yeah, I remember these things like they were yesterday (maybe I get a few fact mixed up now and again if I don't check the record). I'm glad I remember this long and complacent period of (more or less) appeasement or at least accommodation (despite Mueller Report and the 1st Impeachment). Much of the anti-Trump rhetoric in the media struck me as performative, as virtue-signaling to viewers who loved to hate Trump. What we didn't see until as late as 1/6-- after an insurrection and coup attempt-- was a serious effort to fight the Trump movement depriving it of its social media oxygen, taking the conspiracy theories seriously, declaring (metaphorically) war on the domestic terror groups that had been there all the while, as Charleston should have made totally clear.
But now, I'm afraid, the Dems are back to infighting and loss of a sense of the overriding urgency of this threat. They are sleepwalking into what looks to be a thumping in 2022, and very possibly 2024. No game plan to combat the usurpation of democracy here. One can only wonder what it takes. So, I do remember the crazy shit that got us where we are from the immoral McCain campaign with Palin, to Tea Party bullshit and Birtherism, up to the media legitimation of Trump as candidate, even as he encouraged violence and made clear his intentions. Many things from these years I totally forget, but these have away of sticking in a disturbing way.
Immediately, on his arrival at the WH, Trump did everything you'd expect would strip away such Candide-like optimism. Yet despite pursuing unconstitutional "Muslim bans," assaulting the integrity of American judges and members of the army who had ethnic or religious backgrounds that were not lily white, northern European (the "Mexican judge who ruled against him, and the posting of false anti-Muslim videos on Twitter that continued after taking office in 2017)/ Back then, Lindsay Graham joined Jeff Flake and others not yet fealty to Dear Leader in denouncing Trump for these things, as did international leaders including conservative, Theresa May (then Brit PM). I remember that these stories were covered more to sell soap in US media then truly ring the alarm bells that--back then-- were mainly being rung by academics in history and pol. science in various books and journals most Americans never read.
So, yeah, I remember these things like they were yesterday (maybe I get a few fact mixed up now and again if I don't check the record). I'm glad I remember this long and complacent period of (more or less) appeasement or at least accommodation (despite Mueller Report and the 1st Impeachment). Much of the anti-Trump rhetoric in the media struck me as performative, as virtue-signaling to viewers who loved to hate Trump. What we didn't see until as late as 1/6-- after an insurrection and coup attempt-- was a serious effort to fight the Trump movement depriving it of its social media oxygen, taking the conspiracy theories seriously, declaring (metaphorically) war on the domestic terror groups that had been there all the while, as Charleston should have made totally clear.
But now, I'm afraid, the Dems are back to infighting and loss of a sense of the overriding urgency of this threat. They are sleepwalking into what looks to be a thumping in 2022, and very possibly 2024. No game plan to combat the usurpation of democracy here. One can only wonder what it takes. So, I do remember the crazy shit that got us where we are from the immoral McCain campaign with Palin, to Tea Party bullshit and Birtherism, up to the media legitimation of Trump as candidate, even as he encouraged violence and made clear his intentions. Many things from these years I totally forget, but these have away of sticking in a disturbing way.
No comments:
Post a Comment