Thomas Paine: A historian's oral biography

C-Span broadcast an excellent oral biography of Thomas Paine (born in England and migrated to the US) and some Q&A after the talk. The broadcast time is 1 hour 24 minutes. 

One example of Paine’s radical influence was published in the ~46 page pamphlet Common Sense (1776). The historian, Richard Bell, argues that Common Sense was necessary for the American revolution. American colonist’s grievances were serious but not focused on revolution until Paine published the pamphlet. That alone was a history-changing event. 

Common Sense was a masterpiece of propaganda that fomented a necessary American desire for revolution based on crackpot reasoning, but supported by a brilliant sleight of hand. The key rhetorical trick, among a few others, was to not provide a rationale for American revolution. Instead, Paine shifted the burden of proof for the English to justify their rule over the colonies. Paine make crackpottery seem logical and incontrovertibly self-evident. 

In addition, Paine published other works and essays including the highly influential The Rights of Man (1791) and The Age of Reason (1795). He also wrote the now-obscure work Agrarian Justice (1797), which is the first modern articulation of what is now called the welfare state and how to pay for it.

Paine was brutally blunt in his writings, and it cost him dearly. He was no diplomat. By the end of his life had offended most or nearly all major politicians in America, England and France. He viciously attacked George Washington in a letter, which went a long way to making him hated among most Americans. He went from patriotic hero to a hated outcast in the US. Since he had already fled to France, the English Crown tried him in absentia for treason and exiled him for life for writing and publishing The Rights of Man while he was in London. Eventually the French arrested him and put him in jail for the crime of suggesting that the French king’s life be spared after the French Revolution. Before the French executed him, the US Ambassador to France got Paine released to US custody.

Incredible propaganda

What is remarkably striking about Paine was the power of his political propaganda. The enemies that Paine made as he dropped his bombs onto the status quo responded with outrageous lies and viciousness that makes modern American radical right propaganda seem almost civil and rational. Almost. This guy knew how to make powerful people very angry. The subtle power of Paine’s prose arguably at least matched the most sophisticated propaganda any time after his death in 1809. That is remarkable, especially since he was self-taught. He was not an elite and became known only after he came into his own based on his political writings.

If you have the time and don't know much about Paine, this is well worth it. It sheds light on the psychological and propaganda origins of the Revolutionary War. It also helps reveal and put the tactics of political propaganda in a different context and time.

A post-Democratic Party national scenario

It looks like the seriousness of our political and social situation and the fragility of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties is really sinking in with more and more observers. This is the first article I've seen that articulates how I see the end of democracy playing out if the Republicans gain full control in 2024. This vision of an unrestrained authoritarian Republican onslaught includes (i) legislation to outlaw all abortions in all states, (ii) elimination of the filibuster in the Senate, and (iii) bans on state and local efforts to combat climate change. The New York Magazine (high credibility, high fact accuracy, left bias) writes in an opinion-analysis piece entitled, The Rights Blue States May Lose If the GOP Returns to Power:

Fetal personhood protections that restrict abortion nationwide

Overturning Roe v. Wade and returning abortion policy to the states has long been a primary goal for an anti-abortion movement that has formed a strong partnership with the Republican Party. But the ultimate objective — enshrined in the GOP platform since 1980 — is a federally established “fetal personhood” right that bans any state from allowing abortion. And there are abundant signs that this perspective could become dominant in conservative circles once the great white whale of Roe has been harpooned. One important indicator is the recent omission of rape and incest exceptions from many state abortion bans (including the Texas and Mississippi laws now before the Supreme Court). These exceptions were once considered politically obligatory, and forcing pregnancies caused by rape or incest to be carried to term remains very unpopular.

Then prospect of raising fetal personhood to a federal constitutional right is still remote, given the extreme difficulty of enacting even popular constitutional amendments and the ground even a conservative Supreme Court would have to cover before considering it. But a federal statute imposing personhood rights on the states is entirely feasible if there is a Republican trifecta in Washington that first disposes of the obstacle imposed by the Senate filibuster.

 

“Election integrity” laws that keep states from expanding voting rights

Beginning in 2013, after a conservative Supreme Court majority gutted the key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Republicans rapidly abandoned the commitment to federal voting rights that most of them (outside the Deep South) had embraced all the way back to the Eisenhower administration. This became most evident in 2021, when only one Senate Republican — Lisa Murkowski — was willing to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, aimed at restoring the voting-rights provisions that Republicans once supported all but universally (e.g., in 2006, when Senate Republicans all voted for, and George W. Bush then signed, a VRA extension).

But what appears to be gaining steam, thanks to encouragement from Donald Trump and some conservative ideologues, is the idea that America needs federal legislation to shore up “election integrity.” This could include banning state laws expanding access to the ballot via liberalized early voting (particularly by mail), ex-felon re-enfranchisement, and simplified or automatic voter registration. Similarly, Republicans are showing signs of favoring standardized election-administration rules to prevent a repeat of what MAGA folk regard as the theft of the 2020 presidential election by Democratic state and local election officials. It’s no accident that two of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, Senator Josh Hawley and Congressman Mike Kelly, introduced the Protect Election Integrity Act of 2020 right after the last election to address both of these alleged problems.

That horse ain't dead yet

Parental rights laws that undermine national education standards

One of the most important but underdiscussed policy developments of the 21st century has been the steady abandonment by Republicans of their once-strong support for objective standards for public schools. George W. Bush’s signature No Child Left Behind legislation was one of the initiatives that produced the strong conservative backlash that in turn created the Trump-era Republican Party. And by the time the Common Core education standards initiative, originally spearheaded by Republican governors, reached fruition in the 2010s, it had already become anathema to most conservatives.

Part of this trend undoubtedly stemmed from growing Republican support for publicly funded private education (including the homeschooling option conservative Christians have increasingly embraced). But most recently, even those rank-and-file Republicans still utilizing public schools have become so hostile to teachers unions and “the education bureaucracy” that a partywide “parental rights” movement has mobilized both those who want public funds to go directly to parents to use for private and home schools and those who want to control what (and how) public schools teach.

Because the parental-rights movement treats state and local education authorities as inherently untrustworthy, there’s no particular reason its Republican allies should value states’ rights or local autonomy in education. Inevitably, if they are in a position to do so, it is very likely that Republicans in Congress and a future conservative administration will take parental rights national with legislation to keep states and localities from monopolizing public funds or from teaching material conservatives find objectionable (most obviously, on the subject of racism, but also on such conservative religious targets as sex education and evolution). GOP administrations for years have promoted federal school-voucher programs as a way to undermine public school funding; a broader attack on teachers unions and “bureaucrats” is inevitable. 

Bans on state and local efforts to stop climate change

Perhaps the area where right-wing federal activism is most firmly established is via efforts to preempt state and local policies viewed as hostile by the GOP’s business constituencies, who invariably lobby their friends in Washington to protect them from blue-state regulators.

Federal anti-climate-change activism was on full display during the Trump administration, particularly in its wide-ranging war in the federal courts on California’s anti-pollution policies. Given the emergence of climate change as both an existential crisis for much of the GOP’s business base and a cultural issue for MAGA activists, you can count on future wars on blue-state climate initiatives from Washington when Republicans are fully in control.

Filibuster reform that further empowers the GOP

The feasibility of right-wing federal activism, of course, faces one of the same key obstacles Democrats are facing right now: the Senate filibuster.

Mitch McConnell has been adamant in his defense of the filibuster, which currently gives him the power to veto any Democratic initiatives that aren’t packed into a workaround like reconciliation. That may seem a guarantee against filibuster reform once the shoe is on the other foot, but I wouldn’t bet on it. It has been largely forgotten that Donald Trump’s original beef with McConnell was the Kentuckian’s refusal to kill the legislative filibuster in 2017 when Republicans were trying to enact an Obamacare repeal, among other Trump-backed conservative policies. Trump ranted about this McConnell decision endlessly, until the loss of the House by Republicans in the 2018 midterms made the issue largely moot.

Who knows if Mitch McConnell, who is 79 years old, will survive as Senate Republican leader until a hypothetical GOP trifecta in 2025. In any event, there is zero doubt that Trump’s sway over his party is continuing to grow, and given McConnell’s highly transactional (and cynical) approach to doing his job, he could easily flip-flop on the filibuster if Trump demanded it (much as he flipped-flopped on the permissibility of presidential-election-year Supreme Court confirmations when Trump needed one in 2020). Indeed, looking at the list of issues on which Republicans, and particularly Trump, may soon want sweeping federal action, the odds of the traditional filibuster surviving the next Republican trifecta are next to none. (emphasis added)

This analysis shows the influence of the two main sources of power and dark free speech in the Republican Party that I have been harping on for months, Christian nationalism (abortion, parental rights in education) and radical right neoliberals or vehement anti-government laissez faire capitalists (opposition to climate change efforts). For subverting elections and eliminating the filibuster, both the Christian nationalists and the neoliberal radicals are on board.   

It could be much, much worse than just these things. 

An analysis like this can reasonably postulate if the voters put the GOP in full control in 2024. Think about what would happen to consumer protections, e.g., against fraud and predatory and discriminatory lending. They would evaporate. Think about the EPA and federal efforts to deal with climate change. Gone. Gun regulations. Gone.  A right to a same-sex marriage. Gone. Church-state separation. Smashed to smithereens with Christianity openly plundering tax revenues and going full bore into Christian political advocacy, e.g., something along the lines of preachers warning in their sermons every week “if you vote for a Democrat, you will burn in hell forever, and you will not be welcome here any more so get out now,” etc. Business regulations that protect consumers. Obliterated. The Constitution and rule of law. Gutted and significantly replaced by either by Biblical law, i.e., Christian sharia, and/or pro-business, anti-consumer laws and regulations. The free press. Attacked and subverted until it is too weak to significantly defend truth or democracy any more, assuming it isn’t already too weak. 

The list is long. Think about it. Think about liberties and behaviors you like or at least accept. Do any of them fit in Republican Party crosshairs?

Questions: 

1. Is most or all of what the article hypothesizes reasonably plausible or not?

2. Is most of what I hypothesize reasonably plausible or not? What parts aren’t plausible?

Crossing a dark threshold: Jesus’ teachings aren’t good enough

Who and what is the wicked?

The Atlantic writes about what appears to be a dark new threshold in Republican Party propaganda. Attacking the teachings of Jesus. If this had been going before, I was unaware of it. The Atlantic’s article, The Gospel of Donald Trump Jr., is ominous in its tone and content. We are witnessing the birth of something viciously hateful and divisive. The Atlantic writes:

The former president’s son told a crowd that the teachings of Jesus have “gotten us nothing.”

Donald Trump Jr. is both intensely unappealing and uninteresting. He combines in his person corruption, ineptitude, and banality. He is perpetually aggrieved; obsessed with trolling the left; a crude, one-dimensional figure who has done a remarkably good job of keeping from public view any redeeming qualities he might have.

There’s a case to be made that he’s worth ignoring, except for this: Don Jr. has been his father’s chief emissary to MAGA world; he’s one of the most popular figures in the Republican Party; and he’s influential with Republicans in positions of power. He’s also attuned to what appeals to the base of the GOP. So, from time to time, it is worth paying attention to what he has to say.

Trump spoke at a Turning Point USA gathering on December 19. He displayed seething, nearly pathological resentments; playground insults (he led the crowd in “Let’s Go, Brandon” chants); tough guy/average Joe shtick; and a pulsating sense of aggrieved victimhood and persecution, all of it coming from the elitist, extravagantly rich son of a former president.

But there was one short section of Trump’s speech that I thought was particularly revealing. Relatively early in the speech, he said, “If we get together, they cannot cancel us all. Okay? They won’t. And this will be contrary to a lot of our beliefs because—I’d love not to have to participate in cancel culture. I’d love that it didn’t exist. But as long as it does, folks, we better be playing the same game. Okay? We’ve been playing T-ball for half a century while they’re playing hardball and cheating. Right? We’ve turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the biblical reference—I understand the mentality—but it’s gotten us nothing. Okay? It’s gotten us nothing while we’ve ceded ground in every major institution in our country.”

Throughout his speech, Don Jr. painted a scenario in which Trump supporters—Americans living in red America—are under relentless attack from a wicked and brutal enemy. He portrayed it as an existential battle between good and evil. One side must prevail; the other must be crushed. This in turn justifies any necessary means to win. And the former president’s son has a message for the tens of millions of evangelicals who form the energized base of the GOP: the scriptures are essentially a manual for suckers. The teachings of Jesus have “gotten us nothing.” It’s worse than that, really; the ethic of Jesus has gotten in the way of successfully prosecuting the culture wars against the left. If the ethic of Jesus encourages sensibilities that might cause people in politics to act a little less brutally, a bit more civilly, with a touch more grace? Then it needs to go.

Decency is for suckers.

He believes, as his father does, that politics should be practiced ruthlessly, mercilessly, and vengefully. The ends justify the means. Norms and guardrails need to be smashed. Morality and lawfulness must always be subordinated to the pursuit of power and self-interest. That is the Trumpian ethic.  

Liz Cheney voted with President Trump more than 90 percent of the time but is now persona non grata in the GOP because she is willing to defend the Constitution and the rule of law and stand against a violent assault on the Capitol and an effort to overturn a free and fair election. When Liz Cheney is more despised in the party than the crazed Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Jim Jordan, Madison Cawthorn, or Donald Trump Jr., you know that the GOP has lost its moral bearings.

The article goes on to note that the crowd generally enthusiastically received this toxic propaganda. But it also asserts that this kind of talk is common among of at least some Republicans in positions of power, arguably making Donald Trump and Don Jr. a some kind toxic authoritarian evangelist. 

The article also points out that not all Republicans embrace this tactic, asserting that some GOP governors and other Republicans adhere to a less toxic ethic. That said, the author argues it would be “naïve and irresponsible to pretend that what we have seen since Donald Trump left office is the revivification of ethical standards and demands for moral excellence within the Republican Party.”

That assessment feels right.

The unstated, mostly non-existent grievances and persecutions that Don Jr. claims to be suffering from are dogma straight out of Christian nationalist ideology and propaganda. They are myths based on crackpottery, e.g., the left cannot cancel the right. American Christianity is intolerant, aggressive, greedy and heavily protected by the constitution and dozens or hundreds of laws and institutions. Federal, state, county and local governments, the military, police, schools, prisons, most businesses and courts are all dominated by Christians. Exactly what the hell is Don Jr. complaining about? Not enough tax breaks for Christians? Maybe the goal is to make non-Christians pay taxes and let Christians off the hook. 

The main cancel culture here is radical right neoliberal conservatism and fundamentalist Christian nationalism. Republican elites want wealthy White males to control government, education, society and commerce. They demand imposition of their version of history and morality on all of the rest of us. They want to legalize discrimination against women, non-Republican opposition, racial and ethnic minorities and the especially hatred LGBQT community. That is the real cancel culture at play here. 

Questions: 

1. Is this article just an over the top partisan screed[1], or is this a new Republican propaganda effort to negate whatever restraining and democratic teachings the Bible might still exert?

2. Are conservatives really persecuted victims on the verge of being canceled as Don Jr. claims? What does cancellation mean, e.g., mass murdered, re-educated into socialist atheists or subjugated to socialist and minority tyranny?

Footnote: 

1. The author is Peter Wehner, a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and writes about political, cultural, religious, and national-security issues. He wrote the 2021 book, The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump.

Conservative intolerance toward inconvenient free speech

I've mentioned here several times that before the 2016 election I tried to engaged with seven big conservative politics websites. All seven wound up blocking me, two of which did not allow me to make even one unblocked comment. I did that to try to open communications with conservatives, Trump supporters and Republicans generally. From what I can tell, the effort appeared to be about 98% failure.

Given how dire and fragile our political and social situation is, making another attempt to reach conservatives makes sense, even if the effort is doomed to fail. What I am finding is that at least some big conservative politics sites are now more explicitly intolerant of non-conservative commentary, even if it is respectful and fact-based. 

Here's an example. The is a big conservative politics site (subreddit) at reddit called r/Conservative. The site shows it has 898,000 members and about 3,500 online at the moment. I checked its commenting rules. Here are the relevant ones, copied verbatim:

We have seven rules here - and they're easy to follow so let's review:

1 - Be civil, follow any flair guidelines.

This one is pretty easy... try and be nice to people. If you're getting some of that famous Liberal snark just message the moderators and let them know what's going on so we can help. And if a post says, "Conservatives Only" and you're not a Conservative don't comment there (your comment won't be visible anyway unless you have flair). if you want flair click here to learn about it.

It's not civil to say someone has a "punchable face" or we need to have another civil war. So don't be that person because we will find you and take action for it.

From the flair rules page:

To display your User Flair, you must also have the “☑️ Show my flair on this subreddit” box checked on the sidebar.

The only thing having User Flair does is grant you the ability to comment in posts marked with the submission flair "Flaired Users Only". All the other posts not flaired as such are open for you to comment in.

This is designed so that a couple posts per day are almost guaranteed to have conversation which is not hijacked by leftists and other non-conservatives.

Who Gets Flair?

Only mods can assign User Flair, and User Flair is only for conservatives. Once you have a solid history of comments in /r/Conservative, and have been commenting in the subreddit for at least two weeks, that is the right time to request flair via the link at the bottom of this page.

Please understand that this is for conservatives. We do our best to vet you based on your post history on reddit. You will need some post history to qualify - ideally within the subreddit itself. If you do not have a conservative leaning post history you will likely be asked to re-apply when you do.

You may choose your own flair but mods reserve the ability to reject the text. The flair must be conservative or at least generally right wing in nature. As our mission statement is to provide a place for conservatives to speak to other conservatives - we do not grant flair to those who are not at least reasonably close to that world view.

We do give variants on some of the above: "Libertarian Conservative" and "Moderate Conservative" are acceptable, for example.

We're looking for people who have been commenting for at least two weeks with verified history here in our subreddit. Ideally, we want you to average a couple comments per week, as well. If this is your first comment in /r/conservative, you have not met the minimum requirements to get flair.

7 - Do not violate the Mission Statement

We have a mission statement and we take it very seriously. This is what guides our subreddit and determines who and what belongs here:

We provide a place on Reddit for conservatives, both fiscal and social, to read and discuss political and cultural issues from a distinctly conservative point of view.

For our purpose behind the mission statement, please read Why We Have a Mission Statement.

Our Mission Statement

We provide a place on Reddit for conservatives, both fiscal and social, to read and discuss political and cultural issues from a distinctly conservative point of view.

Why Does /r/Conservative Have Its Mission Statement

The mission statement of this sub exists solely due to the hordes of leftists trying to silence this sub. If they could engage in civil discussion without resorting to personal attacks, dogpile downvotes, and endless parroting of hackneyed talking points, then we wouldn't need to ban them.

In fact, conservative ideas thrive when contrasted with the vapid superficiality, pseudo intellectualism, and creepy totalitarianism of leftism.

-/u/philosoguido - Moderator January 21, 2018

 

So, there you have it. A conservative politics site with almost 900K members that explicitly says liberals (i) want to shut r/Conservative conversation down, by making personal attacks, dogpiling downvotes[1] and whatever other bad things all liberals always do (ii) don't engage in civil discussion, (iii) are vapid and superficial, and (iv) make only hackneyed talking points. Liberals and presumably moderates need to be banned for these horrors.

I will keep civilly commenting at r/Conservative based on facts and logic until they ban me. I imagine it won't take long. My first comment there is here. It is the beginning of my latest little experiment in how mainstream conservatism deals with inconvenient free speech.

Questions: 

1. Are sites like r/Conservative unable to deal with civil, but inconvenient facts and logic, or am I just another one of those uncivilized, superficial, vapid, brainwashed liberal blowhards who makes only hackneyed talking points and is rude to conservatives? (I suspect most conservative really do see me as rude, uncivil, ignorant and stupid-brainwashed)

2. Are sites like r/Conservative echo chambers or places for unfettered, honest discussion?

Footnote: 

1. The dogpiling of downvotes might have been what flagged me to the two conservative sites that would not let me post even one comment under my Germaine II Disqus account. People on the other Disqus sites constantly downvoted most of my comments, So by the time I got to the last two sites on my list, I was already persona non grata by virtue of a having buttload of downvotes. 

FWIW, I dislike downvoting and rarely do it. I dislike it here.