InfoWars and media ownership; Swing voters in swing states poll

One of the key differences between American pro-democracy and pro-authoritarianism factions, roughly Dems vs Repubs, is a major focus media on mass media ownership. Dems themselves, e.g., the neoliberal Bill Clinton, helped create the current disaster. Biden perpetuates it. 

After he got in power, DJT installed a plutocrat to head the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), Ajit Pai. Media ownership rules were changed to allow far more concentration of owner power in single markets for individual entities or families. Our authoritarian radical right supreme court stepped in and reinforced DJT deregulation that killed media ownership diversity. 

For example, the FCC repealed the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule, which had prohibited a single entity from owning both a daily newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market. Also, the Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule was eliminated. That rule restricted the combined ownership of radio and television stations in the same market. So far, the Biden administration has not reversed those authoritarian rule changes, and the supreme court has reinforced them. It is not clear that Biden wants those rules changed.

Thom Hartmann comments on one aspect the critically important media ownership issue, talk radio: 

Radio Silence: How Progressives Lost the Airwaves

Inside the GOP's 30-year plan to dominate America’s talk radio system

After Ronald Reagan struck down the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule, Republican money men got the memo. Whichever party controlled the most states would have a big edge in both the Senate (and thus control of the Supreme Court nominations) and the Electoral College, and most of the low- and medium-population states had relatively inexpensive media markets.

You could buy or lease radio stations for less than a party might spend over a four-year electoral cycle on advertising, so why not simply acquire a few hundred stations across a dozen or more states and program them with rightwing talk radio 24/7?

This became particularly easy after Bill Clinton signed the neoliberal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that ended limits on how many radio or TV stations a single corporation or billionaire could own. Within months of that bill passing into law, Clear Channel and other networks had gone from small regional groups to massive nationwide radio empires.

The strategy worked, and today there are over 1,500 rightwing radio stations in America, along with another 700 or so religious stations that regularly endorse Republican memes and candidates for office.

Right-wing talk radio has been integral to Republican strategy for decades. In 1994, when Newt Gingrich took control of the House of Representatives, he understood the power of talk radio.

The GOP hold on most of American radio seems pretty unshakable.

A few years ago, a billionaire acquired one of the largest networks of these stations (800+ stations) and a senator I’ve known for years invited him and me to meet in his office near the US Capitol. The Senator asked the billionaire — who then owned several hundred stations programming exclusively rightwing content — if he’d ever considered putting some progressive content on the air.

The billionaire leaned back in his chair, took a deep breath, tented his fingers in front of his mouth, and then said, carefully but emphatically:

“I’ll never put anybody on my air who wants to raise my taxes.”

A few years earlier, I’d sat at lunch at a Talkers Magazine conference with a vice president of what is arguably the most influential of the rightwing radio station networks [Salem Media Group; family-themed content and conservative (authoritarian) values]; the company had started out as a bible publishing business and moved from there into radio and then into political radio.

I asked him if he’d consider putting a progressive show on any of his stations (they were all 100% conservative talk) and he bluntly told me it was “never going to happen” because, he said, “It’s impossible for a liberal to be a true Christian.”

Think about it — political campaigns will pay thousands for a minute of advertising, and find that to be so effective that they continue to buy ads year after year. If that minute can be so influential, how about a host — who’s built a relationship with his or her listeners — telling them dozens of times a day who they should vote for and why? You literally can’t buy promotion like that; you have to buy the station instead.

I have argued many times here that demagogic DFS (dark free speech) has been the single most effective weapon that American radical right authoritarianism has used in its decades-long war against democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. Ownership of mass media is a key component. Concentrated media ownership by radical right authoritarian individuals and businesses maximize DFS's power to deceive, trap and manipulate minds and the distorted realities those minds think they see.

From what I can tell, Bill Clinton was, and Joe Biden still is, on the wrong side of our pro-authoritarian federal media ownership policy. They blew it and betrayed us.

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

A NYT article discusses recent poll results from swing voters in three swing states:

We define swing voters as the roughly 18 percent of likely voters who say they haven’t yet made a firm decision. Some describe themselves as undecided, while others say they’re leaning toward one candidate but open to changing their mind.

All the numbers in today’s newsletter come from a poll of three swing states — Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. But I’ve analyzed a similar question in a nationwide poll conducted by YouGov and The Economist, and the themes were similar.

Swing voters’ biggest concern about Trump, by far, is his temperament.

Is this poll more reassuring than troubling? I think it probably is, but that's certain. The 35% personality, 8% honesty, 7% threat to democracy, 5% ideology and 3% court cases amount to 58%. That's not an overwhelming majority. Presumably "ideology" and "threat to democracy" mostly refers implicitly to his authoritarianism, and maybe so does concern about his "personality."  

Other recent poll data is seemingly not as encouraging as this poll.

One has to wonder what the benefits of DJT policies are that Republicans cite as beneficial for them personally. A perplexity search indicated that Republicans commonly cite (i) the 2017 tax cut, (ii) pre-pandemic economic and job growth, (iii) energy independence policy, and (iv) deregulation with attendant reduced business costs and lower consumer prices. 

That search indicated that the perceived reality of some of the benefits are not clear. The 2017 tax cut added to the federal debt, so there was that downside. Before DJT was in office, the economy was on an upswing, so it is hard to know what influence he had on that. Evidence of energy policy and deregulation helping lower consumer prices ranges from non-existent to debated. In short, the claimed benefits may not have materialized as much for the average person as most of DJT's supporters presumably believe.

It still looks like the election is going to be very close in the electoral college. The outcome is not predictable at present.

Social science: Regarding the minds of DJT supporters

A fascinating NYT opinion/analysis writes about the disregard for truth and a basis in animus or hostility toward marginalized groups that drew ~14% of the American electorate early on in 2015-2106. According to the opinion, that disregard and animus now binds “roughly 43 to 45 percent of the electorate” to DJT today:

The Real Trump Mystery

The mystery of 2024: How is it possible that Donald Trump has a reasonable chance of winning the presidency despite all that voters now know about him? .... The litany of Trump’s liabilities is well known to the American electorate. His mendacity, duplicity, depravity, hypocrisy and venality are irrevocably imprinted on the psyches of American voters.

John Podhoretz, in a 2017 Commentary article, “Explaining Trump’s Charlottesville Behavior,” .... “Whose early support for Trump itself played a key role in leading others to take him seriously and help propel him into the nomination?” .... a conspiracy-oriented constituency with little regard for truth:

If there’s one thing politicians can feel in their marrow, even a non-pol pol like Trump, it’s who is in their base and what it is that binds the base to them. .... Trump found himself with 14 percent support in a month. Those early supporters had been primed to rally to him for a long time.”

I’m talking about Alex Jones and Infowars, the conspiracy-theory radio show/website on which Trump has appeared for years; the radio show has 2 million listeners a week, and Jones was said in 2011 to have a larger online presence than Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

I’m talking about American Media, the company that owns the National Enquirer, the Star, the Sun, and the Weekly World News run by Trump’s close friend David Pecker; the combined weekly circulation of its publications is well in excess of 2 million.

The pervasive denial of truth has, in turn, been crucial to Trump’s continued viability.

Partisan loyalty is crucial to Trump’s success. He has a base of support — roughly 43 to 45 percent of the electorate — that sticks with him through good and bad times.

One reason for this is what Yphtach Lelkes, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, calls the “crystallization” of the electorate. In an email, Lelkes explained what he meant:

Crystallization describes a world where people’s attitudes won’t be swayed, no matter what new information they get. Campaign dynamics do very little to move attitudes. Polarization is the engine of crystallization.

MAGA loyalists believe “the investigations against Trump are witch hunts and baseless.” Taking this logic a step further, “people think that the other side is dangerous and that we need someone willing to do whatever it takes to stop them. That is, they think they are protecting democracy by supporting Trump. Finally, in a polarized world, people value policy and partisan outcomes over democracy — they are willing to tolerate some authoritarianism to further their own political goals.”

The political scientists Lilliana Mason, Julie Wronski and John V. Kane capture this phenomenon in their June 2021 paper “Activating Animus: the Uniquely Social Roots of Trump Support.” .... “feelings of animosity toward Democratic groups do not predict favorability toward the Republican Party, Paul Ryan, or Mitch McConnell,” Mason, Wronski and Kane write. Instead, “Trump support is uniquely predicted by animosity toward marginalized groups in the United States.” .... Their conclusion amounts to a warning, even if it’s veiled in academic language:

This research reveals a wellspring of animus against marginalized groups in the United States that can be harnessed and activated for political gain. Trump’s unique ability to do so is not the only cause for normative concern.

Instead, we should take note that these attitudes exist across both parties and among nonpartisans. Though they may remain relatively latent when leaders and parties draw attention elsewhere, the right leader can activate these attitudes and fold them into voters’ political judgments.

I love it, the opinion refers to the “crystallization” of the electorate. I sometimes use crystallization to describe what DJT has been able to do and maintain ever since 2015. 

Even before DJT, many or most of his current acolytes had been primed for decades by authoritarian radical right animosity (bigotry, racism, hate, fear, intolerance). That bad state of mind was intentionally fomented by America's authoritarian radical elites and their right dark free speech Leviathan, e.g., Faux News, the GOP, Christian nationalist propagandists, elite American plutocrats, etc. 

This opinion assesses evidence that DJT's committed rank and file supporters are significantly different from the portion of the American population that (i) still mostly allows inconvenient truth to have some impact on belief and behavior, and (ii) does not harbor significant animosity toward marginalized groups.

I queried the Perplexity search engine about how it assessed the importance of truth and animosity toward marginalized groups in supporting DJT. It responded that both factors seemed to be important. My follow-up question referenced this NYT opinion piece. Perplexity then commented:

Based on the new information from the New York Times opinion piece, I would revise my assessment to emphasize the importance of animosity toward marginalized groups and disregard for inconvenient truths as key factors binding committed supporters to Trump.

Animosity and disregard for truth are not the only two factors in play, but it seems plausible that each is important. So maybe together the two are dominant.

Q1: Does the evidence presented here and other things known to constitute a convincing case that most of DJT's committed rank and file are bound to him more by (i) disregard for truth, and (ii) animosity toward marginalized groups than other factors alone or together, e.g., feelings of being disrespected, and fear of the Great White Replacement catastrophe (assuming one can meaningfully disentangle GWR fear from probably overlapping animosity toward marginalized groups)? 

Q2: On the basis of what is presented here and other things you know or believe, is it (i) unfair, (ii) inaccurate and/or (iii) counter-productive to refer to committed DJT rank and file supporters as MAGA or part of the MAGA movement, or are they otherwise unremarkable people like you or me but who just happen to support DJT?

Brass knuckles capitalism update; Plastics pollution update

The Guardian reports: 

Amazon, Tesla and Meta among world’s top companies 

undermining democracy – report

Some of the world’s largest companies have been accused of undermining democracy across the world by financially backing far-right political movements, funding and exacerbating the climate crisis, and violating trade union rights and human rights in a report published on Monday by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

Amazon, Tesla, Meta, ExxonMobil, Blackstone, Vanguard and Glencore are the corporations included in the report. The companies’ lobbying arms are attempting to shape global policy at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York City on 22 and 23 September.

At Amazon, the report notes the company’s size and role as the fifth largest employer in the world and the largest online retailer and cloud computing service, has had a profound impact on the industries and communities it operates within.

“The company has become notorious for its union busting and low wages on multiple continents, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS data centers, corporate tax evasion, and lobbying at national and international level,” states the report.

The report cites Amazon’s high injury rates in the US, the company challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), its efforts in Canada to overturn labor law, the banning of Amazon lobbyists from the European parliament for refusing to attend hearings on worker violations, and refusal to negotiate with unions in Germany, among other cases. Amazon has also funded far-right political groups’ efforts to undermine women’s rights and antitrust legislation, and its retail website has been used by hate groups to raise money and sell products.

Simply put, capitalism, like theocracy, is inherently anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian. When capitalism is not reasonably regulated, elite capitalists have too much power. That power comes mostly at the expense of the public interest and government functions needed to protect it. Unfortunately, in pay-to-play politics, special interest money talks and democracy and the public interest get a kick in the pants.

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

The WaPo reports (not paywalled) about the abysmal, decades-long state of affairs regarding the non-recyclability of plastics:

Is recycling beyond fixing? 

Here’s why California thinks so.

California’s lawsuit against ExxonMobil says plastic recycling is broken. The oil giant agrees, but blames the state

On Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued ExxonMobil, claiming the oil and petrochemical giant had engaged “in a decades-long campaign of deception” about the effectiveness of recycling. The first-of-its-kind lawsuit seeks to hold the company responsible for the plastic pollution crisis. It argues that, since at least 1988, ExxonMobil has blanketed the state in marketing and advertising to convince people plastic is being recycled, making them more likely to buy it. This includes spreading misinformation about the efficacy of plastics recycling on social media, it alleges.

The amount of plastic being recycled in the United States today is a sliver of what is produced. Recent estimates suggest that only about 9 percent of this waste is recycled worldwide, while in America it’s about 5 to 6 percent.

Take, for instance, two common household plastics: an orange laundry detergent bottle and a clear squeezable ketchup bottle. They are made from different resins — a petroleum product that’s the main ingredient in plastics — are different colors and contain different chemicals. They can’t be combined and resold. The makeup of each product is so specific that even green and clear soda bottles made of No. 1 plastic cannot be recycled together, which is why the Coca-Cola Co. no longer packages Sprite in its iconic green container.

“Fundamentally, most plastics are not recyclable,” said Judith Enck, the president of the advocacy group Beyond Plastics and a former regional Environmental Protection Agency administrator. “And you know who has known this for years? The companies that make and sell plastic.”

ExxonMobil responded to California’s lawsuit by alleging the state’s recycling system is broken. A spokesperson for the company said it had kept more than 60 million pounds of plastic waste out of landfills by turning it into reusable raw materials.

In the face of growing skepticism about plastic recycling, the industry has gone on the offensive. The Plastics Industry Association, a trade group, launched a $1 million campaign last year called “Recycling is Real.” Aimed at lawmakers and brands, the digital ads tried to bolster confidence in recycling.

The WaPo article also commented that an an international trade group of plastic recyclers said that as long as people use plastic products, recycling has merit. That is very much like DJT telling us he has "concepts of a plan" to replace Obamacare. It's pure insulting, morally rotted bullshit.

A person does have to marvel at the insulting arrogance of lying pollution profiteers like ExxonMobil. They foster plastics pollution but falsely claim recycling is real, while blaming government for the non-recyclability of plastics. Morally rotted, outrageous arrogance is a reasonable assessment. Capitalism's inherent lack of compassion for human welfare and the environment is on display.

Piles of plastic

The staggering fragility of American democracy: The Nebraska horror story

A terrifying NYT opinion (not paywalled) discusses the possibility that one person, Nebraska State Senator Mike McDonnell, who defected from the Democratic Party a few months ago, is standing in the Republican Party’s way of giving DJT the election if the closest electoral college scenario comes to pass:

A Leading Law Scholar Fears We’re Lurching Toward Secession

Here’s how rickety our constitutional system has become: The fate of the 2024 election could hang on the integrity of a single Republican state senator in Nebraska.

Almost all states use a winner-take-all system to apportion their presidential electors, but Nebraska and Maine award some electors by congressional district. In 2020, Joe Biden won one of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, and Donald Trump won one elector from rural Maine. This year Kamala Harris’s clearest path to victory is to take the so-called blue wall states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, plus one electoral vote in Nebraska.

This year, Republicans waited until it was too late for Maine to change its rules before starting a push to change them in Nebraska. If they succeeded and Harris held the blue wall but lost the other swing states, there would be a tie in the Electoral College. For the first time in 200 years, the election would go to the House, where each state delegation would get one vote and Trump would almost certainly be installed as president.

So far, one man, State Senator Mike McDonnell, who defected from the Democratic Party this spring, is standing in the Republican Party’s way. We should all be grateful for his courage. But the pressure on him from his new party will be intense, and he can still change his mind in the coming weeks.

Whether or not McDonnell remains steadfast, this is a preposterous way to run a purportedly democratic superpower. The Electoral College — created in part, as the scholar Akhil Reed Amar has shown, to protect slavery — has already given us two presidents in the 21st century who lost the popular vote, and it continues to warp our politics. It is one reason Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the U.C. Berkeley School of Law and an eminent legal scholar, has come to despair of the Constitution he’s devoted much of his life to. “I believe that if the problems with the Constitution are not fixed — and if the country stays on its current path — we are heading to serious efforts at secession,” he writes in his bracing new book, “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

To me, the main point is this: this is a preposterous way to run a purportedly democratic superpower. 

Chemerinsky's concern about secession is too far out in time to be a serious worry for me at least. The possibility of a constitutional convention doing anything significant or at all is very low because 38 states (75%: 37.5 gets rounded up to 38) would need to ratify it. That is politically just about impossible, if not actually impossible. 

So, join with me and let's fret about the crappy way we run our democracy, which is on the verge of falling to some form of kleptocratic authoritarianism. Just one yahoo in Nebraska could drag us into the brutality and cruelty of DJT and MAGA in control. Let's hope that probably low-probability Nebraska scenario does not come to pass.

What, me worry? Nah!

America's fine-tuned electoral

system works just fine  /s