Another Republican Wakes Up and Smells the Stink Cabbage

“Ever since college I have been a libertarian—socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility. I also believe in science as the greatest instrument ever devised for understanding the world. So what happens when these two principles are in conflict? My libertarian beliefs have not always served me well. Like most people who hold strong ideological convictions, I find that, too often, my beliefs trump the scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brain reasons our way to supporting what we want to be true.” 
-- prominent libertarian Michael Shermer writing in 2013 on his epiphany about how his rigid ideology blinded him to ideologically inconvenient facts and logic


This is a fascinating 17-minute interview with the influential republican strategist Stuart Stevens. Mr. Steven has awakened from the mental stranglehold his rigid partisanship and ideology had on him. He now regrets what has has done. Unfortunately, his awakening has come far too late.

In the video, Stevens comments that listening to Trump or Hannity about Coronavirus drugs is a short walk to Jim Jones. That is just a little part of the rage and hate-driven republican ideological-tribal fantasy that he no longer believes in.

In a Washington Post editorial, Stevens writes:

“Don’t just blame President Trump. Blame me — and all the other Republicans who aided and abetted and, yes, benefited from protecting a political party that has become dangerous to America. Some of us knew better. 

But we built this moment. And then we looked the other way. 

Many of us heard a warning sound we chose to ignore, like that rattle in your car you hear but figure will go away. Now we’re broken down, with plenty of time to think about what should have been done. 

The failures of the government’s response to the coronavirus crisis can be traced directly to some of the toxic fantasies now dear to the Republican Party. Here are a few: Government is bad. Establishment experts are overrated or just plain wrong. Science is suspect. And we can go it alone, the world be damned.  

All of these are wrong, of course. But we didn’t get here overnight. It took practice.

Long before Trump, the Republican Party adopted as a key article of faith that more government was bad. We worked overtime to squeeze it and shrink it, to drown it in the bathtub, as anti-tax activist Grover Norquist liked to say. But somewhere along the way, it became, ‘all government is bad.’ Now we are in a crisis that can be solved only by massive government intervention. That’s awkward.”

Yeah, it is awkward. And for some innocent people, it is lethal.

Thanks to 別對牛彈琴 (aka SIASD) for bringing Mr. Stevens and his epiphany to my attention.

"Déjà vu all over again?"

Donald Trump is pulling another fast one on the populace-at-large.  He’s getting the press to cover (on cable TV) his rambling White House briefings, regarding the Coronavirus.  My understanding is that yesterday, Sunday, he held an impromptu (unscheduled) presser, where he rambled on for an hour and a half.  I have stopped watching those ramblings myself, as I know how they work.  Trump takes a sentence and rephrases it three or more times to make it sound like an extended thought. His greatest hits of, “Never seen anything like this,” “No one saw this coming,” “We’re making tremendous progress…” etc., etc., and freakin' etc., are like ear worms that haunt us.  For crying out loud!  STOP IT!!

To me, these W.H. briefings are reminiscent of the 2016 election build-up, where, like the train “we can’t seem to turn away from it” wreck that he was and still is, Trump gets free press coverage. It’s like a “free rally,” and he doesn’t even have to go travel out into the nasty, possibly Coronavirus-laden crowds. Wow!  Talk about your “win-win!”

What do you think:

Should the press stop airing these W.H. briefings?  Maybe just let the press show up, with no national real-time coverage, and then just give us a succinct recap afterward, by a network of our choice? Has the press not learned any lessons from the 2016 election fiasco?

Thanks for posting and recommending.

QUESTION: SHOULD Joe Biden pick Andrew Cuomo as his running mate?

CONSIDER:

Andrew Cuomo supporters quietly angling him for 2020 vice president gig

For his part, the governor has strenuously denied any interest in the job. “I don’t want to be vice president,” he told Albany radio host Alan Chartock last week.

A former senior Cuomo staffer dismissed that, telling The Post the 62-year-old Cuomo “definitely” has national aspirations and would jump at being Biden’s running mate.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/04/andrew-cuomo-supporters-angling-for-2020-vice-president-gig/

HOWEVER:

Would picking Cuomo end up hurting Biden's credibility, as he has promised a female running mate?

OPINIONS?

An Early Coronavirus Post-Mortem

The Washington Post writes:

“President Trump downplayed the coronavirus threat, was slow to move and has delivered mixed messages to the nation. The federal bureaucracy bungled rapid production of tests for the virus. Stockpiles of crucial medical materials were limited and supply lines cumbersome. States and hospitals were plunged into life-and-death competition with one another. 

When the public looked to government for help, government sometimes looked helpless or frozen or contradictory — and not for the first time. 

The country and its leaders were caught off guard when terrorists on hijacked airplanes attacked the homeland on Sept. 11, 2001. The financial crisis of 2008, which turned into a deep recession, forced drastic, unprecedented action by a government struggling to keep pace with the economic wreckage. The devastation from Hurricane Andrew in Florida in 1992 and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 exposed serious gaps in the government’s disaster response and emergency management systems. 

‘We always wait for the crisis to happen,’ said Leon Panetta, who served in government as secretary of defense, director of the CIA, White House chief of staff, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the House. ‘I know the human failings we’re dealing with, but the responsibility of people elected to these jobs is to make sure we are not caught unawares.’ 

In interviews over the past two weeks, senior officials from administrations of both parties, many with firsthand experience in dealing with major crises, suggest that the president and his administration have fallen short of nearly every standard a government should try to meet. 

Leadership is important, and President Trump will have on his record what he did and didn’t do in the early stages of this particular crisis. But the problems go far broader and deeper than what a president does. Lack of planning and preparation contribute, but so too does bureaucratic inertia as well as fear among career officials of taking risks. Turnover in personnel robs government of historical knowledge and expertise. The process of policymaking-on-the-fly is less robust than it once was. Politics, too, gets in the way. 

Long ago, this was far less the case, a time when the United States projected competence and confidence around the globe, said Philip Zelikow, a professor at the University of Virginia who served in five administrations and was executive director of the 9/11 Commission. 

‘America had the reputation of being non-ideological, super pragmatic, problem solvers, par excellence,’ he said. ‘This image of the United States was an earned image, of people seeing America do almost a wondrous series of things. . . . We became known as the can-do country. If you contrast that with the image of the U.S. today, it’s kind of depressing.’”

The article goes on at length to explain some key events the Bush and Obama administrations faced and how the handoff of power to the president was handled. One weakness of the current administration that WaPo discusses was its refusal to appoint personnel to key positions and indifference to professional competence. WaPo comments that there are “scores” of unfilled vacancies in critical positions. Those positions tend to operate independently of a president simply because of the size and complexity of operations needed for a competent federal response.

BRAIN TEASER

YEAH, I posted this on my Forum too, but what the Hell, it is Sunday, time for something off politics:

 Diljit Dosanjh's Brainteaser. Can You Solve It?

The answer, for those who need it, is here:

https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/bollywood-news/diljit-dosanjhs-post-touches-upon-perks-of-quarantine.html

Debating Positively and Negatively

I'd like to share some observations about debate, and start with two terms I will call "debating positively" and "debating negatively"

First of all I'll cover what they're not. Positive is typically associated with good. Negative is usually associated with bad. Forget that. That's not how I am using them here. 

It's like positive and negative space:

To debate positively means to construct an argument.

To debate negatively means to deconstruct and critique an argument.

Make sense?

An effective application of debate requires the presence of both. You must build and defend your case, and critique the other party's position to be successful, logical and honest.

I'd hope the reasons might be obvious so I'd like to discuss an anti-pattern - a form of behavior that is a red flag. In this case it's an indication that you or your opponent's argument is shaky.

Debating negatively is safer territory. If you're having trouble defending your position it's easier to attack the other person's position. If you find you are only arguing in the negative it's entirely likely that you are retreating (even if you're not mindful of it) because you can't make or defend your case. The same goes for your opponent.

It's very common, so be on the lookout.