Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
In normal times, the party in power tends tom bet booted out of the House and/or the Senate. These are not normal times. New gerrymandered voting districts appear to make it almost certain that the ARP (authoritarian Republican Party) will regain control of the House. That will be the end of significant legislation at least until the 2024 elections, maybe longer than that. The New York Times writes:
A year before the polls open in the 2022 midterm elections, Republicans are already poised to flip at least five seats in the closely divided House thanks to redrawn district maps that are more distorted, more disjointed and more gerrymandered than any since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.
The rapidly forming congressional map, a quarter of which has taken shape as districts are redrawn this year, represents an even more extreme warping of American political architecture, with state legislators in many places moving aggressively to cement their partisan dominance.
The flood of gerrymandering, carried out by both parties but predominantly by Republicans, is likely to leave the country ever more divided by further eroding competitive elections and making representatives more beholden to their party’s base.
At the same time, Republicans’ upper hand in the redistricting process, combined with plunging approval ratings for President Biden and the Democratic Party, provides the party with what could be a nearly insurmountable advantage in the 2022 midterm elections and the next decade of House races.
All told, Republicans have added a net of five seats that the party can expect to hold while Democrats are down one. Republicans need to flip just five Democratic-held seats next year to seize a House majority.
A recent NYT article analyzed and explained gerrymandering and the current process in detail.
Gerrymandering is used to rig both House and/or state legislature voting districts in most states. On top of gerrymandering that gives an ARP minority power to dictate control of the House, at least 17 states controlled by the ARP have passed laws intended to suppress Democratic votes and/or rig elections after votes are cast. Republican judges who support gerrymandering and voter suppression have been put on the bench. They are now in firm control of the Supreme Court.
Unless congress does something now to allow voters to pick their politicians in free and fair elections instead of the opposite, it looks like voters are going to get cracked, packed and fracked in future rigged elections. Federal courts will not save free and fair elections. Republican federal judges rationalize acceptance of rigged elections by calling it "just politics," which is not something that judges should interfere with. America could very well be on the verge of what turns out to be a long period of harsh, corrupt, authoritarian minority rule.
In hindsight, one can see the wisdom of decades of divisive, polarizing ARP propaganda and lies. By tearing American society apart and constantly vilifying Democrats as Godless radical socialist or communist tyrants, or something worse, most Republican voters are unlikely to ever vote for a Democrat. That seems to be the situation no matter how immoral, corrupt, inept or mendacious the ARP candidate is. The ARP is at least tribal, but arguably cult. For whatever reasons, there is asymmetry in how bad a successful politician can be between the two parties, with the strong advantage going to the ARP. In a cult, bad traits in your own leaders are denied or forgivable, but the same in the opposition is a horror that must be stopped at any cost by any means, including packing, cracking, fracking, deceiving, lying and cheating.
Questions:
1. Are we witnessing just politics as usual, or is America more likely than not on the verge of a long period of rigid partisan rule or even a form of tyranny by an ARP minority?
2. Since congress is needed to suppress gerrymandering but that probably won't happen, should democratic states like California get rid of non-partisan districting and go back to the gerrymander to get rid of as many Republicans in the House as possible?
The Glasgow climate summit is over. In the last hour or two, the final agreement got diluted. India made demands that neutered a key provision(s). Funding a facility for pay poor countries got changed to talking about it. Poor countries are increasingly demanding payment for damage that rich countries have caused and are increasingly causing. A New York Times article published before the summit ended considered the issue of national responsibility.
One of the biggest fights at the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow is whether — and how — the world’s wealthiest nations, which are disproportionately responsible for global warming to date, should compensate poorer nations for the damages caused by rising temperatures.
Rich countries, including the United States, Canada, Japan and much of western Europe, account for just 12 percent of the global population today but are responsible for 50 percent of all the planet-warming greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels and industry over the past 170 years.
At the summit, Sonam P. Wangdi, who chairs a bloc of 47 nations known as the Least Developed Countries, pointed out that his home country of Bhutan bears little responsibility for global warming, since the nation currently absorbs more carbon dioxide from its vast forests than is emitted from its cars and homes. Nonetheless, Bhutan faces severe risks from rising temperatures, with melting glaciers in the Himalayas already creating flash floods and mudslidesthat have devastated villages.
“We have contributed the least to this problem yet we suffer disproportionately,” Mr. Wangdi said. “There must be increasing support for adapting to impacts.”
A decade ago, the world’s wealthiest economies pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance for poorer countries by 2020. But they are stillfalling short by tens of billions of dollars annually, and very little aid so far has gone toward measures to help poorer countries cope with the hazards of a hotter planet, such as sea walls or early warning systems for floods and droughts.
“Lots of people are losing their lives, they are losing their future, and someone has to be responsible,” said A.K. Abdul Momen, the foreign minister of Bangladesh. He compared loss and damage to the way the United States governmentsued tobacco companies in the 1990s to recover billions of dollars in higher health care costs from the smoking epidemic.
At the same time, some of the world’s biggest developing economies are beginning to catch up on emissions. China, home to 18 percent of the world’s population, is responsible for nearly 14 percent of all the planet-warming greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels and industry since 1850. But today it is the world’s largest emitter by far, accounting for roughly 31 percent of humanity’s carbon dioxide from energy and industry this year.
At the climate summit, the United States and the European Union have argued that the world will never be able to minimize the damage from global warming unless swiftly industrializing nations like India do more to slash their emissions. But India, which recently announced a pledge to reach “net zero” emissions by 2070, says it needs much more financial help to shift from coal to cleaner energy, citing both its lower per capita emissions and smaller share of historical emissions.
An article from April of 2021 reported an economic analysis that estimated annual global economic loss would be as much as $23 trillion by 2050. The US and other wealthy Western nations could lose between 6 percent and 10 percent of their potential economic output. Most poor nations are projected to fare much worse. If the increase in global temperature is held to two degrees Celsius, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand would each see economic growth 20 percent below what they could otherwise expect by 2050.
Questions:
1. Do wealthy polluting nations owe financial aid to poor low polluting countries, assuming that at least about 75% of the aid actually goes to mitigate climate impacts, less than ~25% being siphoned off by corrupt politicians and other kinds of crooks and kleptocrats? What about a roughly 50:50 split, e.g., ~47% for climate mitigation and ~53% for crooks, or vice versa?
2. Some critics immediately criticized the final agreement as just another a greenwash, while at least some major world leaders hailed it as a significant step forward. Based on past international failures to agree on significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but in view of increased public global concern for climate change, what is likely to be closer to truth about the impact of this agreement, (i) mostly reasons for reasonable pessimism, (ii) mostly reasons for reasonable optimism, or (iii) something closer to the middle?
3. Will industries, companies and countries that profit heavily from selling oil and gas, e.g., Exxon-Mobile and Saudi Arabia, probably continue to publicly spout concern for climate change, while quietly and behind closed doors continue opposing, undermining and slowing the global response to climate change, just as they and their lobbyists and paid propagandists have been doing for decades?
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is, among other things, a label. Labels
matter. When Terry McAuliffe brushed off complaints about the Dept. of
Ed. in his state teaching CRT, he did so with unequivocal statements
like, "It [CRT] is not taught in Va. and never has been taught in Va.,"
adding, "“And
as I’ve said this a lot, it’s a dog whistle. It’s racial, it’s
division and it’s used by Glenn Youngkin and others, it’s the same thing
with Trump and the border wall, to divide people. We should not be
dividing people in school.” Based on this one would not expect the label
CRT to be recommended in Dept. of Ed. memorandums, lesson plans,
reading lists, etc. So when a single-minded conservative activist, Chris
Rufo, with investigative skills took the time and trouble to unearth
evidence contradicting McAuliffe, he was stupidly ignored. I won't
profile Rufo here, though he's been profiled by New Yorker and WaPo, and
though they judged him to be only partly reliable and plenty
ideological, Dems should have been much more prepared to deal with the
allegations and evidence this man marshaled in making the case against
CRT in our schools in various states, not least Va.
According to exit polls, https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/02/politics/virginia-exit-polls/index.html
~25% of voters considered education to be the number 1 issue. For
most it was among the top issues, coming after the economy which another
33% pegged as the top issue. Now, if you only read the NYT, WaPo and
watch only MSNBC and CNN; and if you systematically avoid Fox News,
conservative radio, and local newspapers (e.g. in my city the NY Post
which covered this election and the CRT issue), you will hear only
McAuliffe's line that this is race-baiting based on fake information.
I've seen it on this blog, "CRT is only taught in grad schools," and so
on. Paul Krugman, an economist and opinion columnist I happen to like,
seems to have assumed this talking point is correct as he dismissed the
CRT issue as "bogus" and "a lie wrapped in a scam." But how many of us
broadly left-leaning folk get out of the echo-chamber and do what even a
good opposition researcher in a campaign does, viz., assess the
evidence the other side has amassed? Well, here are a few inconvenient
facts for team McAuliffe (in retrospect) and a warning to all of us determined to defeat the GOP who plan to make this a major wedge issue next year and beyond..
Three
days before the people of Va. voted, Fox News ran this story
(reiterating other stories and claims they had made previously).
Published
Virginia Dept. of Education website promotes CRT despite McAuliffe claims it's 'never been taught' there
Virginia voters will decide their next governor in three days
Is it bullshit? A lie within a scam? No. It is embarrassingly true. The article states,
"On the Virginia Department of Education website, several examples of the
department promoting Critical Race Theory can be found, including a presentation
from 2015, when Terry McAullife was governor, that encourages teachers
to "embrace Critical Race Theory" in "order to re-engineer attitudes
and belief systems."
Click
on presentation, and you'll be brought to a 30 page memo from the
Commonwealth of Virginia Dept. of Ed. (DoE).
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/virginia_tiered_system_supports/resources/2015_fall_institute/Legal_implications_of_discipline.pdf
After several pages identifying problems regarding race relations and
inequities targeted for rectification, there is a section on "Culturally
Responsive Alternatives" to the status quo approaches to school
discipline (suspensions, expulsions, penalizing various behaviors-- all
of which are described in terms of institutional racism). Starting on
p. 22 we read the following:
_
Culturally-Responsive Alternatives (Continued)
IncorporateCritical Race Theory (CRT) Lens
Critical Race Theory Townsend Walker, 2015
Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT)
Teaching practices that use: cultural knowledge prior experiences performance styles
CRT makes learning more appropriate and effective for students from diverse backgrounds (Gay 2000).
Reconstruct imagery of African American males Re-engineer attitudes and belief systems[emph. added, as Fox quoted this]
Adopt ethics of careand respect Raise expectations and motivation Use strength-based teaching and communication techniques Townsend Walker, 2015
Now,Fox
shows like Tucker, and their regular news shows, as well as local
newspapers, radio et al., point out, this memo a) comes from the
Superintendent Virginia's DoE, and b) was written and circulated to K-12
educators throughout the state while McAuliffe was Governor. When
parents who know that their kids are being taught about white privilege,
internalized racism, and the need to "do the work" to become
anti-racists hear these denials, and when there is objective evidence
that CRT IS an element in K-12 education in the state, how should they
feel towards the candidate making flat-out denials, despite archival
evidence contradicting his claims? And then when that candidate goes on
to say "I don't think parents should be telling schools what to teach,"
at a time when school-boards have become loci of parental activism, what
might be an expected outcome at the polls? It's a gaffe. He was clearly
unprepared to answer these questions, even though Rufo's campaign
against CRT (which is what got Trump's attention when he wrote an
executive order "banning CRT," had been identified months earlier (he
advises multiple members of congress, and is the "point man" on the
issue.
I
know, I know. The GOP takes this information, and then on that basis
starts to ban books by Toni Morrison. Yes. That's why I despise today's
GOP (never liked it that much to be honest, but esp. now it's the
political dregs). But there is something going on in the schools that is
upsetting a lot of parents, and it does have something to do with
contemporary applied CRT which overlaps with the so-called "Anti-Racist
Movement" speer-headed by Ibram X. Kendi, among others. But this is not
really a piece on what CRT today looks like, and its relation to
Antiracism (that would require a whole separate piece). Even assuming it
is all great stuff, the question is WHY DENY THE LABEL IS BEING USED IN
K-12 PEDAGOGY MEMOS??? A few more examples (from Va., as there are
plenty of other examples from other states too) just so you don't think
this one memo is a fluke.
The
document ends with Lane's Recommended readings, including his blurbs
endorsing 5 or 6 of the books he considers most important for people in
the DoE to read. The first entry is Beverly D'Angelo's controversial,
and largely hated book, White Fragility (plenty of liberals have
criticized that book. A WaPo book critic complained about the concept
itself writing,
"As
defined by DiAngelo, white fragility is irrefutable; any alternative
perspective or counterargument is defeated by the concept itself. Either
white people admit their inherent and unending racism and vow to
work on their white fragility, in which case DiAngelo was correct in her
assessment, or they resist such categorizations or question the
interpretation of a particular incident, in which case they are only
proving her point." https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/
This
is a very common criticism of the book. Nevertheless, this book which
asks students and employees in Diversity and Equity workshops to face
and admit to their internalized racism, a sort of ongoing "soul-search"
according to DiAngelo, heads the list of readings in the document. Even
more troubling, in terms of McAuliffe's denial of CRT having no place in
Va. public schools, is the inclusion of the title, Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education, by Edward Taylor, et al. Lane writes:
"Dr. Lane’s February Reading List:I
have received several inquiries and requests for the latest literature
that examines the issues associated with racial inequities in education.
Below are several pieces that I and other members of the VDOE staff are
reading this month based on recommendations that we have received.
-White Fragility,
by Robin DiAngelo. Antiracist educator Robin DiAngelo illuminates the
phenomenon of white fragility. Referring to the defensive moves that
white people make when challenged racially, white fragility is
characterized by emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and by
behaviors including argumentation and silence. These behaviors, in turn,
function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and prevent any
meaningful cross-racial dialogue. In this in-depth exploration, DiAngelo
examines how white fragility develops, how it protects racial
inequality, and what we can do to engage more constructively....
Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education,
by Edward Taylor, David Gillborn, and Gloria Ladson-Billings The
emergence of Critical Race Theory (CRT) marked an important point in the
history of racial politics in the legal academy and the broader
conversation about race and racism in the United States. More recently,
CRT has proven an important analytic tool in the field of education,
offering critical perspectives on race, and the causes, consequences and
manifestations of race, racism, inequity, and the dynamics of power and
privilege in schooling. This groundbreaking anthology is the first to
pull together both the foundational writings in the field and more
recent scholarship on the cultural and racial politics of schooling. A
comprehensive introduction provides an overview of the history and
tenets of CRT in education. [emph. added as Fox quoted this secction]Each section then seeks to explicate
ideological contestation of race in education and to create new,
alternative accounts. In so doing, this landmark publication not only
documents the progress to date of the CRT movement, it acts to further
spur developments in education." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21084733-resources-to-support-student-and-community-dialogues-on-racism
As
I said at the outset, labels matter. If a politician says unequivocally
"CRT has never been taught in Va." and documents like these surface
predictably (as Rufo's research is well known among political
strategists right now), you better have your defense well-prepared or it
may cost you. The issue in this piece is not the value or lack of value
attached to CRT, but rather the fact that in Va. (and also several
other states including my own) CRT pedagogy and antiracist offshoots of
it are fairly pervasive. One of the more controversial practices of
Diversity/Equity training for classrooms today includes "affinity
groups." This involves getting whites to discuss their internalized
racism only amongst themselves, while blacks discuss the trauma of
living in a racist society in a separate, all-black group, often in a
separate room. These "safe spaces" for "doing the work" have offended
many teachers and others who then contact Rufo with leaked documents.
I'm not sure that came up in Va., but I can promise you it WILL be
coming up in the 2022 elections, and we better be prepared. Perhaps in
another post I can (if anyone is interested) discuss the actual content
of earlier and contemporary CRT, related antiracism and
Diversity/Equity/Inclusion models of social justice, as I believe the
general public have been misled by the media on this. These are not
simply accurate historical descriptions of racist practices in the past
(i.e. history), but very much on the ground, and ongoing forms of racial
justice activism, the contents of which are controversial and deserve
to be aired out in public. But for now, I'm pointing out what happens
when you tell voters that there's nothing to see or know; and that
anyway, it's not your place to question curriculum, as McAuliffe ineptly
said in a debate. Evasion and denial of facts in the face of
contradicting evidence is always a losing strategy.