Fairness and Objectivity are All but Dead in the GOP

The Washington Post writes that at least one GOP senator is openly not concerned with fairness in any impeachment trial that may reach the Senate. WaPo quoted Senator Lindsey Graham as saying, “I think impeachment is going to end quickly in the Senate. I would prefer it to end as quickly as possible. Use the record that was assembled in the House to pass impeachment articles as your trial record. .... I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has said that he will closely coordinate the Senate impeachment trial with the president's lawyers. Total coordination with the president's defense team is how McConnell describes what he intends to do about impeachment. In essence, the Senate is acting as the president's defense counsel, not as a neutral arbiter of facts and logic.

These are clear signals that the most or all GOP is going to be as partisan and biased about impeachment as they can manage, which might be completely partisan and biased. Facts and logic are irrelevant. That total partisan attitude presumably reflects a GOP reaction to the perceived unfairness and partisanship that congressional republicans accused the democrats of in the House impeachment inquiry. On that point, republican accusations of democratic partisanship, bias and unfairness were bitter and repeated during. Republicans were adamant that fairness and objectivity were necessary but sacrificed in the name of narrow-minded partisan politics.

Two ways to do this - moral and immoral

For the sake of argument, assume the democrats acted immorally in the House impeachment on whatever grounds you like, e.g., unfairness, due process, equal protection, free speech, whatever. Regardless of whether republican complaints of bad behavior in the House are true, the Senate has three basic options.

The first is to be professional and take impeachment seriously and try to get to the real truth. The Senate conduct a real trial that tries to correct the alleged deficiencies the GOP complained bitterly about in the House proceedings. For example, to complete the fact record to their satisfaction, the Senate could call whatever the witnesses they want, e.g., Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary, Barak, Adam Schiff, the whistleblower and anyone else they think has relevant information. This option is the public interest and country before party option.

The second option is that Senate could do exactly what they complained the House democrats did in their inquiry. They could hold a sham trial to mirror the alleged hoax House inquiry. The GOP could Senate repay alleged democratic partisan unfairness and immorality in the House with their own partisan unfairness and immorality in the Senate. This option is the party before the public interest and country option.

In the third option, the Senate could do some meaningful, not trivial, mix of both options, some moral professionalism and some partisan immorality. This option is mostly a party before the public interest and country option. The reason for that belief is that the congress is supposed to serve the public interest and country before party. That accords the GOP Senate no benefit of any doubt on this.

So far, it looks like the Senate is choosing the first option, i.e., partisan immorality. Statements by McConnell and Graham make it clear, at least for the time being, they're going with what's behind door #1. Maybe that will change. Time will tell.

In the current climate of partisan hate and distrust, two wrongs is about the best the American people can hope to get in the quest for what is right. That's good 'ole grade school morality at work in adult politics. If we get option 1, the losers will be the American people, democracy and the rule of law. The winners will be authoritarians, kleptocrats, America's enemies, and of course, the president.

America's Move Toward Single Party Rule

In 2017, the Economist magazine wrote regarding the tendency of American elections to no longer convert majority votes into control of government due to an inherent bias that favors rural Republicans:

“EVERY system for converting votes into power has its flaws. Britain suffers from an over-mighty executive; Italy from chronically weak government; Israel from small, domineering factions. America, however, is plagued by the only democratic vice more troubling than the tyranny of the majority: tyranny of the minority. 

This bias is a dangerous new twist in the tribalism and political dysfunction that is poisoning politics in Washington. Americans often say such partisanship is bad for their country (and that the other lot should mend their ways). The Founding Fathers would have agreed. George Washington warned that ‘the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge…is itself a frightful despotism’.”

In November 2018, a Washington Post article, The U.S. is in a state of perpetual minority rule, focused on minority rule in the US:

“Look behind the midterm elections’ outcomes — and the distortions produced by small states in the Senate and by gerrymandering in the House — to focus directly on the votes that constitute democratic bedrock, and a very different picture comes in to focus. The partisan balance of power — even the new balance, including a Democratic House — subjects the United States to undemocratic minority rule. 

Both results represent trends rather than historical anomalies or accidents. Research by the political analyst David Wasserman (of the Cook Political Report) shows that the current Republican biases in both the House and Senate elections are at all-time highs — greater than the partisan biases in favor of either party at any prior time for which data exist. 

President Trump and the Republican senators have used their offices to remake the judiciary in their own image. Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh entrench a reliable conservative majority at the Supreme Court, in spite of being nominated by a popular-vote-losing president and confirmed by senators who, our research shows, collectively won (in each case) about 24 million fewer votes than the senators who voted against the nominations.”

The WaPo asserts that the president and Republican senators are using their their power to extend and entrench Republican advantage in elections. The Supreme Court could consider election law cases that could solidify Republican power and foster a further move toward minority rule.

Various republican efforts are underway in some states or have already been put in place. In Wisconsin, the GOP has a clear vision of how to proceed: “If you can’t win elections, rig them. If the rules say you can’t do something, change the rules. Then if voters still elect Democrats, take away their power.” There republicans reduced early voting, making it harder for citizens to get to the polls.

Similarly, in North Carolina in December 2016, the republican-controlled legislature passed laws that severely limited incoming democratic governor’s ability to make key cabinet appointments without GOP approval. The GOP also changed the Board of Elections so that republicans would control it in election years. Republicans in Michigan also limited the power of incoming democrats after 2016 elections.

The intense urge to exert lasting influence despite the GOP's perception of an increasingly minority status (real or not) appears to be driving its willingness to impose single party rule and policy choices to the extent possible. Republican fear of a growing liberal majority is a major factor. Presumably, most or essentially all republicans would deny that they are rigging the system, pursuing minority dominance or that they exert anything close to a tyranny of the minority.

PROFILE OF A DEPLORABLE?

A personal observation by SNOWFLAKE

I listen almost daily to talk radio, mainly on a station called POTUS, and particularly on "call in" shows.
Almost without fail, the pro-Trumpers that call in to these shows will continually deflect to Hunter and Joe Biden to explain away Trump's actions that got him impeached.
They also spout the nonsense about the "deep state" and "fake news media" and hearing them on the radio gives you a whole new perspective on their ilk, they sound angry, they twist their own words into knots, and frankly sound uneducated.
All of them? Well, NO, not all, but most that I have heard, but then again, that IS talk radio for you.

Then you go to social media, outlets like Disqus used to be, and others, including facebook and twitter, and what you read from Trump supporters is nauseating, and let's for ONCE be honest here, people who post pictures of Michelle Obama having a penis, or Obama being a monkey, or calling everyone on the left Libtards or Libturds, are beneath out dignity to talk to.

There are in fact Disqus offshoots that behave this way, where there is no moderation that I can see, where it is a free-for-all slander of anyone or anything that isn't pro-Trump.

NOW FOR THE OTHER SHOE:

In my private life I know of very few pro-Trumpers, guess it is just the circle of people around me don't lean that way, BUT... I do know a few.

They are hard working honest Americans, admittedly as white bread as you can get, who are NOT bigoted, but will in fact point to the economy, talk about their 401K, their concerns about illegal immigration, but are still socially in the middle, accepting of minorities and gay people.
They don't love Trump, but they like his policies and are willing to look the other way on how he talks and how he behaves.
They might even be willing to drop their support for him, except, in their eyes, they don't see an alternative, they hear and see a Left that wants to impose universal health care on everyone whether they want to keep their private health care or not, who they believe will take away their guns (as opposed to just regulating them), they genuinely believe that China has successfully stripped our nation of manufacturing jobs. 

These people are NOT deplorables, they might, if you care to look at them this way, be delusional, misguided, uniformed, OR...
YOU could argue they have not seen anything better on the Left, other than the constant barrage of impeachment probes from the day Trump took office. 

IT IS ABOUT THE MESSAGING FOLKS:
These Trump supporters see two things: That they are being labeled as "deplorables" and that they want to hear how the Democrats will help them in real ways not in pie-in-the-sky ways and enough of this impeachment business, what about the business of providing real alternatives that speak to average every-day middle class and middle Americans.

These pro-Trumpers I know are not the kind you will find on twitter or facebook or commenting on far right social network platforms or who call into radio talk shows to attack the "libtards", these are people fed up at being talked down to like they are idiots and children, and as long as we treat them like that, they won't change their vote.

YES - in conclusion - even those people I know personally who are pro-Trumpers I do find uninformed, maybe even delusional, BUT they are voters, they are family people, they believe in their community, their church, they would give YOU the shirt off their back if you were in trouble - so the question remains - HOW should we talk to them?

Charting the Flow of Political Power: The 1880 Conspectus of American Politics

The National Museum of American History has an amazing graphic that shows the flow of political power from colonial times to 1880. The museum describes the graphic like this:

Moving from left to right, a timeline of parties, policies, persons, and events courses like a river through graphic space marked in four-year intervals. The analogy between politics and springs and rivulets (that jump and rejoin their banks) is the most conspicuous feature of the timeline. The parties appear in different colors. The ascendance of a party is gauged as its stream rises above the centerline, and above the streams of other parties. The thickness of a stream indicates the party’s strength.

To get control of the graphic, you need to go to the museum link given above, click on the graphic and then you can zoom in and see political parties and their flow over that time period. You can also see key policies the parties advocated over time and how that changed.

1880 Conspectus of American Politics

Chapter Review: Lies for the Public Good

Chapter 12 of Sissella Bok's book (1999 edition), Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, focuses on the rationales and consequences of governments and politicians lying to the public for its own good. In general, Bok finds good reasons to not lie to the public for its own good, except possibly in rare, extraordinary circumstances. She lays out the main excuses for lies like this: “.... three circumstances have seemed to liars to provide the strongest excuse for their behavior -- a crisis where overwhelming harm can be averted only through deceit; complete harmlessness and triviality [of the lie]; and the duty to particular individuals to protect their secrets.”

She rejects all three defenses for lies as almost always inadequate because lies easily and usually expand to more lies that create harms of their own that outweigh whatever good there may have been. Lies often beget more lies and that may decrease belief in truth for most people. That is just human biology. She also points out that when the liar’s rationale for lying is examined closely, is it usually far less compelling than the liar asserts. In other words, liars tend to lie about why they lie. All three rationales constitute often overlapping streams of lies that can flow together to “form the most dangerous body of deceit of all.”

Bok argues that government and politician lies, allegedly to avert public harm from imminent threat, are usually intended to avoid official or personal embarrassment and/or crimes. The threats tend to be overblown or non-existent. Lies to protect secrets in the public interest tend to be excuses to hide and protect private gain. A problem that some liars suffer from is human bias. They underestimate or even completely reject the ill and morally corrupting effects of lies. Many liars have the arrogance to believe that if the lies are revealed, the public would not complain and might even be grateful to have been duped. Other liars know better, but don't let that to hold them back. Different liars operate on different levels of immorality.

In that regard, three wars are relevant, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam. Bok discusses WW2 and Vietnam. For WWI, the federal government mounted a massive propaganda campaign to coax isolationist America into the slaughter in the name of making the world safe for democracy. In WW2, FDR nudged isolationist America into accepting the war in a series of steps of deceit. In Vietnam, Johnson lied about wanting peace to win the election although he fully intended to escalate the war. Bok asserts that maybe FDR’s lies might be justified in view of the very real threat, but that was not close to the case for WW1 or Vietnam. Vietnam was purely for Johnson’s political career. Arguably, support for the war in Iraq was also grounded in lies to the American people, e.g., it will be over fast and not cost much in lives or treasure. Bok describes Johnson's deceit and its consequences:

“[Johnson repeatedly told the American people] ‘the first responsibility, the only real issue in this campaign, the only thing you ought to be concerned about at all, is: Who can best keep the peace?’ The stratagem succeeded; the election was won; the war escalated. .... President Johnson thus denied the electorate of any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history. Deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of democratic government.”

Bok also points out that government and politicians usually falsely believe that their lies will never become public. An excellent example is the recent revelation that, after three of fighting for the documents in court, that the American government repeatedly lied to the American people about the dismal status of, and prospects for, the war in Afghanistan. Government fought hard to keep the American people deceived, but eventually the truth came out and more public trust in government was lost.

People cannot consent - power flows to the liar

Bok argues that when people are lied to, they cannot consent to what the lie leads to. Power flows from the people to the liars and the interests they protect. Most people believe that political candidates and government lies often and that alienates and leads many people to not vote or trust much or anything a candidate or government says. Lies damage democracy, honest governance, civil society and the rule of law. The power of political lies can be summarized like this:

“When political representatives or entire governments arrogate to themselves the right to lie, they take power from the public that would not have been given up voluntarily. .... But such cases [that justify lying] are so rare that they hardly exist for practical purposes. .... The consequences of spreading deception, alienation and lack of trust could not have been documented for us more concretely than they have in the past decades. We have had a very vivid illustration of how lies undermine our political system. .... Those in government and other positions of trust should be held to the highest standards. Their lies are not ennobled by their positions; quite the contrary. .... only those deceptive practices which can be openly debated and consented to in advance are justifiable in a democracy.”

No wonder that people distrust our democratic government and each other. We are awash in an ocean of unjustifiable political lies. Dark free speech is winning its endless immoral war against democracy, honest governance and the rule of law.

Truth Is Under Attack

A New York Times article lays out an argument that truth itself is under a major direct attack. Is the argument persuasive? The NYT writes:

“An impeachment hearing on Capitol Hill presented radically competing versions of reality. An F.B.I. inspector general report punctured longstanding conspiracy theories even as it provided ammunition for others. And a trove of documents exposed years of government deception about the war in Afghanistan. 

While truth was deemed an endangered species in the nation’s capital long before President Trump’s arrival, it has become axiomatic in the era of ‘alternative facts’ that each person or party entertains only their own preferred variant, resisting contrary information. Rarely has that been on display as starkly as on Monday, underscoring the deep distrust that many Americans harbor toward their leaders and institutions. 

‘We’re in a dangerous moment,’ said Peter Wehner, a former strategic adviser to President George W. Bush and a vocal critic of Mr. Trump. ‘The danger is people come to believe that nobody is giving them the facts and reality, and everybody can make up their own script and their own narrative.’ 

In such a situation, he added, “truth as a concept gets obliterated because people’s investment in certain narratives is so deep that facts simply won’t get in the way.” 

“The story of the past half-century is the steady degradation of trust in the institutions and gatekeepers of American life,” said Ben Domenech, the founder of The Federalist, a conservative news site. ‘Everything from politics to faith to sports has been revealed as corrupted or corruptible. And every mismanaged war, failed hurricane response, botched investigation and doping scandal furthers this view.’”

Is truth under attack from the president and his supporters? Is there equivalence or near equivalence on this matter among republicans, democrats and the business community?