Is Liberal Hypocrisy Fueling American Inequality?

 

The following NYT video asks why Democrats who argue for increased equality consistently fail to make the kinds of changes in state and local laws and regulations that are necessary to rectify the very inequalities they oppose. It is pointed out that in blue states with solid democratic majorities, the very inequalities opposed in the Democratic Party Platform are rampant, and, worse, perpetuated by a NIMBY mentality.  For example, zoning laws would have to change to build affordable housing.  Laws determining funding for school districts would have to change to allow the less privileged to enjoy equal opportunities and life chances. State and local tax codes would have to be reformed (some blue states have very regressive tax codes https://itep.org/whopays/  ). The video shows that such bottom-line changes are resisted consistently when democrats discuss the laws and regulations governing their own backyards. Is it unfair to call these local politicians and board members "hypocrites?" Are there good reasons for their reluctance to act in these areas that the video journalist neglects to mention? What do you think?

(Also, for those interested in this topic, I recommend the slim paperback, Dream Hoarders by Richard Reeves (2017), which claims that we should think of the main divide in this country not as the 99% vs. the top 1%, but the top income quintile (top 20%) vs. the rest (the "80%"). The reasons have much to do with the facts in the above video, which show these upper middle class households protecting their privileges relative to the rest of society, thus effectively stifling upward mobility in less affluent groups.You can read more about Dream Hoarders here, if interested: https://www.brookings.edu/experts/richard-v-reeves/  Reeves also heads up the Brookings Inst. Future of the Middle Class Initiative, which  deals with the issue of inequality and obstacles to upward mobility: https://www.brookings.edu/project/future-of-the-middle-class-initiative/  )

Heightened Fear of Rising Crime Plays Into GOP’s Suburbs Strategy

 Worry about rising crime has largely rebounded in the U.S. after a lull in 2020 – bad news for Democrats facing a GOP determined to make it an issue in a quest to win back the suburbs.

Nov. 10, 2021

Likely due to an enhanced sense of security brought on by coronavirus restrictions as Americans stayed home and avoided places with large crowds, worry about crime was down in 2020, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday. But concern over crime has largely returned to its pre-pandemic levels, surpassing where it stood two years ago across a few metrics.

Worry over several types of violent and property crimes, including being mugged, having a car stolen or broken into, having a home burglarized, being murdered or being a victim of terrorism have increased by between 5% and 9% over the last year. And according to the poll, conducted between Oct. 1-19, concern over being attacked while driving, being a victim of identity theft and being a victim of a hate crime are higher now than in 2019.

But according to Gallup, the increase in worry in 2021 may be attributed to the expected "return to normal," as coronavirus restrictions have eased. Still, they may also reflect public awareness of increased crime rates during the last year, and while Gallup noted that property crimes have steadily declined, "the news about violent crime may be influencing broader perceptions of the crime problem."

Democrats have in recent months bemoaned the revival of familiar rhetoric surrounding increased crime that has emerged as a key component of the GOP's attempts to win back the suburbs. Republicans are hoping to use the renewed fears of crime as a central part of their campaign messaging to persuade suburban voters, who are predominantly white and over the past few years, have shifted more toward the Democratic Party. The GOP sees them as the key to helping them take back control of the House and Senate next year.

Republicans have specifically sought to link Democrats to the "defund the police" movement, even as many in the party remain opposed to the idea of reducing police budgets or restructuring departments. In solidly blue Minneapolis, voters opposed a ballot initiative in last week's elections to replace its police department with a new one focused on public safety.

In New York's state legislature, Republicans made gains in suburban regions in last week's elections, with campaigns emphasizing public safety. In Connecticut, Republican state senators last month urged Democrats to hold a special session to adopt resolutions to promote "a safer Connecticut." And Glenn Youngkin's stunning gubernatorial win in Virginia was not without an emphasis on fighting crime throughout the state – and success in the suburbs.

In 2021, 23% of adults reported being the victim of a crime. Those recent crime victims are significantly more likely than those who have not been the victim of a crime to be concerned about falling victim to each of the crimes surveyed.

According to the poll, of the most common ways Americans seek to mitigate crime is avoiding dangerous areas. In recent years, Americans have also increasingly relied on arming themselves with guns, knives or mace, installing alarm systems and getting a dog.

But among the most commonly cited crimes to cause worry for Americans at least occasionally is computer hacking, at 74%, and identity theft, at 72%. Meanwhile just 43% of Americans worry about their car being stolen, 33% worry about getting mugged and 30% worry about being the victim of terrorism.

And while city residents' worry about each of the crimes measured has not changed much compared to 2020 levels, Gallup noted, suburban and rural residents are much more concerned in 2021 about car theft, mugging and their home being burglarized when they're not there.

An FBI report released in September revealed that the number of killings in the U.S. soared in 2020, jumping nearly 30% since 2019 for the largest single-year increase on record. But overall crime, which includes different types of property crime, decreased by about 6%.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-11-10/heightened-fear-of-rising-crime-plays-into-gops-suburbs-strategy

Questions:

Are the Democrats out of the loop on law and order with their "defund the police" messaging?

Are liberals missing the boat concerning American fears of crime (whether real or perceived)?

Who is to blame for declining confidence in the Democrats when it comes to crime issues? The Republicans for seizing on those fears in dishonest ways? OR the Democrats by dismissing the fears of suburban Americans?

Signs of American fascism: We have been warned

George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address warning about the danger and tyranny of political factions or parties:

These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. 

The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; .... 

In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; ....

It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. 

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. 

In yet more evidence of the spirit of authoritarianism (American fascism IMO) that has poisoned the political faction called the Republican Party, the Washington Post writes this about the continuing and increasingly venomous reaction of some or most FRP (fascist Republican Party) elites against the 13 House Republicans who voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill:

Republicans are increasingly divided over the bipartisan infrastructure bill that will soon become law, with tensions rising among GOP members over whether the party should remain united against all aspects of President Biden’s agenda or strike deals in the rare instances when there is common ground.

Former president Donald Trump has led the call to trash the bill while deriding Republicans who voted for the measure, saying they should be “ashamed of themselves” for “helping the Democrats.”

At a private event hosted by the House Republican campaign arm Monday night in Florida, Trump took time out of his 90 minute speech that focused mostly on his baseless claims about the election and attacking Biden to throw a jab at the 13 House GOP lawmakers who supported the infrastructure package.

“I love all the House Republicans. Well, actually I don’t love all of you. I don’t love the 13 that voted for Biden’s infrastructure plan,” Trump said, according to the recollection of a person who attended the event and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private gathering.  

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) — a moderate who voted for the infrastructure package — said during an interview Monday evening on CNN that a caller left a message with his office that was filled with expletives and called him a traitor. “I hope you die,” the caller said, adding that he hoped everybody in his family died as well.

House Republican leaders have done nothing to come to aid of the 13 who voted for the bill, remaining silent even as these members publicly disclose the harassment they have faced. The office of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) did not respond to a request for comment.  

Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said in interview on Stephen K. Bannon’s “War Room”podcast Tuesday that all 13 members should “absolutely” be stripped of their committee assignments by House leadership in the coming days.

“These people voted for Joe Biden, for an infrastructure bill that will clear the way for more socialist spending that will, quite frankly, gives Joe Biden a win,” Meadows said. “I don’t know how you can send a clearer message than saying, ‘Listen, obviously you’re not on our team. We’re going to give that leadership position to somebody else.’”  

“Kevin McCarthy isn’t the cause of these problems. He’s the symptom because we have Republicans willing to say, ‘Aw, shucks, we’ll always lose a few.’ Nancy Pelosi is in the majority, and she lost less than half the votes that we lost in the minority,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said during a Newsmax interview Monday. “That’s why, frankly, the morale in the Republican conference is very low right now and we need back up.”  

Hours earlier, McCarthy announced that Van Orden and De La Cruz were part of the initial eight GOP candidates who received “Young Gun” status, a program that McCarthy co-launched in the 2008 campaign. That connotation means the GOP leader considers these recruits his very best and it serves as an instruction to his most loyal donors to focus their money on these candidates.

Another “Young Gun,” Esther Joy King of Illinois, called the legislation something for the “Radical Left” that is supported by Pelosi. “We have to fight this wasteful bill,” she tweeted, “with all we’ve got!”

One description of fascism is this: a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe; Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.

The FRP has places loyalty to party above other concerns, including contrary public opinion. It is authoritarian, far right and ultranationalist. If it gets its way the, the FRP will forcibly suppress political opposition and the free press. It is anti-democratic and well on the way to eliminating free and fair elections in as many states as it has the power to do so. If it gains dictatorial power, it will regiment society and the economy in accord with the major corporate and individual financial backers, i.e., oligarchs and plutocrats.

Plutocracy: society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income; use of the term in English dates from 1631; an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth; unlike most political systems, plutocracy is not rooted in any established political philosophy (nowadays, it seems reasonable to believe that most plutocrats have adopted laissez faire capitalism as their political philosophy)

Oligarchy: rule by a privileged minority; plutocracy is a form of oligarchy, but plutocracy distinguishes the particular ruling minority by their great income or wealth

Questions: 

1. Has enough evidence accumulated over the last ~50 years to reasonably believe that the modern Republican Party has become mostly anti-democratic, authoritarian and some form of fascist, e.g., nearly 100% no-compromise opposition even to otherwise acceptable policy merely because the opposing party wants to implement it? 

2. Does Washington’s warning reasonably fit with what the modern Republican Party is doing terms of anti-democratic authoritarian political tactics and policy goals?

Unsticking stuck brains

Neuroscience researchers are coming to believe that some mental diseases such as anxiety, depression and drug addiction involve situations where the conscious mind gets stuck. When stuck, the conscious mind cannot exert control over unconscious or subconscious pathways that cause, or at least correlate with, maladaptive behaviors. A recent paper describes a test of the hypothesis that stimulation of the brain with implanted electrodes can help unstick consciousness to help regain some control. 

It appears that the stuck brain hypothesis may be correct. This research is only a test of the hypothesis, so it needs to be confirmed in large scale clinical trials before the clinical potential of this technique can be used to treat stuck brain mental diseases that might respond to brain stimulation. 

Steve Novella at Neurologica blog writes:

A newly published study presents a proof-of-concept for using deep brain stimulation controlled with artificial intelligence (AI) in a closed-loop system[1] to enhance cognitive control, suggesting it might be effective for a number of mental illnesses. .... The most fundamental necessary to understand what is going on here is that your brain is a machine. It’s a really complicated machine, but it’s a machine none-the-less, and we can alter the function of that machine by altering its physical state.

.... a consequence of brain function itself, which evolved to create a seamless stream of consciousness, [is] an illusion of self unaware [without awareness of] of all the subconscious[2] processes that make up brain function. This is why we tend to interpret people’s behavior in terms of personality and conscious choice, when in fact much of our behavior is a consequence of subconscious processes. We are also biased to believe that people can think or will-power their way out of mental illness.

The more we understand about how the brain functions, however, the more it becomes apparent that the brain is just a glitchy machine, and lots can go wrong. .... But there are some brain functions that are so basic they are almost universally useful, and impairment of them can cause of host of problems. One such basic brain function is called cognitive control, which is essentially the ability to determine what thoughts and actions will be the focus of your brain’s attention.

What, then, is cognitive control? Wakefullness requires that the brain experiences a constant loop of activity. There are, in fact, centers in the brain stem whose function is to constantly activate the cortex, to keep that cognitive train constantly moving. Without these stimulating centers you would be in a coma, even with a perfectly functioning cortex. In addition, we need to be able to shift gears, so that we are not stuck endlessly in one loop. That is cognitive control – a higher brain function that can consciously direct or thoughts, attention, and behavior. This conscious function, however, is dependent on deep brain structures and subconscious functions. If the deeper pathways are not functioning optimally, we may be consciously stuck. This is what happens in many mental illness states – those with anxiety may be unable to stop thinking about what makes them anxious, or those with major depression may stay focused on negative thoughts. But what if we can give cognitive control a kick in the pants? That is the focus of the current study.  

Regardless of how this specific intervention works out, it does seem likely that we are at the beginning of a new technology, using AI in a closed loop system to monitor brain function and alter it with targeted stimulation. There is no theoretical limit to this technology, which will improve as our understanding of brain function improves and as the underlying technology improves. This is another aspect of the brain-machine interface, and we are on the steep part of this technological curve.

The researchers implanted electrodes in epilepsy patients who needed brain surgery. The electrodes in some patients randomly stimulated their brains (an open loop system[1]). In the other group of patients, AI was used to sense signals from the brain that indicated when when the patient's brain was stuck (a closed loop system). Once the AI sensed that the brain was stuck, it deployed electrical pulses to stimulate specific areas of the brain where the electrodes were implanted. After the AI sensed when the brain was stuck it tailored brain stimulation to see if it was possible to kick cognitive control back into normal functioning. It worked with the open loop system, but worked much better with the closed loop system.

If this turns out to be real, we could be witnessing the beginning of major advances in dealing with brain dysfunction. As noted here before, progress in brain-machine interface technology (BMI) is slow and incremental. This could wind up being much more than another routine increment. IMO, improved BMI could one day lead to humans capable of exercising something close to the full potential of the human brain. But that's decades in the future.

Question: Is this way cool or what?

Footnotes:

1. Closed loop brain stimulation automatically adjusts electrode stimulation to the brain in real time. There is crosstalk between the brain and the computer software and the software adjusts stimulation based on how the brain responds to initial stimulation. By contrast, and open loop system cannot self-correct because the brain is not talking back, just receiving electrode stimulation.

closed loop system ↔ crosstalk ↔ brain

open loop system → talk → brain

2. Novella uses the term subconscious. One model of the mind posits that there are three levels of mental awareness, conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. Consciousness is the thoughts and actions we are aware of. Subconsciousness constitutes the mental reactions and behaviors we become aware of after thinking about them. Unconscious is mental operations were are not aware of and do not become aware of, which is almost all of what we think and do.

I usually refer only to consciousness and unconsciousness, where mental operations and behaviors are unconscious unless they come to a state of mental awareness. I'm not sure how subconsciousness fits in. One explanation asserts that if a person has fallen asleep or been knocked out, they are unconscious, not subconscious, but if a person is alert but doesn't realize they are thinking or doing something, but we can becomes aware of it, the thought or action is subconscious, not unconscious. To me, the dividing line is consciousness vs unconsciousness. If we are unaware of some process or act we engage in, then it is unconscious unless and until we think about it, at which point it becomes conscious. 

There seems to be a general consensus that the unconscious mind is about 1 million times more powerful or data processing capable compared to the conscious mind. In other words, we overwhelmingly think unconsciously. Not sure how it plays out for overt behaviors. Maybe there's a higher degree of conscious control, but most of what we do is still probably unconscious.