Climate change: Nations are fudging the numbers

A palm plantation for palm oil, used to make 

biofuels, processed foods, soaps, cosmetics and other products --

when peat-rich bogs are drained and converted to plantations or farms, 

they release a rapid pulse of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 

as the once-waterlogged plants’ remains degrade after exposure to air

A Washington Post article, Countries’ climate pledges built on flawed data, Post investigation finds, asserts that some nations are in error or outright lying about their emissions. This analysis points to weaknesses in global emissions reporting, which suggests ways to improve on the data being collected. The WaPo writes:

Malaysia’s latest catalogue of its greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations reads like a report from a parallel universe. The 285-page document suggests that Malaysia’s trees are absorbing carbon four times faster than similar forests in neighboring Indonesia.

The surprising claim has allowed the country to subtract over 243 million tons of carbon dioxide from its 2016 inventory — slashing 73 percent of emissions from its bottom line.

Across the world, many countries underreport their greenhouse gas emissions in their reports to the United Nations, a Washington Post investigation has found. An examination of 196 country reports reveals a giant gap between what nations declare their emissions to be versus the greenhouse gases they are sending into the atmosphere. The gap ranges from at least 8.5 billion to as high as 13.3 billion tons a year of underreported emissions — big enough to move the needle on how much the Earth will warm.

At the low end, the gap is larger than the yearly emissions of the United States. At the high end, it approaches the emissions of China and comprises 23 percent of humanity’s total contribution to the planet’s warming, The Post found.

The analysis found at least 59 percent of the gap stems from how countries account for emissions from land, a unique sector in that it can both help and harm the climate. Land can draw in carbon as plants grow and soils store it away — or it can all go back up into the atmosphere as forests are logged or burn and as peat-rich bogs are drained and start to emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Scientific research indicates that countries are undercounting methane of all kinds: in the oil and gas sector, where it leaks from pipelines and other sources; in agriculture, where it wafts upward from the burps and waste of cows and other ruminant animals; and in human waste, where landfills are a major source.

Meanwhile, fluorinated gases, which are exclusively human-made, also are underreported significantly. Known as “F-gases,” they are used in air conditioning, refrigeration and the electricity industry. But The Post found that dozens of countries don’t report these emissions at all — a major shortcoming since some of these potent greenhouse gases are a growing part of the world’s climate problem.

Many problems causing the gap in emissions statistics stem from the U.N. reporting system. Developed countries have one set of standards, while developing countries have another, with wide latitude to decide how and what and when they report. The difference in reporting reflects the reality that the developed nations are historically responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that have built up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and that they have greater technical capacity to analyze their emissions than poorer nations.

The emission reports are so unwieldy that the United Nations does not have a complete database to track country emissions. Some 45 countries have not reported any new greenhouse gas numbers since 2009.

If the WaPo analysis is correct, global human-related greenhouse gas emissions are being underreported by about 16-23%. That helps experts to better understand the real climate situation and sources of man-made climate change. Analysis like this peels back some of the cover that some or many nations and industries, e.g., the oil, gas and palm oil industries, have been using to understate their greenhouse gas emissions. Sunlight is needed to kill rot. 

The urge to lie about greenhouse gas emissions is strong for all countries. That's why some do not report their emissions. This points to a need for government action and international agreements to deal with climate change. The private sector and free markets will not deal with climate chance seriously unless they are forced to. Despite some contrary political and economic theory, laissez faire capitalism will not solve some major social and environmental problems. Governments can do that, despite the standard government hater attack mantra, “I’m here from the government, and here to help.” 

Sure, government makes mistakes and is not perfect. But when it comes to dealing with environmental and social problems, coordinated government action is much better than unregulated markets running free and wild. Markets like that can kill consumers, wreck environments and/or cause species to go extinct without any moral or other qualms. Profit is the only critical moral imperative.  

Questions: 

1. On balance, are the finding of this analysis mostly good news, mostly bad news or roughly about equally good and bad?

2. Which is better for dealing with climate change, unregulated markets running free and wild in pursuit of its major moral imperative (private sector profit for elites), or intelligent government action in pursuit of its major moral imperative (defense of the public interest, which includes the health of the environment and climate)? Or, as most libertarians and radical right brass knuckles capitalists generally argue, does the public interest not exist, and/or it is not a legitimate government interest?

One kind of palm fruit

Another kind of palm fruit

Lincoln created the modern Constitution, not the original Founders

Noah Feldman testifying before Congress about the dangers 

of the ex-president’s take on executive power

Harvard constitutional law professor Noah Feldman writes in a New York Times opinion that, more than Madison, Hamilton and the other Founders at the Constitutional Convention, Abe Lincoln wrote what is now the modern constitution. To do this, Lincoln broke the Constitution three times, the last being a final break with the complex, often crippling and ambiguous political and moral compromises the original was based on. Arguably, the original Constitution was deeply flawed and not workable.

This opinion piece adds to the historical context for my recent belief that the US Civil War has not really ended in some important ways. In particular, the 14th Reconstruction era Amendment with its due process and equal protection clauses are under attack by the modern radical right. The same holds for the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. In this essay, one can see some of the origins of core radical right political ideology and legal theory on constitutional interpretation.

Before the Civil War, Lincoln was not opposed to slavery where it existed. He wrote “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.” Lincoln claimed that he would never to defy what was “plainly written” in the original Constitution, claiming that “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Then the war came. Feldman writes: 

But I’m making a stronger argument. What has become clear to me is that even before the passage of those Reconstruction amendments — indeed, as a kind of precondition for them — Lincoln fatally injured the Constitution of 1787. He consciously and repeatedly violated core elements of that Constitution as they had been understood by nearly all Americans of the time, himself included.

Through those acts of destruction, Lincoln effectively broke the Constitution of 1787, paving the way for something very different to replace it. What began as a messy, pragmatic compromise necessary to hold the young country together was reborn as an aspirational blueprint for a nation based on the principle of equal liberty for all.

[Note: In several discussions here (e.g., this and this), I have pointed out the core Christian nationalist belief in unequal liberty for all, including hostility to democratic elections. Wealthy White heterosexual male Christians are destined by God to rule society, commerce and government. That group deserves wealth, power and control in view of being the most authoritative and moral of all based on their God-given wealth, race, gender and moral superiority. Christian nationalists want to be able to openly but legally discriminate against other groups based on sex, race, sexual orientation, religion or lack thereof, and political ideology. There is nothing new about this, despite diligent, mostly successful, Christian nationalist tactics to hide and deny this fact. The evidence for this is undeniable and apparently not in dispute among experts. As one would expect, this is strenuously disputed by Christian nationalists and their massive propaganda machine.]

Today, when the United States is engaged in a national reckoning about the legacies of slavery and institutional racism, the story of Lincoln’s breaking of the Constitution of 1787 is instructive. It teaches us not only that the original Constitution was deeply compromised, morally and functionally, by its enshrining of slavery, but also that the original Constitution was shattered, remade and supplanted by a project genuinely worthy of reverence.

But in the 18 months that followed, Lincoln violated the Constitution as it was then broadly understood three separate times.

First, he waged war on the Confederacy. He did this even though his predecessor, James Buchanan, and Buchanan’s attorney general, Jeremiah Black, had concluded that neither the president nor Congress had the lawful authority to coerce the citizens of seceding states to stay in the Union without their democratic consent. Coercive war, they had argued, repudiated the idea of consent of the governed on which the Constitution was based.

Second, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus unilaterally, without Congress, arresting thousands of political opponents and suppressing the free press and free speech to a degree unmatched in U.S. history before or since. When Chief Justice Roger Taney of the Supreme Court held that the suspension was unconstitutional, Lincoln ignored him.

Lincoln justified both of these constitutional violations by a doubtful theory of wartime necessity: that as chief executive and commander in chief, he possessed the inherent authority to use whatever means necessary to preserve the Union.

Third, and most fatefully, Lincoln came to believe that he also possessed the power to proclaim an end to slavery in the Southern states. When he finally did so, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, he eliminated any possibility of returning to the compromise Constitution as it had existed before the war.

As Lincoln explained in a letter to Senator Orville Browning of Illinois in September 1861, emancipation would be “itself the surrender of the government” he was trying to save. “Can it be pretended that it is any longer the government of the U.S. — any government of Constitution and laws,” Lincoln asked, if a general or a president were able to “make permanent rules of property by proclamation?”

In the end, Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation turned on his realization that the war could not be won as he had originally hoped — namely, by inducing the Southern states to rejoin the Union on compromise terms similar to the status quo before the war. To proclaim the enslaved people of the South as emancipated was to announce that there was no going back. The original compromise Constitution would no longer be on offer, even if the South gave up and rejoined the Union.

.... the 14th and 15th Amendments, enacted after Lincoln’s death in April 1865, formally secured the equal protection of the laws and enfranchised African American men. But Lincoln had already transformed the Constitution from a political compromise into a platform for defending moral principles by invoking its authority to end slavery. 

Indeed, even before Lincoln broke the Constitution, some of the most sophisticated thinkers about the nature of the Constitution were attuned to the complexities of the question.

Frederick Douglass, for example, began his career as an abolitionist in the late 1830s by rejecting the Constitution as immoral. Over time, however, his views changed. In 1850, he wrote that “liberty and slavery — opposite as heaven and hell — are both in the Constitution.” The Constitution, he concluded, was “at war with itself.”  

Even this would turn out to be a transitional position for Douglass. In 1851, he declared that he now believed that slavery “never was lawful, and never can be made so.” (emphasis added)

Do you see what I see?

In Feldman’s account of what Lincoln did and what it meant, connections between the old Civil War disputes and modern radical right politics and ideology jump right out. But is it reasonable to believe that interpretation? He is an expert. In essence, he argues that the original Constitution had to be broken before 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses could come into being. Some on the radical right argue today that the South never consented to the three Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th) an thus they are null and void.[1]

My assertion is that the roots of modern White Christian nationalism and radical right ideology extend at least back to the Civil War, arguably back to the original Constitution. I got an inkling of this origins story from former US Attorney General Edward Levy’s 1949 book, Introduction to Legal Reasoning, where some of the roots of modern right wing radicalism seemed to me to be there. I could see it, but maybe that perception was more self-constructed illusion based on motivated reasoning than fact-based reality. I'm not an expert and don’t know all  the facts.

Questions: 

1. Is Feldman merely spouting fluffy academic theory from his comfy Ivy League tower, or does what he argue make sense and is thus plausible, maybe even convincing? Did Lincoln really transform the Constitution from an arguably flawed political compromise into a platform for defending moral principles by invoking it as an authority to end slavery?

2. Is it at least plausible to link modern authoritarian, radical right Christian nationalist ideology with the modern Republican Party and its politics, policies and dark free speech tactics? To me it is an excellent hand in correct size glove fit. 

3. What is one to think of Frederick Douglass’ assertion that slavery “never was lawful, and never can be made so”? Is that the top of a slippery slope starting from equal liberty for all and descending into to some form of autocratic or plutocratic White Christian authoritarianism such as an American version of fascist theocracy? Is American governance and society already sliding down that slope?

Footnote: 

1. Feldman notes that Lincoln’s “moral” Constitution was thwarted on multiple occasions. For example, soon after the Reconstruction Amendments were ratified, imposition of segregation and disenfranchisement on Black Southerners essentially nullified them. That was not rectified until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education and the 1960s civil rights movement before the goal of Lincoln’s new Constitution started to really take hold on American society. I have pointed out multiple times that the 1954 Brown v. Board decision to desegregate public schools enraged Southern White elites, arguably marking the start of the modern era radical right political juggernaut, with its heavy reliance on dark free speech tactics. 

Although he rejects them as unpersuasive, one legal expert points out two bases to argue that the three Reconstruction Amendments are invalid: 

There are two important lines of objection to the amendments’ adoption. One is that some or all of the southern state governments that participated in ratifying them were not legally competent to do so because of the irregular fashion in which those governments had been created. The other objection is that some or all of the southern ratifications were extorted from the states through unlawful federal threats.

I maintain that the proposal and ratification of the Reconstruction amendments was legally effective under Article V. The words “legally effective” are chosen carefully, for the argument is formalistic: it does not deny that during Reconstruction Article V badly served its purpose of balancing the federal and national principles.

This is some of the basis for my belief that in some ways, some aspects of the US Civil War are not settled yet, and maybe never will be. The basis for the fight is right there, out in the open. 

A comment on the Republican attitude toward compromise and cooperation: don’t do it

John Wright (Rural VA) said he had become so frustrated with 

the mainstream media that he consumes only pro-Trump programming

Credit...

The Republican attitude in congress toward bipartisan compromise and cooperation is simple: don’t do it. The Washington Post writes in an article, GOP erupts over its House members bailing out Biden:

On Friday, 13 House Republicans delivered the decisive votes to rescue a key part of President Biden’s agenda — an agenda endangered by those in his own party.

But in the end it wasn’t really those progressives who provided the key votes, but rather the 13 Republicans. The final vote count was 228 to 206, meaning if no Republicans had voted for the bill, it wouldn’t have passed.

And some Republicans are predictably furious — with undersold questions about House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) future leadership of the party potentially in the offing.

“I can’t believe Republicans just gave the Democrats their socialism bill,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said.

“That 13 House Republicans provided the votes needed to pass this is absurd,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) said.

Others threatened before the vote to target or launch primaries against the defectors in their midst.

“Vote for this infrastructure bill and I will primary the hell out of you,” Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) said shortly before the vote.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), in her typically understated fashion, warned last week that any Republican who voted for the bill would be “a traitor to our party, a traitor to their voters and a traitor to our donors.” After the vote, she accused the 13 of having voted to “pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America” and tweeted the phone numbers to their congressional offices (while for some reason only listing 12 of the 13).

While McCarthy previously kept his powder dry on whipping against the bill, he ultimately pushed for his members to vote against it. As recently as last week, McCarthy said, “I don’t expect few, if any, to vote for it, if it comes to the floor today.” In another interview, he was asked about the infrastructure bill and said, “It will fail.” 

The National Review summed it up accordingly: “Disgraceful House Republicans Rescue Biden’s Flailing Agenda”:

    … [Thirteen] Republicans swooped in to rescue Pelosi, provide Biden with the biggest victory of his presidency, and put the rest of his reckless agenda on a glide path to passage in the House. 

    This is a substantively bad decision that is political malpractice. It represents a betrayal.

    

    Politically, it’s unclear what Republicans are thinking. Biden entered this week reeling from a devastating rebuke of his presidency by voters in areas of the country thought to be reliably Democratic. He headed into the 2022 election year a wounded animal, and Republicans stood to make major gains. Now, they tossed him a life raft and allowed him to put bipartisan gloss on his radical agenda. 

    Every Republican who voted for this monstrosity who is not already retiring should be primaried and defeated by candidates who will actually resist the Left-wing agenda. Those who are retiring should be shamed for the rest of their lives. It also is not too soon to be asking whether Representative Kevin McCarthy should be ousted from leadership for his inability to keep his caucus together on such a crucial vote.  

And that last one is a key point here. The bill included lots of popular projects and, in another era, probably would’ve gotten significantly more GOP votes. But we live in this era, in which delivering a political win for the other side — however popular the bill and however much your constituents might want it — is seen as apostasy. The demand in the GOP for such devotion to the party line and its election prospects is even greater than on the other side.

Obviously, most FRP (fascist Republican Party) politicians have no interest in compromise or cooperation with congressional Democrats. They see socialism and treason in the Republican House vote, including treason to Republican donors. So does the FRP propaganda Leviathan, which called the vote a betrayal in support of a radical agenda. Those House Republicans are probably going to face a ferocious RINO hunt in the 2022 primary election. If the ex-president weighs in, they could lose their House seats. The situation for Democrats in rural areas seems to be bad and may be getting worse.[1]

Who are the radicals here?

One definition of radical is that it is advocacy of policies that a majority does not want. Another definition in political science terminology is that radicalism is the belief that society needs to be changed, and that these changes are only possible through revolutionary means. For the last few years, the FRP has been consistently calling Democratic Party policy goals radical left or socialist, neither of which is true. Most rank and file Republicans appear to believe those lies. Opinion polling indicates that most major Democratic policies have majority American public support. Some poll data indicates that most Americans support this infrastructure bill (somewhat higher support in this poll). It is likely that public support would be higher if FRP elite propaganda had not poisoned it as socialism or leftist radicalism in the minds of many rank and file Republicans, where opposition tends to be strong.  

Questions: 

1. There were some republican votes in the Senate for the bill, so was that a sign of FRP bipartisan cooperation, or was it an act dictated by party politics with no real cooperation appetite, regardless of what the bill would do for the American people or the country generally? In other words, was the Senate vote an illusion of bipartisanship more than actual good will bipartisanship? The same can be asked of the 13 House Republicans who voted for the bill.

2. Despite FRP propaganda characterizing the bipartisan infrastructure bill as radical left or socialist, will at least a modest number of average Americans change their minds once they start to feel some benefits flowing from new infrastructure spending? Is this bill radical, assuming most Americans oppose it? Does it matter if some public opposition is mostly based on false characterizations of the bill by the FRP propaganda Leviathan?

3. Is this significant evidence that the FRP elites, including big financial backers and congressional politicians, usually places loyalty to the party above the loyalty to truth, public opinion or the public interest?

Footnote:

1. A New York Times article, Democrats Thought They Bottomed Out in Rural, White America. It Wasn’t the Bottom., suggests the urban-rural divide is not something Democrats have an answer to and it is part of their nationwide weakness.

Republicans ran up the margins in rural Virginia counties, the latest sign that Democrats, as one lawmaker put it, “continue to tank in small-town America.” 

Mr. Youngkin not only won less populated areas by record margins — he was outpacing former President Donald J. Trump’s 2020 showing in even the reddest counties, including by six percentage points in Bath County — but he also successfully rolled back Democratic gains in the bedroom communities outside Washington and Richmond, where many college-educated white voters had rejected Republicanism under Mr. Trump. 

The twin results raise a foreboding possibility for Democrats: that the party had simply leased the suburbs in the Trump era, while Republicans may have bought and now own even more of rural America.

Republicans have never had a demographic stronghold as reliable as Black voters have been for Democrats, a group that delivers as many as nine out of 10 votes for the party. But some Democratic leaders are now sounding the alarm: What if rural, white voters — of which there are many — start voting that reliably Republican?

A ratcheting down hypothesis on the end of American democracy

Unhappy parents at a school board meeting

fighting tyranny

"The highlight of the Koch summit in [January of] 2009 was an uninhibited debate about what conservatives should do next in the face of electoral defeat. As the donors and other guests dined [...] they watched a passionate argument unfold that encapsulated the stark choice ahead. . . . . Cornyn was rated the second most conservative republican in the Senate . . . . But he was also, as one former aide put it "very much a constitutionalist" who believed it was occasionally necessary to compromise in politics.

Poised on the other side of the moderator was the South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative provocateur who defined the outermost antiestablishment fringes of the republican party . . . . Before his election to congress, DeMint had run as advertising agency in South Carolina. He understood how to sell, and what he was pitching that night was an approach to politics that according to historian Sean Wilenz would have been recognizable to DeMint's forebears from the Palmetto state as akin to the radical nullification of federal power advocated in the 1820s by the slavery defender John C. Calhoun.

. . . . Cornyn spoke in favor of the Republican Party fighting its way back to victory by broadening its appeal to a broader swath of voters, including moderates. . . . . the former aide explained . . . . 'He believes in making the party a big tent. You can't win unless you get more votes.'

In contrast, DeMint portrayed compromise as surrender. He had little patience for the slow-moving process of constitutional government. He regarded many of his Senate colleagues as timid and self-serving. The federal government posed such a dire threat to the dynamism of the American economy, in his view, that anything less than all-out war on regulations and spending was a cop-out. . . . . Rather than compromising on their principles and working with the new administration, DeMint argued, Republicans needed to take a firm stand against Obama, waging a campaign of massive resistance and obstruction, regardless of the 2008 election outcome.

As the participants continued to cheer him on, in his folksy southern way, DeMint tore into Cornyn over one issue in particular. He accused Cornyn of turning his back on conservative free-market principles and capitulating to the worst kind of big government spending, with his vote earlier that fall in favor of the Treasury Department's massive bailout of failing banks. . . . . In hopes of staving off economic disaster, Bush's Treasury Department begged Congress to approve the massive $700 billion emergency bailout known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.[1]

Advisers to Obama later acknowledged that he had no idea of what he was up against. He had campaigned as a post-partisan politician who had idealistically taken issue with those who he said "like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states." He insisted, "We are one people," the United States of America. His vision, like his own blended racial and geographic heredity, was one of reconciliation, not division." -- journalist Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, 2017

The New York Times writes about threats to school board members from enraged, often disinformed parents. The article,‘I Don’t Want to Die for It’: School Board Members Face Rising Threats, provides more evidence of how deep and mentally deranged a combination of toxic polarization and endless lies have pushed American society into. The NYT writes: 

Across the country, parents have threatened board members and vandalized their homes.

It was only days after Sami Al-Abdrabbuh was re-elected to the school board in Corvallis, Ore., that the text messages arrived.

The first, he said, was a photograph taken at a shooting range. It showed one of his campaign’s lawn signs — “Re-Elect Sami” — riddled with bullet holes.

The second was a warning from a friend. This one said that one of their neighbors was looking for Mr. Al-Abdrabbuh. The neighbor was threatening to kill him.

Like many school board races this year, the one in May in Corvallis, a left-leaning college town in the northwest corner of the state, was especially contentious, swirling around concerns not only about the coronavirus pandemic but also the teaching of what Mr. Al-Abdrabbuh called the “dark history” of America’s struggle with race.

“I love serving on the school board,” he said. “But I don’t want to die for it.”

Mr. Al-Abdrabbuh is not alone. Since the spring, a steady tide of school board members across the country have nervously come forward with accounts of threats they have received from enraged local parents. At first, the grievances mainly centered on concerns about the way their children were being taught about race and racism. Now, parents are more often infuriated by Covid-19 restrictions like mask mandates in classrooms.

It is an echo of what happened when those faithful to the Tea Party stormed Obamacare town halls across the country more than a decade ago. In recent months, there have been Nazi salutes at school board meetings and emails threatening rape. Obscenities have been hurled — or burned into people’s lawns with weed spray.

While there has not been serious violence yet, there have been a handful of arrests for charges such as assault and disorderly conduct. The National School Boards Association has likened some of these incidents to domestic terrorism, though the group eventually walked back that claim after it triggered a backlash from its state member organizations.

Some protesters who have caused a stir at school board meetings in recent months have defended themselves by saying that they were merely exercising their First Amendment rights and that schools are better when parents are involved, arguments echoed by Republicans in Congress and in statehouse races.

The NYT goes on to point out that last October Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo stating that the Justice Department would respond to “a disturbing spike of harassment, intimidation and threats of violence.” Not surprisingly, the radical right immediately denounced this attempt to defuse the situation and took retaliatory action. Republican attorneys general in 17 states published a memo that described federal monitoring threats against school officials as a threat itself. Local law enforcement should be used, not federal. Thus, one can argue that respect for the rule of law has been politicized and undermined. For tens of millions of Americans, the new norm is that law and order is only for the political opposition, not for their tribe or cult.

A ratchet down hypothesis of the end 

of American democracy, civility, the rule of law, etc. 

During Obama's first administration, the thought occurred that respect for democracy, political and social civility and norms, the rule of law, and other pro-democracy, pro-truth norms were all being attacked and weakened in a process that seemed to work in only one direction, the bad direction. The professional press was under constant attack and heavily discredited, while professional propaganda outlets were on the rise in influence, reach and funding. Now in 2021, it appears that the old restraining, pro-democracy and pro-truth norms have been mostly or completely obliterated for what seems to be about 40-60% of Americans. Some of them are highly motivated and vocal. Most of their trust in government and fellow citizens is gone along with most faith in democratic institutions and truth itself.

The ratchet, or democracy death spiral, works by one side in culture and political war using a well-funded, sophisticated propaganda Leviathan to foment unwarranted, irrational terror, rage, distrust and intolerance. Each successful poison dart, e.g., "the press is the enemy of the people," or smearing the monitoring of threats against school board members as a threat, moves the social-political ratchet mechanism another notch in the bad direction. Society inches closer to democracy-destroying distrust, intolerance, authoritarianism and kleptocracy. From what I can tell, counter measures are mostly ineffective, hence a reasonable perception that this works in mostly or completely only one direction, away from democracy, truth and the rule of law.[2]

The ratchet phenomenon first came to mind after observing what happened to Obama. It became clear over time that the machinery to effect the toxic ratchet had been under construction at least since the 1954 Brown v. Board Supreme Court decision that desegregated public schools. In recent months and after reading some more, it now appears that the anti-democratic ratchet arguably has been in operation in one way or another at least since the 1861-1865 US Civil War. Arguably, the Civil War has not ended, but is still being fought through poison ratchet technology and tactics. That belief is fully in accord with inherently anti-democratic, anti-truth Christian nationalist ideology and morals. Along with special interest money in support of capitalism and profits, aggressive Christian nationalist fundamentalism is one of the top two influencers of the modern Republican Party.

Questions: 

1. Is it a threat for federal officials to monitor threats at school board meetings? What is the difference between federal and local law enforcement in terms of threat perceptions and actual threat to people who want to make threats to school board members? Should threats, including death threats, be made legal?

2. Is the one-way toxic ratchet hypothesis plausible in view of how American politics has played out since the 1950s?

Footnotes: 

1. TARP was not a major cost to taxpayers. ProPublica wrote that in total, the federal government realized a $109B profit as of August 30, 2021. The government continues to collect additional profit over time.

2. It wasn't just Republican rage at the election of Obama, who congressional Republicans "hated—and I mean hated," as John Boehner observed in his book. New social weapons came online, e.g., social media. There was a recognition of the power of social media to effectively spread poison lies, crackpot conspiracy theories, and irrational fear, rage, moral disgust, intolerance and distrust. In addition, there was a recognition among hard core political right that old restraining norms, e.g., 'you are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts', were too much opposed to authoritarian radical right policy goals. The old pro-democracy norms had to go and so did all respect for inconvenient truth, both of which are now gone.