News bits: Americans oppose Israel war; What open-minded Trump supporters think; Etc.

Data in poll released by Data for Progress, a liberal think tank, indicates that about 66% of likely voters think the US should call for a ceasefire and violence de-escalation in Gaza. This indicates that although the US government is arguably at least implicitly escalating the war and violence, the voting public disagrees. As usual, the government will likely do what it wants, not what most voters want.  

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

What America's political right is seeing, thinking and believing is a personal interest. It gets at why politics is the way it is. A NYT focus groups asked questions of 11 Trump supporters who are open to voting for a different Republican (the full article - not behind a paywall). The bottom line is that as a whole, the group is significantly incoherent and not particularly self-aware. Themes that are somewhat common are unease over political uncertainty, fear of crime and immigration. Reasons to support Trump are largely incoherent. Other candidates that had some appeal were Haley, DeSantis and Kennedy. Some of the Q&A:

Why support Trump?:

1. Makes me feel safe.

2. He unbalanced a corrupt system.

3. Business background.

To me, 1 makes some sense, but 2 and 3 are incoherent. 2 does not see the blatant corruption inherent in Trump. 3 appears to be oblivious to the fact, or doesn't much care, that Trump is a serial business failure and a chronic fraud and liar.

A NYT comment on the group indicates to me that there is a significant streak of authoritarianism in some of these open-minded supporters, and I suspect that trait is more prominent among Trump's closed-minded supporters:

But the group was most revealing about how, even as they were somewhat ambivalent about aspects of Mr. Trump’s conduct and record, there was a deep bond with him and with his style of leadership. These Republicans are drawn to the idea of disruptive leaders who shake up the system (a couple of them quite liked Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), and several of them favored following gut instinct and upsetting people from time to time as leadership traits. .... The group made some suggestions for how to appeal to them and called out dimensions of Mr. Trump that they don’t like. Most of all, it came down to appealing to voters’ heads over their hearts: making a powerful, memorable, sustained case for why it was time to move on from Mr. Trump, a man they still have great affection for.

The observation that this group claims to be responsive to appeals to their heads over their hearts is completely incoherent to me. Those people sincerely believe that they are being realistic and rational about a person who is nothing at all like what they think he is. To me, this is more evidence of how terribly deceived, manipulated and betrayed most rank and file Trump supporters are. With irrational beliefs like those, there is no apparent way to speak rationally to them. Changing their minds is essentially impossible.

I don't know if the NYT asked about concerns for attacks on democracy or the dominance of radical right authoritarianism in the GOP. The article was silent about that. Given how little the MSM reports on it, the issue does not seem to be important to most people.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

A WaPo opinion discusses that some (most?) Palestinians view Hamas negatively:

If you doubt there are Palestinians who oppose the terrorist regime that Hamas has created, visit a project called “Whispered in Gaza” online. You’ll hear 25 powerful narratives that were recorded over the past 18 months. The Gazans’ names are changed and their faces drawn by animators, but their message has the unmistakable power of truth.

Here are some of those Gaza whispers: A pharmacist called “Basma” explains how she had to close her shop because of harassment by Hamas officials. A journalist called “Maha” says she was “muzzled” and threatened by Hamas and gave up her work. “Layla” describes how Hamas operatives forced her to close a counseling center because they were afraid it might encourage unhappy Gazans to protest the regime. “Othman” says bluntly: “The so-called ‘resistance’ has become a business.”  

Listen to “Zainab,” her voice barely audible, expressing what sounds like a plea to the world: “There is a false stereotype that Palestinians in Gaza love rockets and wars. Gazans don’t love wars. The wars that happen are waged by the Hamas government for political aims that serve them alone. … We don’t want war. We want a decent life.”

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

The NYT comments about a possible impact of Kenneth Chesebro pleading guilty on two of DJT's lawsuits:

Having already put in writing that some of Mr. Trump’s postelection legal maneuvers were feints of a sort undertaken for political ends, Mr. Chesebro might also be able to undermine one of the defenses that the former president could use in both of the election prosecutions.

If Mr. Chesebro were to testify that Mr. Trump’s lawsuits challenging his loss were not designed to win, but merely as ploys to sow doubt about the election, it could cut against Mr. Trump’s possible plan to use a so-called advice of counsel defense. That strategy involves blaming one’s lawyers for giving bad advice. 

Time will tell if this makes any difference when it comes to prosecuting and punishing DJT. I remain pessimistic until the last appeal has been heard and DJT is forced to go to jail. Anything short of that is a major loss. The road ahead is still very long and the final outcome completely uncertain.

Troubling Israel war update: Israel's society and the US government are radicalizing

Some evidence is coming out indicating that Israeli society is radicalizing and losing patience with all of the Palestinians, not just Hamas or Islamic Jihad. There are indications that the US government is also radicalizing against the Palestinians.

The following is commentary and information PD posted here yesterday. 

A culture of repression and scapegoating Palestinians and war-critical Israelis, has gripped Israel at a societal level. Journalists, human rights activists, and protesters for peace in Gaza are all being harassed, doxxed, bullied and, says The Nation, even "summoned to police investigations or questioning simply for 'liking' posts on social media." The full story is in their article, The Crackdown Has Begun: Israel Goes After Its Critics. 

One victim of bullying (added: and threats of physical violence) discussed in the article is a left-wing ultra-Orthodox journalist and outspoken critic of Israeli policy who had to flee from a mob trying to harm him in his own home. He, as it turns out, made a video from an undisclosed hiding place which describes the culture of repression now spreading through Israeli society. He warns those who only a month ago were protesting against the Right Wing zealots who want religious law and an end to judicial review and full democracy that they are now "becoming like the Right Wing government you opposed so recently." Is that what is happening? Here is his video published on YouTube by The Middle East Eye. 

This repressive atmosphere is matched in the US by a chilling effect in the State Dept., where a memo circulated strongly discouraging any criticism of the war for those in the Biden Admin that are supposed to advise and provide feedback to their "higher-ups." The leaked internal memo, reported by HuffPost last week, discourages use of certain phrases like "de-escalate" and "avoid bloodshed" for members of the state dept. when discussing the Israel-Hamas War and US policies related to it.

Also deeply troubling is the fact that three Muslim hosts at MSNBC were sidelined (Germaine edit: shut up) with no explanations. This includes Mehdi Hasan. MSNBC has stated that the "schedule changes are coincidental." The website Semafor originally reported on this. This matter is also discussed in an article in The Nation.

The NYT reports on one state dept. offcial, Josh Paul who oversees arms transfers. His objections to unconditional support for Israel militarily right now, he said, fell completely on dead ears. After 11 years of service, he resigned in protest. He felt his and others' critical input was not even considered or debated, he wrote in a letter explaining his decision to resign.

For me, this news is deeply troubling. I can see a closer merger of toxic authoritarianism, with radical, bigoted theocracy in both Israel and the US. This is really frightening news.

Remember, the 9/11 attacks in the US caused a bloody, catastrophically failed 20 year war in Afghanistan and a needless, bloody, destructive failed war in Iraq. Some experts believe it is possible that Hamas' goal was to force overreactions by Israel and the US in response to its slaughter of Israeli civilians. If that was the goal, this news makes it look like they may be succeeding, regardless of how many innocent, non-combatant Palestinians get slaughtered in the process.

Q: Is Germaine being irrationally alarmist, melodramatic or crackpot, or is there good reason to be scared about how this war could potentially cause great damage to democracy in the US and Israel?

Added info about war propaganda from PD and Matthew:

Channel 4 News (UK) also finds problems with Israel's account/s. This is a very interesting, detailed analysis of the hospital explosion.

Israel lied about never hitting hospitals, reported by Norman Finkelstein.

Trump's stolen election legal strategy Dec-Jan 2020

A fascinating NYT article, Trump Lawyer Acknowledged Political Agenda in Election Suit, Emails Show, describes the legal reasoning that Kenneth Chesebro and other DJT attorneys were discussing before DJT's 1/6 coup attempt. The emails here are evidence in the RICO case in Georgia against DJT and 18 other people, one of which the Kraken (Sidney Powell) who agreed to a plead deal to stay out of jail. 

The bottom line is that the lawyers thought that overturning or stopping the 2020 election in court would fail, but that by filing lawsuits there would be political value in creating a false impression among DJT's supporters that the courts were corrupted and Democrats had rigged the election. The NYT writes:

Kenneth Chesebro’s comments undercut assertions that Donald J. Trump’s lawyers were simply providing legal advice in challenging the 2020 results

On Dec. 24, 2020, Kenneth Chesebro and other lawyers fighting to reverse President Donald J. Trump’s election defeat were debating whether to file litigation contesting Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in Wisconsin, a key swing state.

Mr. Chesebro argued there was little doubt that the litigation would fail in court — he put the odds of winning at “1 percent” — as Mr. Trump continued to push his baseless claims of widespread fraud, according to emails reviewed by The New York Times.

But the “relevant analysis,” Mr. Chesebro argued, “is political.”

Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers have argued that his work was shielded by the First Amendment and that he “acted within his capacity as a lawyer.” They have called for his case to be dismissed, saying he was merely “researching and finding precedents in order to form a legal opinion, which was then supplied to his client, the Trump campaign.”

Mr. Trump has also signaled that one of his possible defenses is that he was simply acting on the advice of his lawyers.

But Mr. Chesebro’s emails could undercut any effort to show that the lawyers were focused solely on legal strategies. Rather than considering just the law and the facts of the case, Mr. Chesebro made clear he was considering politics and was well aware of how the Trump campaign’s legal filings could be used as ammunition for Republicans’ efforts to overturn the results when Congress met to certify the Electoral College outcome on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Just getting this on file means that on Jan. 6, the court will either have ruled on the merits or, vastly more likely, will have appeared to dodge again,” Mr. Chesebro wrote in the email chain. He added that a lack of action by the Supreme Court would feed “the impression that the courts lacked the courage to fairly and timely consider these complaints, and justifying a political argument on Jan. 6 that none of the electoral votes from the states with regard to which the judicial process has failed should be counted.”

Mr. Chesebro wrote that it was “hard to have enormous optimism about what will happen on Jan. 6, but a lot can happen in the 13 days left until then, and I think having as many states under review both judicially and in state legislatures as possible is ideal.”

He said the legal filings could produce a “political payoff” to bolster the argument that “there should at least be extended debate in Congress about election irregularities in each state.” He added that “the public should come away from this believing that the election in Wisconsin was likely rigged, and stolen by Biden and Harris, who were not legitimately elected.”

Responding to the email chain was John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who has also been charged in the Georgia election case. Mr. Eastman said he believed the legal arguments were “rock solid” but the odds of success were “not based on the legal merits, but an assessment of the justices’ spines. And I understand that there is a heated fight underway.”

Mr. Chesebro responded: “I particularly agree that getting this on file gives more ammo to the justices fighting for the court to intervene. I think the odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way.”

A key point here is that the attorneys knew the election was not stolen, but they wanted to create a false reality of a stolen election in the minds of as many of DJT's supporters as possible. Apparently they did a darn good job. 

Chesebro tried to keep the email out of court, but the judge ruled that the emails are admissible in court under the crime-fraud exception because probable cause had been established that the correspondence or lawyer’s advice (normally shielded from discovery and kept out of court) was used in furtherance of a crime.

What those attorneys were trying to do amounts to treason in my opinion, but that's not how the law  sees it. One can hope that Chesebro gets convicted and spends at least 20 years in jail. The cadre of treasonous stolen election lawyers caused enormous damage to this country.

Rhetorical tactics: Framing issues in politics

In Jan. 2021, I posted a longer version of this:

One of the most common reasons that politicians do not answer questions directly is to avoid stepping into an opponent's frame.[1] It is almost always the case that when one steps into an opponent's frame, one loses the engagement or debate. This is a fundamental truth about how the human mind works. Framing issues leads the mind to see and think about a question within the frame. It is almost always harder to explain one's position within a frame that favors the opponent's argument. The general rule is simple: The more one has to explain themself, the weaker their arguments are seen to be 

In framing political issues, one is presenting their perception of reality, facts and logic to persuade people to agree with them. In essence, a frame is the words, images and the mental and biological effects of how one describes one's own version of reality, reasoning, right and wrong.

Effective frames: Effective frames are ones that are persuasive to the most number of people that can be reached and influenced. Some people aren't persuaded by anything and this tactic fails. Good political frames are characterized by simplicity, stickiness (memorability), appeal to emotion and ideology or values, implicit or explicit identification of the good guys (the framer and his argument), the bad guys (the opposition and their policy) and the victim (people abused by the bad guys and their policies).

Practical and psychological impacts of frames: Frames can be very powerful. Some experts argue that politics for smart politicians is a matter of framing and reframing. Inexperienced politicians make the mistake of ‘stepping into their opponent's frame’, which significantly undermines their argument and power to persuade. If you make that mistake, this is what usually results:
1. You give free airtime to your opponent’s frame, including his images, emotions, values and terminology
2. You put yourself on the defensive
3. You usually have a heavier burden of proof to dislodge the opponent’s frame because lots of contrary evidence and explanation is needed to overcome a little evidence, including lies, that supports the frame
4. Your response is often complex and vulnerable because complicated responses to rebut simple frames are usually needed

Examples of stepping into an opponent's frame include:
1. Trying to rebut the ‘illegal immigrant’ frame by including the phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ in the rebuttal. That just keeps reinforcing the concept ‘illegal’. Instead, the smart politician never steps into that frame and instead always refers to ‘undocumented workers’ or ‘undocumented children’.

2. The frame: An allegation by a politician who wants to get rid of a bureaucracy by arguing that that the bureaucracy has insufficient expertise. Stepping into that frame in rebuttal with multiple true facts: (i) we have lots of expert experts, (ii) they are constantly getting updated training, (iii) the situation is complicated and we are analyzing means for corrective action, (iv) our track record has been excellent in the past. The framer then demolishes the whole in-frame rebuttal by simply asserting: Right, your experts are constantly getting updated training because they don't have the necessary expertise. Those four defenses provided the framer with four opportunities to blow his opponent out of the water.

Lesson: Never step into your opponent's frame. If you do, you usually lose the persuasion war.

This 10 minute video cited by AlextheKay focuses on the power of properly framing issues and debate tactics that America's authoritarian radical right employs. These authoritarian debate tactics avoid the fatal weaknesses that shoots through essentially all of their pro-tyranny and pro-kleptocracy rhetoric and reasoning. The radicals know that they cannot step into their opponent's frame or they will lose the debate. But the pro-democracy forces usually can't resist stepping into the radical's flawed frames, thereby usually significantly reducing their persuasiveness to open minds. Nothing is persuasive to closed minds.