A Failed Campaign of Reason and Civility Against Irrational GOP Fear, Rage and Hate

Republican online comment: “I bet if I put a gun to his face he’d cry like a baby.”

The Washington Post published a long, heartbreaking article on the failed 31-day campaign of self-described nice guy Kevin Van Ausdal against radical far right crackpot conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican candidate in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District. Greene now runs unopposed. The stress of trying to respond in anger against Greene cost Van Ausdal his marriage and his home. He describes himself as broken. This is what the new GOP is going to be like. 

The story described in detail Van Ausdal’s slow mental breakdown as he tried to shift his rhetoric and tone from civil and focused on issues, to harsh and focused on fighting back against a rage and hate-promoting GOP extremist. His marriage deteriorated as the pressure on him to be what he isn’t caused his wife to file for divorce and have him kicked out of their home. Van Ausdal had to withdraw from the race and move back to Indiana with his parents because he had no other place to stay in Georgia.

These portions of the article gives a sense of what slowly tore Van Ausdal apart. Ruth is Van Ausdal’s campaign adviser Ruth Demeter. ‘Upswing’ refers to Van Ausdal’s natural voice tendency to soften the tone of his speech to reduce emotion and conflict.

“So,” Ruth continued. “Talk to me about the things about Marjorie that are dangerous and embarrassing and appear to disregard the 14th District.”

“Okay, well, it’s really just the fearmongering?” Kevin said. There was the upswing, but Ruth let him go on. “It’s defining us. I don’t think I ever told you this, but I said to a preacher early on, you know, Jesus wants us to come together and love each other regardless of our beliefs. So when we’re fanning the flames of fear and violence — ”

“Okay,” Ruth interjected. “I love ‘fanning the flames of fear.’ But Kevin, I’m going to tell you something right now that’s really hard. This statement is about reaching people in the middle, and a lot of them are Republicans. For them, the language about love and peace is bad, or just not in their wheelhouse. … It’s got to be, ‘This has got to stop. I’m calling this out.’ ”

“Okay,” Kevin said.

“Try that ‘Enough is enough’ line,” Ruth said.

“Enough is enough — wait,” Kevin said, then tried again. “Enough is enough.”

“Oh, I love that,” Ruth said.

“I’m not going to act like this is a normal election,” he continued.

“Oh, that’s really good,” Ruth said.

“Enough is enough” Kevin repeated over and over, practicing the statement his team wanted to post as soon as possible to his 1,500 Facebook followers, and meanwhile, Greene had posted a new Facebook video for her 100,000 followers.  

“Do me a favor. Take a deep breath. Put your shoulders back,” Ruth said. “Read it angry. It’s this crazy situation. Read it mad.”

“Hi. I’m Kevin Van Aus-dal. ... Marjorie Taylor Greene does not represent us …”

“Again. Mad,” Ruth said.

“Marjorie Taylor Greene is not one of us …” Kevin said.

“Not one of us,” Ruth said.

“Not one of us …” Kevin said. “What’s the psychology behind this?”

“There’s psychology but I don’t have time to explain,” Ruth said. “Okay, go for it.”

“We are watching her use her platform to cheer violence against Democrats,” he continued, then stopped. “Be angry,” he reminded himself.

“Be angry,” Ruth said. “And you have to give it a little beat,” said Ruth. “So-ul.”

“For the so-ul of our nation,” Kevin said. “Like that?”

“Perfect,” Ruth said. “Remember. You’re angry.”

Kevin took a deep breath and closed his eyes for a moment.

WaPo writes: Her campaign adviser stated that “Greene had expressed support for the 17-year-old charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wis., calling the case the “first stage” of a new “Civil War.” And he said that while Greene was now distancing herself from QAnon, she had the support of QAnon social media groups as well as an array of local gun groups including one called the Georgia III % Martyrs.”

It is clear that people who support Greene are driven by irrational fear, rage and hate fomented by relentless radical conservative dark free speech, or epistemic terrorism if you will. Trying to reason with those people is pointless. They have been radicalized and whipped into a raging tribal frenzy that cannot be reasoned with or reasonable.

How should the opposition to this raging insanity respond? The GOP leadership is mostly silent. Clearly the reasoned and reasonable approach that Van Ausdal wanted to take would have been a failure, but he could not transition to an all-out war footing mindset. His attempt to harden himself broke him mentally.

Does the democratic party owe something to Van Ausdal for what he tried to do?

WaPo writes: “Onstage, a guest speaker was talking about “a time when you will be asked to shed another man’s blood because he is a threat to your very way of life.” Another talked about “the communist Democrats.” Another said that vice-presidential candidate Kamala D. Harris “wants to come to your house and take your guns away.” Another began his speech by yelling into the microphone, “FREEDOM!!!!” and out in the audience, a man wearing a hat with a ‘Q Army’ patch was listening. ‘I think people are waking up’, said the man, Butch Lapp. ---- Greene supporters commenting online about Van Ausdal: ‘the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat’ and one that read ‘I bet if I put a gun to his face he’d cry like a baby.’”

Jurisdiction Stripping to Limit Court Power

US Constitution, Article 3, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The US Constitution includes a short clause that allows congress to exempt a law it passes from judicial review. Federal courts have jurisdiction to review laws that congress passes with “with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” [1]

Unless I misunderstand because there is a legal authority that defines ‘Exceptions’ and/or ‘Regulations’ in a way I am not aware of, that clause seems to give the president and congress the power to write and pass a law with a provision that states that courts do not have the power to review the law. Thus, for example, congress could write a law that codifies the Roe v. Wade abortion decision and/or the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage decision as a federal law that is not subject to judicial review for its constitutionality. This tactic is called jurisdiction stripping.

If that is how this can work, one can instantly see the havoc this could wreak on American society and the operation of the federal government. A radical conservative president and congress congress could write and pass laws to restrict voting rights or to expand gun rights and that law could be shielded from judicial review. A liberal president and congress congress could write and pass laws they wanted.

In 1982, a young lawyer and now chief justice of the US supreme court, John Roberts wrote a detailed legal analysis as part of an evolving radical conservative legal strategy to try to undo Roe v. Wade, public school desegregation and other social trends that conservatives hated then and still hate today. Roberts wrote that the constitution contains “clear and unequivocal” language that gives congress the power to shield laws from Supreme Court review. One can now understand why George W. Bush nominated Roberts to be the chief justice on the Supreme Court.

Now that radical conservatives dominate the Supreme Court, liberals are considering using this constitutional clause to shield laws that liberals would like to see passed and protected from endless court battles. Liberal are also considering expanding the supreme court and packing it with liberal judges and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices, both of which seem to be problematic and will likely further polarize American politics. 

What seems to be happening now

The decades-long radicalism of powerful conservatives and their rigid unwillingness to accept demographic and social change they hate and reject runs deep and powerful. Their desperate, slowly losing fight against modernity and social change has led them to the malicious and deeply immoral political space they now occupy. Many radical conservatives have come to realize that reliance on facts, truth, sound reasoning and reasonable compromise, an honest clean fight of ideas, will not stop the changes they what stopped. They will lose if they play politics fairly, respectfully and transparently. In the process of protecting their version of America, radical conservatism has become dishonest, immoral, authoritarian and opaque. Authoritarianism and opacity is discussed here. 

In reaction to how dirty and nasty the right has played to get us here, the left is now considering some of the same authoritarian tactics the right has considered or used. The difference between the two sides today is that the radical right is mostly an exclusive white minority trying to impose its will on an unwilling majority, while the left is generally trying to rule in the name of the majority. The years of RINO hunts in the GOP has drained that party of ideological diversity and at the same time, racial diversity. In one sense, the GOP is a spent force that is cornered, enraged and extremely dangerous. Its willingness to resort to authoritarianism, immorality, lies, deceit and so forth seem to be provoking at least some similar responses on the left.

In essence, modern mainstream radical conservatism is dragging American society and governance down into dark, immoral places. We may not be able to save civil society, democracy, civil lib or the rule of law.

Information source: Bloomberg Businessweek

Footnote: 

1. Caveat: The preceding phrase,  In all other Cases before mentioned, may somehow limit the kinds of laws that are subject to jurisdiction stripping. 

A Russian October Surprise Has Arrived!

Peek-a-boo!

We all knew it was coming. Well, here it is. Well, at least here is one. The Russians appear to have fabricated evidence about the illegal Biden activity in Ukraine. The Russians used the clueless, corrupt Rudy Giuliani as the conduit to help inject the Russian poison into American politics. The radical right propaganda and lies source, the New York Post ate it up and published the lies.[1] 

Now, the president, and his enablers and supporters can smear Biden with fabricated evidence. It was only a matter of time before the radical right could no longer contain itself and would resort to faked evidence to attack and smear political opposition, especially Joe Biden.  

The Washington Post writes: 

"The intelligence agencies warned the White House late last year that Russian intelligence officers were using President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani as a conduit for disinformation aimed at undermining Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidential run, according to four current and former American officials.

The agencies imparted the warning months before disclosing publicly in August that Moscow was trying to interfere in the election by taking aim at Mr. Biden’s campaign, the officials said. Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani have promoted unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Biden that have aligned with Russian disinformation efforts, and Mr. Giuliani has met with a Ukrainian lawmaker whom American officials believe is a Russian agent.

The warning, the second former official said, was prompted by a meeting on Dec. 5 between Mr. Giuliani and Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian member of Parliament who takes pro-Kremlin positions. The Treasury Department recently labeled him “an active Russian agent for over a decade,” disclosing that he maintained ties to Moscow’s intelligence services as it imposed sanctions on him in September.

Mr. Derkach has been releasing tapes of the former vice president’s conversations with Ukrainian officials. American officials said those tapes had been edited in misleading ways.

Mr. Giuliani has made multiple trips to Ukraine to gather material that is damaging to the Biden campaign, and his December visit came as he tried to shift the political conversation from impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump to unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Biden’s wrongdoing.

Mr. Giuliani’s work seized attention in the presidential race again this week when The New York Post published articles about Mr. Biden and his son based on material Mr. Giuliani provided. The Biden campaign rejected the reports, and Facebook and Twitter deemed them so dubious that they limited access to them.

The New York Times has not been able to verify the information that Mr. Giuliani furnished to The Post, which he said came from a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop. The owner of the shop has given conflicting accounts to reporters, and Mr. Giuliani’s acquisition of the laptop has raised questions about the material on it.

In August, the Office of the Director of National intelligence said in a statement that Mr. Derkach was spreading disinformation about Mr. Biden. The C.I.A. later issued a more detailed classified warning in its Worldwide Intelligence Review, a secret document read by members of Congress and the administration."

Time will tell if this attack on Biden is based on real or fake evidence. Given the disregard for truth that Giuliani has shown in his loyalty to the president, it is reasonable to think that (i) this is a Russian disinformation ploy, and (ii) Giuliani is a stooge the Russians are using to undermine Biden's campaign.

Footnote: 

1. The NYP article includes this sleaze: 

"Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client.

The shop owner couldn’t positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter’s late brother and former Delaware attorney general."

Political profiling…

 

I know (at least I believe) it’s morally wrong to racially/ethnically/sexually profile, and I am especially aware to try not to do that.  But is it also morally wrong to politically profile?  Because I will admit, right or wrong, I do that. :(

REPUBLICANS

I see the designation “Republican” and I immediately think things like: Money-oriented, less empathetic, more self-centered/selfish, less science-oriented, short term benefits over long term benefits.

DEMOCRATS

I see the designation “Democrat” and I immediately think things like: Civically-oriented, more empathetic, more other-centered/selfless, more science-oriented, long term benefits over short term benefits.

Granted, there are always exceptions to judgment-type (non-data driven) rules, but I am speaking/defining in generalities here.

*          *          *

So let’s start building some working lists.  Then we can challenge each other’s claims:

-Please list as many Republicans as you see fitting under my Republican definition above.

-Please list as many Democrats as you see fitting under my Democrat definition above.

-Please list as many politicians that do not fit under my profiled definitions above.  (I.e., D’s that “behave” like R’s, R’s that “behave” like D’s.)  Prove me wrong and help me find exceptions to my admittedly biased rules.

Thanks for posting and recommending.