America's Broken Politics: Moscow Mitch

America's downward spiral in political rhetoric includes labeling people and political figures with various names. For unknown reasons, the 'Moscow Mitch' label applied to Senate majority leader McConnell has set him off. He claims he has been called a Russian asset, unpatriotic, unAmerican, etc. as well, which is probably true. This ~3½ minute video discusses the origin of the label as coming from former republican congressman Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe show. McConnell blames left wing media for the outrageous label, and finds it deplorable that political rhetoric has sunk to such a low level.



This 5½ minute video shows the some of the public in Kentucky as not being happy with McConnell, calling him Moscow Mitch.



A local newspaper in Kentucky reported that McConnell, touts "his record reshaping the federal judiciary and how he "saved the Supreme Court for a generation" by blocking President Barack Obama's pick in 2016. He bragged about his reputation as the "Grim Reaper" for killing the progressive measures coming out of the Democratic-controlled House." That kind of rhetoric sounds rather in-your-face, so maybe it is not surprising that he is being targeted by harsh rhetoric. What goes around sometimes comes back around.

The Los Angeles Times commented: "Last month the Democratic-controlled House approved the Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act, which requires that states use “individual, durable, voter-verified” paper ballots” during federal elections. The House also has appropriated an additional $600 million in aid to the states to enhance election security, a recognition that more federal assistance is needed to help update archaic election systems.

But the Republican majority in the Senate continues to block action on the SAFE Act and other legislation inspired by Russia’s interference, including proposals to require candidates to report offers of information from foreign countries."

It would seem that there is nothing wrong or partisan about congress trying to defend elections and requiring candidates to report offers of information from foreign countries, which is something the Trump campaign refused to do in 2016. Presumably, Trump will again refuse to do that if the Russians or anyone else offers to help his campaign in the 2020 elections, legal or not.

Given McConnell's actions and rhetoric in the Senate, or more precisely, his open pride in being the Grim Reaper, are labels such as Moscow Mitch unfair? Does it matter that, by his silence, McConnell condones name calling, including racist comments, by some populists, GOP politicians and especially Trump? Is the name calling more socially harmful than helpful? Under current political circumstances, is there another, less emotional, path for American politics to follow? Or, is this rancor and hate the only plausible way forward at present?

B&B orig: 8/4/19

Opinion vs. Libel

A Washington Post article describes court action in a $250 libel suit a Kentucky high school student brought against the Washington Post. This illustrates how fuzzy the line between libel and opinion can be.

U.S. District Judge William O. Bertelsman ruled that seven Post articles and three of its tweets bearing on Nicholas Sandmann — who was part of a group of Catholic students from Kentucky who came to Washington to march against abortion — were protected by the First Amendment. In analyzing the 33 statements over which Sandmann sued, the judge found none of them defamatory; instead, the vast majority constituted opinion, he said.

“Few principles of law are as well-established as the rule that statements of opinion are not actionable in libel actions,” Bertelsman wrote, adding that the rule is based on First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech. “The statements that Sandmann challenges constitute protected opinions that may not form the basis for a defamation claim.”

Sandmann’s parents, who brought the suit on their son’s behalf, said they would appeal. “I believe fighting for justice for my son and family is of vital national importance,” Ted Sandmann said in a statement. “If what was done to Nicholas is not legally actionable, then no one is safe.”

In his suit, Nicholas Sandmann claimed that the “gist” of The Post’s first article, on Jan. 19, was that he “assaulted” or “physically intimidated Phillips” and “engaged in racist conduct” and taunts.

“But,” the judge wrote, “this is not supported by the plain language in the article, which states no such thing.”

What is the standard for libel?: WaPo writes that “the judge’s opinion cited case law noting that statements must be ‘more than annoying, offensive or embarrassing’. They must expose the allegedly libeled party to public hatred, ridicule and contempt, among other damaging elements. ‘And while unfortunate, it is further irrelevant that Sandmann was scorned on social media’, the judge wrote.”

One can see at least one basis for an appeal in the judge’s comment that Sandmann was scorned on social media. These days, polarized people tend to react or over react on social media. That arguably amounts to exposure to public hatred, ridicule and/or contempt. The Supreme Court, being the polarized political beast it is now, could rule 5-4 against the WaPo, arguing that the scorn Sandmann was subject to on social media amounted to libel.

The WaPo’s defense, i.e., everything it reported was either true, was opinion and/or was not directed at Sandmann, will be seen through the eyes of partisan Supreme Court judges. Being human, judges cannot help but see truth and non-truth through their own personal filters. When political partisans are picked for judges, one gets partisan result s based on partisan versions of facts, non-facts, truth and non-truth.

Just how thick or thin is the ice that America's free press skates on? Maybe this case will shed some light on that in a couple of years. If President Trump has his way, the WaPo would lose and be sued into oblivion. Will Trump judges feel the same way? That’s the interesting question.

B&B orig: 7/27/19

The Populist Election Strategy for 2020

A number of sources argue that the President is intentionally being insulting, divisive and racist in his rhetoric as a campaign strategy. His bad rhetoric inflames the opposition and leads to endless reactions in the press and other media. That helps keep political opposition distracted from Trump's corruption, lies, propaganda and failures. Sometimes it actually divides and weakens the opposition.

In 2017, The Hill wrote this:

White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon condemned white nationalist "clowns" in an interview Wednesday but continued to hit Democrats over "identity politics," saying if they talked about race every day he could ensure Republican election victories.

“The Democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em," the former head of Breitbart News told The American Prospect in an interview. "I want them to talk about racism every day."

"If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats,” he added.

In the wake of Trump's racist remarks about Baltimore, reactions are pouring out. The Washington Post reports: “Better to have a few rats than to be one,” the Baltimore Sun’s editorial declared in its headline . . . . The Sun’s scathing piece, which drew responses across the country and even as far as Senegal, highlights Baltimore’s strengths and accuses Trump of deploying “the most emotional and bigoted of arguments” against a Democratic African American congressman from a majority-black district.”

A political analysis piece in yesterday's Washington Post comments:

President Trump launched another broadside Saturday on a Democratic political opponent, calling a prominent black congressman’s Baltimore district a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” and saying “no human being would want to live there.”

“Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States,” Trump continued in another tweet. “No human being would want to live there. Where is all this money going? How much is stolen? Investigate this corrupt mess immediately!”

That Twitter attack on Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) plunged the nation into yet another anguished debate over the president’s divisive rhetoric. And it came just two weeks after Trump called out four minority congresswomen with a racist go-back-to-your-country taunt.

The assault on Cummings, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, prompted immediate condemnations from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. Young and several other top Democrats.

But Trump’s advisers had concluded after the previous tweets that the overall message sent by such attacks is good for the president among his political base — resonating strongly with the white working-class voters he needs to win reelection in 2020.

This has prompted them to find ways to fuse Trump’s nativist rhetoric with a love-it-or-leave-it appeal to patriotism ahead of the 2020 election, while seeking to avoid the overtly racist language the president used in his tweets about the four congresswomen.

Campaign advisers and party officials, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said that an appeal targeted at Trump’s white working-class base will not necessarily cost him moderate voters.

“The general assumption with everything Squad-related is this helps shore up our base. It definitely helps with white working-class voters,” said one person close to the campaign, using the term that refers to the four congresswomen. “I think that shows that this can be turned into a positive, in terms of a very political viewpoint.”

Publicly, campaign aides and advisers have sought to shift the conversation away from race and toward the less explosive territory of ideology. But they have also pushed back aggressively against charges of racism, seeking to make common cause with supporters who also feel they are too quickly branded as bigots.

“Usually, when they are faced with charges of racism, Republicans hide a little bit. And the president’s not hiding,” he said. “And I think that’s what the Republican voters like about him.”

“Republicans, for as long as I can remember in politics, we’ve all been called racists just because of our policy ideas,” said Kelly Sadler, a spokeswoman at America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC. “The Republicans who have been struggling with these criticisms want somebody to fight back. And the president now is reversing the game on the Democrats.”

Some Republican moderates have warned that Trump’s red-meat attacks and divisive rhetoric could turn off those voters, but party leaders point to polls showing Ocasio-Cortez and other liberal lawmakers as toxic among Republican voters.

Whether one considers the President's supporters as racist or not, it is clear they vehemently reject the label. Even if his rhetoric is racist it seems that in the minds of some people that by calling Trump's rhetoric racist amounts to calling his supporters racist.

And, some Trump opponents do openly call his supporters racist. That is a huge mistake. Trump opponents have to figure out a non-alienating way to deal with Trump's insulting, divisive rhetoric. Without wanting to downplay racism, which does exist in the US, it seems that the opposition needs to ramp up the sophistication of its messaging and responses to Trump's campaign strategy.

If the opposition fails to rise to this challenge, the incumbent might be re-elected in 2020.

B&B orig: 7/28/19

Presidential Hypocrisy

This 1½ minute video explains the President's self-professed attitude in the 2016 election about a US President leaving the White House or playing golf while in office. His argument was that there's just too much work to do to leave the White House for golf or other play time. https://youtu.be/f0NZt_-eB9o This summarizes the situation to date. So far, the President's daytime visits to golf clubs since the inauguration have cost taxpayers about $106 million, with evidence of him playing golf on at least 92 visits.





 Does this make Trump a liar, a hypocrite, both, neither and/or something else, e.g., insulting of people's intelligence or a tax dollar spendthrift?

B&B orig: 7/28/19

How Much Tolerance Should One Have?

Over the last month or two a number of radical right Trump supporters have been commenting here with increasing frequency. I had to ban one for name calling and insulting people. That came after two warnings not to do that.

But there's other concerns. One is the smug arrogance of some Trump supporters that manifests as complete disregard for how other people may feel about the president's rhetoric and actions. It appears that, at least for online interactions, most of his supporters (~97% ?) revel in trying to provoke emotional responses from people who oppose the president. To me, that amounts to open contempt for people in disagreement. In my opinion, it is offensive and more importantly, socially damaging.

The attitude of open contempt to the political opposition is exactly the attitude that America's enemies are now working full time to foment among Americans. Based on what I have read about how democracies fall to tyrants, fomenting the kind of disrespect and contempt we now see among most Trump supporters is exactly what America's enemies want to achieve. Like Trump, our enemies hate transparency, a free press, political opposition (Trump's ally and mentor Putin poisons and murders his opposition), democracy and the rule of law and want to destroy both and replace that with corrupt tyranny. Under that kind of tyranny, the law is whatever the tyrant says it is at the time the tyrant says it.

Another concern about the president's supporters is their almost complete rejection of facts that show his failures, lies, hypocrisy, corruption, bigotry, divisiveness and contempt for the rule of law and free press. Even the most obvious facts are either deflected, rejected or downplayed into irrelevance, e.g., "well, if Obama or Hillary did it, Trump can do it too," or "Trump doesn't lie," or "that lie isn't important." Defenses of Trump are usually not based on facts. When there is some fact basis, the logic that the president's supporters apply is usually incoherent and indefensible. Rarely is a logically solid, fact-based argument brought to bear in the president's defense.

Should it be tolerated?: The question is obvious, why tolerate this kind of disrespectful treatment? What value, if any, does it add to public discourse? America's enemies, including Russia and China, very much want Americans to be so distrustful and angry at each other that they stop talking. That makes dehumanizing the opposition easier. That makes it easier for the tyrant to rise to power and kill our fragile democracy and its necessary rule of law.

It is now obvious and undeniable that many of the president's supporters are gleeful at the distress and fear that both Trump and the smug arrogance and insulting attitudes that many or most of his supporters display. They rejoice in the distress and concerns of political opposition. What the hell good does it it to tolerate that kind of closed-minded poison?

On the other hand, I do not want to play into the hands of America's enemies. That includes the president. In one survey of experts, he is ranked as the most polarizing US president ever in addition to also ranking as the least great of all US presidents. In my opinion, those things make him an enemy of America and its values, democracy and laws. Concern about not playing into the hands of our enemies is what has driven my tolerance so far.

What is the best course of action? Continued tolerance of what is increasingly intolerable? Or, in the face of incoherent logic, denial of facts and/or refusal to show fact sources, less tolerance? Most support for the president comes in the form of unsupported, usually irrational opinion. There is no rational basis to discuss an opinion when the opinion holder refuses to divulge their fact sources or their logic. Why tolerate that level of intentional intellectual disengagement?

Or, do I misread the situation and there is much I misunderstand? Or, am I too intolerant as it is now? Is our democracy and the rule of law under attack from the inside and the outside?

Any thoughts?

B&B orig: 7/29/19

Some Observations On Propaganda

These quotes are from Hannah Arendt's 1951 book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. Her observations came from her research into the nature and origins of murderous 20th century totalitarianism in its savage 19th century anti-Semitic and imperialist roots. These sentiments remain generally relevant to American politics today.

“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”

“Caution in handling generally accepted opinions that claim to explain whole trends of history is especially important for the historian of modern times, because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that pretend to be keys to history but are actually nothing but desperate efforts to escape responsibility.”

“One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.”

“True goal of totalitarian propaganda is not persuasion, but organization of the polity. ... What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part.”

B&B orig: 5/17/19