An Origin of America's Deadly Culture War

Monday, April 22, 2019


The origins of America's culture war is of great personal interest. The war could usher in the end of the American experiment and the rise of a kleptocratic tyranny grounded in illiberal democracy. At present it seems that the rule of law is in a process of falling to the tyrant wannabe, Donald Trump and the interests arrayed behind him.

In her 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right’s Stealth Plan For America, Nancy MacLean (history Professor, Duke University) describes the concerns that ultimately led to widespread resistance among radical hard core conservatives (RHCCs)[1] to social changes in America.

Those changes were being reflected in society at large and how the right of citizens were coming to be seen. Sometimes those social changes were being reflected in Supreme Court decisions that RHCCs viewed as an all-out war on their sacred way of live, their sacred vision of proper governance, and their sacred values and freedoms. They viewed social change with a mix of terror, rage and hate. They were not going to accept it and they were going to fight it tooth and claw.

This really was a culture war.

MacLean writes this about the second Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1955 that ordered public schools to be desegregated “with all deliberate speed.”[2]

“At a minimum, the federal courts could no longer be counted on to defer reflexively to states’ rights arguments. More concerning was the likelihood that the high court would be more willing to intervene when presented with compelling evidence that a state action was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection” under the law. State’s rights, in effect, were yielding in preeminence to individual rights. It was not difficult for either Darden [President of the University of Virginia] or Buchanan [chairman of the economics department at UVA] to imagine how a court might rule if presented with evidence of Virginia’s archaic labor relations, its measures to suppress voting, or its efforts to buttress the power of reactionary rural whites by underrepresenting the moderate voters of cities and suburbs of Northern Virginia. Federal meddling could rise to levels once unimaginable.

James McGill Buchanan was not a member of the Virginia elite. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that for a white southerner of his day he was uniquely racist or insensitive to the concept of equal treatment. And yet, somehow, all he saw in the Brown decision was coercion. And not just in the abstract. what the court ruling represented to him was personal. Northern liberals -- the very people who looked down on southern whites like him -- were now going to tell his people how to run their society. And to add insult to injury, he and people like him with property were no doubt going to be taxed to pay for all of the improvements that were now deemed necessary and proper for the state to make. What about his rights? Where did the federal government get the authority to engineer society to its liking and then send him and those like him the bill?Who represented their interests in all of this? I can fight this, he concluded. I want to fight this.

Find the resources, he proposed to Darden, for me to create a new center on the campus of the University of Virginia, and I will use this center to created a new school of political economy and social philosophy. It would be an academic center, rigorously so, but one with a quiet political agenda: to defeat the “perverted form” of liberalism that sought to destroy their way of life, “a social order,” as he described it, “built on individual liberty,” a term with its own coded meaning but one that Darden surely understood. The center, Buchanan promised, would train a “new line of thinkers” in how to argue against those seeking to impose an “increasing role of government in economic and social life.”

He could win this war, and he would do it with ideas.”

This is one of the origins of the culture war that is tearing America apart. Today, those arguing to get the federal government out of their lives would no doubt say that they are not racist or bigoted, but instead argue they are simply fighting for personal freedom and the sacred Constitutional right of states to be left alone to do as they wish. This helps explain the roots of modern voter suppression that most RHCCs seem to favor. It seems that there may be millions of adult Americans who wish to replace the Constitution with the failed Articles of Confederation. That would be the end of the American experiment.

Footnotes:
1. This label may be not quite accurate for the people it applies to in the 1950s, but it appears to this observer to be reasonable for modern conservatives and populists in view of where American society is today in 2019.

2. The Supreme Court waited for years to rule on racial segregation based on the ‘separate but equal’ myth. Schools for black and white students were not close to equal and everyone awake knew it. The justices waited until they got a case that did not arise in the deep South. They knew desegregating public schools would be highly divisive and offensive for whites in the South. They wanted the case to come from someplace other than the deep South to try to minimize the profound social discord they knew would come from school desegregation. Profound social discord is exactly what the Brown decision caused and it wasn't just in the South. Racism is inherent in the human mind. That aspect of our evolutionary heritage has to be tamed by learning.

B&B orig: 4/14/19

The Quiet War for American Theocracy

Monday, April 22, 2019


In an article by Salon entitled, The plot against America: Inside the Christian right plan to “remodel” the nation, author Paul Rosenberg argues that “the religious right's blueprint for theocratic state laws keeps creeping forward.” Rosenberg cited the Texas Senate, which passed SB-17 earlier this month. SB-17 is a law that protects anti-LGBTQ discrimination by all licensed professionals who claim to act on a “sincerely held religious belief.”

The article comments:

“It’s time for Americans to wake up to the harsh reality that the religious right, fueled by their fear of loss of power from the changing demographics in our country and their support from the Trump administration, is emboldened and aggressively pursuing all means possible to maintain white Christian power in America,” Rachel Laser, the president of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, told Salon. “Project Blitz, for example, has already introduced over 50 bills in at least 23 states this year alone,” she added.

The first tier of Project Blitz aims at importing the Christian nationalist worldview into public schools and other aspects of the public sphere, the second tier aims at making government increasingly a partner in “Christianizing” America, and the third tier contains three types of proposed laws that “protect” religious beliefs and practices specifically intended to benefit bigotry.

Project Blitz is akin to the powerful but well-known American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which combines business interests with movement conservatives. ALEC writes laws for a coordinated national conservative movement. The organization has influenced or written hundreds or thousands of state and federal laws.

The goal of Project Blitz is to completely destroy the wall of separation between the church and state. The existence of Project Blitz was uncovered in 2018 when religion reporter Frederick Clarkson found a 116-page Evangelical political playbook (here it is)[1] on how to influence state and federal laws using the same sophisticated tactics that ALEC uses.

When the concern that America is moving toward some form of Christian theocracy, conservatives are quick to denounce the idea as a lie, ridiculous, fake news or something simply not believable. I have experienced the white hot heat of those flames personally in recent weeks at another site.

Secular American law and society are under a powerful, sustained attack by an aggressive, vindictive white Christian authoritarianism. Americans will either let this happen at their own peril, or they will fight to protect liberal democracy and the rule of law. The battle lines could not be much clearer, or the stakes much higher.

Footnote:
1. The 116-page report begins with the following introductory comments: “This report is the 2017 version of religious liberty measures that relate to prayer and faith in America. Following distribution of last year’s version of this report, entitled “An Historical Report and Analysis of Religious Liberty Measures That Impact Prayer and Faith in America” (“Historical Report”), CPCF tracked approximately 33 separate pieces of legislation passed in the 2017 terms of the various state legislatures that were favorable to prayer and the free exercise of religion in our country. That compares to only six passed during 2016, by our count.

The purpose of this report is to give you, as legislators, the benefit of good work done by others and model legislation on various related topics for your consideration and potential use. We have expanded the analysis and “talking points” in many areas and have attempted to make this version more user-friendly. But, like the Historical Report, this report reflects the collective wisdom and experience of individual legislators and legal teams who have worked with various pieces of legislation, as well as groups who have or will support such legislation, and the strategic analysis of many organizations, teams, and individuals who have studied these measures. This is not an exhaustive collection of model acts, resolutions, and proclamations on the topic, but it addresses most areas of recent interest.

The following principles apply to all of the measures and should be considered early on: 1. Nothing is more important than learning to tell a story that shows why the legislation is needed. While the text of legislation is critical, it can become sterile without painting a picture of “why” it says it. Remember to tell the story! Tell it often, and tell it well. When you have limited time, tell the story and let the legislation speak for itself.

2. Never forget that you often communicate more with your actions than your words. Tone and temperament are vital.

3. The name matters. For example, “Protecting Religious Freedom in Private Homes Act” is not nearly as powerful as the “Home Privacy Protection Act.”

4. Do not let the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good.’”

B&B orig: 4/14/19

Book Review: How Democracies Die

Monday, April 22, 2019


Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, Harvard political science professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (L&Z) describe the various ways in which democracies die. For the last 15 years, L&Z have studied democracy deaths as the main focus of their research.

What they find is that these days, democracies often do not die after a military coup. Instead, many modern authoritarians or demagogues gain power by striking deals with existing political parties who are often under stress and losing influence. Hitler and Mussolini took that route. In both cases, the existing order was confident that they could control the demagogues they helped to legitimize.

In this regard, L&Z see political parties and especially their leaders and insiders as gatekeepers who are in a position to prevent legitimizing and/or the rise to power of demagogues. L&Z comment on this legal route to power: “The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it. . . . . One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”

American democracy vs. Trump: L&Z write to express their deep concern that President Trump, a demagogue in their view, could rise to become a full-blown authoritarian. They find that two critical norms that have kept American demagogues in the past from gaining power have largely collapsed. One weakened norm is “mutual toleration” which exists when political parties accept each other as legitimate political opposition. The other norm is “forbearance” wherein politicians exercise restraint in using power and institutional prerogatives. L&Z calls these norms the “soft guardrails of American democracy.”

L&Z argue the erosion of these norms began in the 1980s and by the time Obama was elected in 2008, “many Republicans, in particular, questioned the legitimacy of their Democratic rivals and had abandoned the forbearance strategy for a strategy of winning by any means necessary.” They point out that Trump accelerated the trend, but didn't initially cause it. L&Z see extreme polarization as a root cause of the weakening of the norms that helped defend democracy from demagogues: “And if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.”

Some may recall that the 2018 presidential greatness survey by experts ranked Trump as the most polarizing president in US history. 2018 was the first year that the question had been asked. It was asked in view of the obvious polarizing effect that Trump had on American politics and society.

The tyrant test: L&Z find that authoritarians tend to use the same rhetoric and tactics in making their run for power. Keying off of earlier research of democratic breakdowns by political scientist Juan Linz, L&Z articulate four behavioral warning signs that help identify an authoritarian. Evidence of any one of the four behaviors in words or actions point to an authoritarian politician.

The four signs are evident “when a politician (1) rejects the democratic rules of the game, (2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, (3) tolerates or encourages violence, or (4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.” Trump has shown behaviors that fit all four of the warning signs. For example, he rejected the democratic rules of the game by claiming he would not accept election results if he lost the 2016 election and falsely claimed there was massive voter fraud. Similarly, he denied the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton by calling her a criminal and calling for her to be imprisoned. He also publicly tolerated and encouraged violence by his supporters, e.g., “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would 'ya? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay the legal fees. I promise you.”

L&Z argue that the republican party has abdicated essentially all responsibility to try to keep the authoritarian demagogue Trump from gaining power or undermining democracy. We are undergoing the kind of stealth attack on democracy that people have a hard time seeing. L&Z point out that there have always been about 30-40% of Americans who were ready to support a populist demagogue. Trump’s populist demagogic rhetoric and behavior, coupled with the the republican party’s abdication of responsibility to defend democracy, make America’s current political situation look truly frightening.

Warning: L&Z point out that opposition to demagogues must be legal. The demagogue can use anything illegal by the opposition as an excuse to further undermine democratic freedoms and the rule of law. In other words, Antifa and any other pro-violence groups that want to help defend democracy need to cool their jets and get their act together. Stupidity such as violence plays into the tyrant’s hands.

B&B orig: 4/15/19 DP orig 4/22/19; DP reposted 5/27/20

Stealth & Deceit Can Destroy Democracy

Monday, April 22, 2019


Context: As a default position, I reject political conspiracy theories as unfounded, unless the evidence looks solid. But sometimes there really is a political conspiracy. This is about a real conspiracy that is driving a social engineering experiment of massive proportions to completely change American democracy.

Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America, describes a vast radical right wing conspiracy theory that is true. MacLean is a historian who wound up with unfettered access to look at the original documents that (i) prove the origin and existence of the radical right conspiracy, and (ii) describe its goal. The goal is to completely remake American democracy with its strong central government into a central weak government that is unable to enforce equal protection and due process for average people.

In the radical right vision, power would flow from the central federal government to authoritarian, oligarchic state governments that are captured by wealthy, powerful capitalists and like-minded individuals. The goal of that form of government is to weaken and then destroy the ability of average citizens, especially minorities to work together to defend their interests using equal protection and due process as their main tool to exert influence. The ultimate goal is to elevate property rights above all other rights, including the rights of people to tax property or otherwise burden it in any way.

In other words, this cabal of capitalists and rich people want to have essentially all power and little or no responsibility toward society or the well-being of average people. This new authoritarian kleptocracy has now overpowered the republican party and with President Trump at the helm, it is gaining momentum. This effort just might lead to the end of the American experiment.

A few quotes from MacLean's book with some comments for context help describe what America is facing right now from the authoritarian radical right.

#1 - No compromise: Funding for the radical movement was initiated by Charles and David Koch. They knew that most Americans would oppose what they wanted to do, which included a refusal to compromise. Refusal to compromise is integral to what it is to be a tyrant or oligarch.

Koch never lied to himself about what he was doing. While some others in the movement called themselves conservatives, he know exactly how radical his cause was. Informed early on by one of his grantees that the playbook on revolutionary organization had been written by Vladimir Lenin dutifully recruited a trusted "cadre" of high-level operatives, just as Lenin had done, to build a movement that refused compromise as it devised savvy maneuvers to alter the political math in its favor.

#2 - Kill liberty: The key intellectual founder of this property absolutist movement, James McGill Buchanan (discussed here before), chairman of the economics department at the University of Virginia, saw an urgent need to curtail civil liberties as much as possible. Previously, Virginia had used state law to impose effective voter suppression, allowing the governor and legislature to maintain their high level of power and control over Virginia's residents. Neutering collective action by citizens, e.g., organized labor unions, was a high priority target for the absolutist authoritarians.

Compounding the problems Buchanan faced of elected officials who seemed like allies but, once in power failed to walk the walk, was the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It began drawing into the electorate more poor people who, in Buchanan's eyes, were likely to support proposals for programs that cost yet more money [than desegregation of public schools was already costing]. . . . . Buchanan now argued, the cause must figure out how to put legal -- indeed constitutional -- shackles on public officials, shackles so powerful that no matter how sympathetic these officials might be to the will of majorities, no matter how concerned they were for their own re-elections, they would no longer have the ability to respond to those who used their numbers [citizens acting together] to get government to do their bidding. . . . . Once these shackles were put in place, they had to be binding and permanent. . . . . Their cause they say is liberty. But by that they mean the insulation of private property rights from the reach of government -- and the takeover of what was long public (schools, prisons, western lands, and much more) by corporations, a system that would radically reduce the freedom of the many. In a nutshell, they aim to hollow out democratic resistance. And by its own lights, the cause is nearing success.

#3 - Republican party takeover with ideologically cleansing RINO hunts: The radical movement knew the American people would reject its political goals and that some institution of political power would be needed to exert influence on a national scale. The radical right's quiet, relentless takeover of the republican party explains why the party now refuses to oppose Trump's moves to undermine democracy and the rule of law. The RHINO hunts effectively drove many (most?) real republicans from the party and replaced them with believers in the radical right's absolutist anti-democratic vision, e.g., the Tea Party. The absolutists play hardball and they play for keeps.

The Koch team's most important stealth move, and the one that proved critical to success, was to wrest control over the machinery of the Republican Party, beginning in the late 1990s with sharply escalating determination after 2008. From there, it was just a short step to lay claim to being the true representatives of the party, declaring all others RINOS. But while these radicals of the right operate within the Republican Party and use that party as a delivery vehicle, make no mistake about it: the cadre's loyalty is not to the Grand Old Party or its traditions or standard bearers. Their loyalty is to their revolutionary cause.

Republican Party veterans who believed they would be treated fairly because of their longtime service soon learned that, to their new masters, their history of Republicanism meant nothing. The new men in the wings respect only compliance; if they fail to get it, they respond with swift vengeance. The cadre targets for removal any old-time Republicans deemed a problem, throwing big money into their next primary race to unseat them and replace them with the cause's more "conservative" choices -- or at least teach them to heel.

The latter explains why a politician like Ronald Reagan would never have been accepted by the new radical republicans. They would have ousted him as a RINO. The propaganda tactics the radical absolutists employ were and still are devastatingly effective. That got tens of millions of rank and file republicans to effectively switch from old republican ideals, including at least some responsiveness to public opinion, to pure anti-democratic absolutism about property and intense hostility to civil rights.

B&B orig: 4/18/19

Wealth Distribution: What People Think vs What It Is

Monday, April 22, 2019

The graph shows what Americans thought the distribution of wealth in America was and what they thought would be ideal. The data is based on a 2011 survey, which was published here: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf .

The actual United States wealth distribution was plotted against the estimated and ideal distributions across all respondents. Because of their small percentage share of total wealth, both the ‘‘4th 20%’’ value (0.2%) and the ‘‘Bottom 20%’’ value (0.1%) are not visible in the ‘‘Actual’’ distribution, i.e., the bottom 40% of Americans own about 0.3% of all wealth. Ideal distributions were what Americans thought they should be, e.g., the top 20% owning about 33%. Clearly, Americans were unaware that the top 20% of Americans own about 84% of the wealth.

The distribution graph below is based on 2016 data.

B&B orig: 4/20/19

A Conversation About Politics With a Pragmatist

Monday, April 22, 2019



This paraphrases a recent conversation I had with a long-time white, middle class acquaintance (ACQ) about politics. The conversation touched on Nancy MacLean's 2017 book, Democracy In Chains: The Deep History Of The Radical Right's Stealth Plan For America (discussion here). The harsh sentiments toward the political left and right coming from a mostly political centrist were unsettling but I suspect maybe fairly common among a lot of middle class centrists and some liberals.

ACQ: Did you hear the NPR story about judges now not answering questions about whether the 1955 Brown v Board of Education Supreme Court decision was properly decided?

Me: Yup. I can't believe the far right would go so far as to seriously revisit separate but equal or vote to allow public schools to be resegregated.

ACQ: 'Ya know, I don't care if they do. I don't care if public schools get resegregated. Sounds like maybe that's what they want to do, at least if MacLean has it about right.

Me (dumbfounded): What? Where is this coming from?

ACQ: I'm pissed off. I'm tired of hearing that the democrats need to pander to and rely on black women or some other group to save the party at elections. As far an I am concerned, if people don't vote they deserve what they get. If schools get resegregated, that's not my problem. I vote every goddamn time and never once get to vote for anyone I really want in office. And, no one is pandering to me. Instead, it gets worse and worse for me and people in my situation.

My family was screwed by Obamacare -- nothing but sky high premiums and nothing covered -- all deductibles and no coverage. Tons of cost, no health care. Trump's tax cuts make my taxes a lot higher and now I need do all sorts of shit to try to reduce the new load. Who the hell is looking out for people like me? Effing congress just passed a bill that prevents the IRS from making tax filing less complex. Total BS. I get screwed and screwed some more by the left, the right, and special interests that buy crooks in congress and the idiot Trump. All that politics is offering me is a non-negotiable demand to pay more. Screw that. At least rich people and companies got benefits from Trump's tax bullshit. I got a kick in the butt because I live in California and Trump hates California and is punishing the state for not falling for his BS and lies. What kind of idiocy is that?

Me: But, what about voter suppression?

ACQ: I don't care. As long as republicans keep winning elections, they are empowered to pull whatever tyrant crap they can get away with. Life isn't fair. There are always tyrants just waiting for a chance to get power and screw people. Read MacLean's book. There's nothing fair about any of this. I'm coming to think that humans can't handle democracy or freedoms. Maybe we are destined to be slaves to some goon tyrant or heartless, arrogant oligarchs.

Me: What about Roe (abortion) and Obergefell (same-sex marriage)?

ACQ: Still don't care. If women keep voting for white male evangelical republicans, or don't vote at all, they deserve to lose their abortion rights. Same thing for LGBQTN -- some of those people actually voted for Trump and republicans, others didn't vote at all. Fine. People who don't vote or who vote republican deserve whatever tyrant crap comes at them. They have no cause to complain. I'm worried about me and my family, not everyone else. Not any more.



On gentle probing, it turns out that that outburst reflected years of ACQ's mounting frustration with the two-party system and how ACQ sees the middle class as being disrespected, ignored, exploited and hollowed out.

I've been giving voters and non-voters the benefit of a doubt because of the endless, ferocious stream of dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, etc.) that everyone is now hopelessly submerged in. That said, maybe ACQ sees it best: If you don't vote, don't complain -- no excuses.

It was unsettling to see that at least some people are slowly being worn down by decades of relentless attacks on democracy, the rule of law and the middle class. I take this as a bit of evidence that the radical right's plan to shift America to an anti-democratic authoritarianism is slowly working.

Orig B&B: 4/22/19