Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
This 27-minute video, A Real Doctor Watches "The Social Dilemma", summarizes the key points from the longer NetFlix program The Social Dilemma. A commentator, ZDoggMD, plays key passages from The Social Dilemma and then explains them to make the points clear to his audience.
Four key points of about five or six:
1. The real customer: "If you are not paying for the product, you are the product." People who use social media are the product being sold. Specifically, people's time and attention is sold to advertisers. The customers of social media companies are advertisers, not the millions of people who use social media.
2. You are not paranoid, you really are being watched and watched very carefully: Social media tracks everything that people do online in great detail. All of that data is used to profile you and package your profile for sale to advertisers. The algorithms that social media use are sophisticated, powerful and used to predict with you will do next online. In time, the software will improve to the point that it will know more about you than you do, e.g., it will be able predict if you are at risk for suicide before you even know you have a problem.
3. Social media can damage people and whole societies: Social media is intentionally designed to be addictive and vacuous to better package customers for advertisers. The rise of social media in the hands of children correlates with the rise of various kinds of damage, e.g., increased suicide, especially in teenage girls.The rise of this kind of damage to children was observed in the ~2010-2011 time period.The damage to society includes the new political polarization and accompanying hate, distrust and belief in blatant disinformation. The point is this: Polarization sells and advertisers want it for profit. That also correlates with the rise of social media. In my experience, I believe that the way social media works on the human brain, as described in the video, it causes the polarization, hate, distrust and tribal belief in disinformation.
4. Social media can be designed to be less harmful to people and societies: The owners control the product. They know exactly how and why it works, e.g., little squirts of dopamine in the brain, etc. Social media works exactly the same way a slot machine works, i.e., little squirts of dopamine reward in the brain. The science of addiction and manipulation is sophisticated and getting better all the time as the software improves. The owners are 100% aware of the damage they are causing. But in our significantly unregulated capitalist economy, profit talks and social concerns walk.
Question:
Are me or Dissident Politics a personally or socially damaging or addictive social media source?
A Washington Post editorial by Fareed Zakaria describes a bizarre theory called Originalism that the radical right Supreme Court sometimes relies on to get conservative outcomes in the law. According to the late radical right Justice Antonin Scalia, that the U.S. Constitution “means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” As pointed out here repeatedly, there is no way to discern “what it meant when it was adopted” because the Founders, the drafters of Constitutional Amendments, congress and the people were bitterly and hopelessly divided on what the much of the Constitution, Amendments and laws meant or should mean. The Founders were divided over whether there should even be a new constitution at all, instead of merely revised Articles of Confederation.
The historical record is clear. Originalism is irrational because there is no basis in fact for any claim that originalism is authoritative or real for most contested issues. It exists mostly in the minds of conservative authoritarian radicals who desperately need an excuse to do and get what they want using the courts. In general, advanced democracies believe that laws are interpreted based on a combination of changing societal standards, core democratic values and when it is clear, original understanding.[1]
What Originalism delivers is what radical authoritarian conservatives want, not principled law based on defensible sound reasoning (roughly logic) or core democratic values, e.g., the right to vote. In essence, even Originalism itself is beside the point. Radical conservative outcomes is the point, regardless of what the alleged controlling legal theory is. Zakaria writes:
“And even in the United States, liberals and conservatives alike accept important deviations from originalism. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools, prohibitions against interracial marriage and laws outlawing homosexuality — all of which were deemed unconstitutional by judges who used the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to do so, even though it cannot be plausibly claimed that was the intent of Congress when it passed that amendment.
Many conservatives have argued that originalism is the only way to ensure that judges stay restrained and modest, not imposing their views on a society that did not elect them. (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. refers to this as calling “balls and strikes.”) And perhaps the self-styled originalists would accomplish their goal if they actually practiced what they preach. But in fact, the new breed of judicial activists seems to be abandoning the restraint that Roberts prizes and is simply seeking conservative outcomes, using whatever means necessary.
The original sin was the 2000 Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision, when conservative justices flagrantly violated their long-espoused principles to achieve their preferred political aim. The Constitution is crystal clear that states have final authority over the selection of their electors during a presidential election. Courts had long upheld that view.
And yet, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court shut down Florida’s recount using a tortuous and novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified to give equal rights to Black people in 1868. The writers of that amendment could not possibly have meant that it prohibited different counties within a state from using their own approaches to counting ballots in an election — an utterly unrelated issue and something that was widespread in 1868 when the amendment was passed.
In a brilliant podcast, “Deep Background,” Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman outlines this hypocrisy to Jeffrey Sutton, a federal appeals court judge who sees himself as a conservative originalist. Sutton’s response — to my ear — was that he believed Bush v. Gore had been wrongly decided.
And, in fact, after the ruling, judicial conservatives rarely cited or celebrated its rationale. Scalia’s response was usually three words: “Get over it” — not exactly an intellectual argument. Privately, according to Evan Thomas’s reporting, Scalia said he thought the decision was “a piece of s---.” In the most telling admission of its illogic, the majority opinion contains the remarkable guidance that the decision[2] should be viewed as a one-off and not cited as a precedent — contrary to the intended function of Supreme Court rulings.
Feldman’s podcast series — which is well worth listening to — highlights a growing divide between conservatives who viewed originalism as part of a philosophy of modesty and restraint and new activists who are untroubled by the hypocrisy and simply seek conservative outcomes. It is these activists who have been able to weaken Obamacare (clearly violating the original intent of the legislature that passed it) and invent new rights for corporations that had never before been found in the Constitution (as they did in the notorious Citizens United case).
All this might come to a head next week. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that ballots sent before the end of the election that arrive up to three days late should be counted. The Republican Party appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which still had a vacancy and deadlocked 4 to 4, with the new conservatives plus justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas expressing willingness to intervene, and the liberals, plus Roberts, acting as the voices of judicial restraint.
On Wednesday, if Trump is ahead in Pennsylvania, the Republicans will again ask the court to shut down the vote count. This time, the court cannot deadlock since there is now a ninth justice, Amy Coney Barrett. She will have to decide whether she actually believes in the ideas she and Scalia espoused — or whether, like her mentor, when the stakes are high, she will choose power over principle.”
My bet is that the new radical conservative court will choose power over principle. Those radical judges were put there to exercise power and remake America in the self-righteous, intolerant, radical right image. They are not there to be principled or concerned with what the American people want.
Footnotes:
1. The practice in America is called American Legal Realism. I discussed it in this book review, which included this quote from the book:
“This is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal reasoning in the field of case law, and in the interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. The pretense is that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense has long been under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and ambiguities of words. It provides for the participation of the community in resolving the ambiguity by providing a forum for the discussion of policy in the gap of ambiguity.On serious controversial questions it makes it possible to take the first step in the direction of what otherwise would be forbidden ends. The mechanism is indispensable to peace in a community.”
Forbidden ends include legalized abortion, legalized same-sex marriage, legal interracial marriage and voting rights (to avoid ‘mob rule’), all of which most Americans now support. What used to be a mostly peaceful process of social progress, is now now being reversed by legal, legislative and executive coercion by the radical right. We are on the road to tyranny, kleptocracy and loss of civil liberties.
2. That source summarised the limiting of the scope of its opinion in one sentence. “Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case.” In other words, the Supreme Court knew its decision was, as Scalia put it, ‘a piece of s---’. Nonetheless, it did get the job done and Bush got to be president thanks to radical conservative judicial activism pretending to be authoritative and principled in the guise of originalism.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, people have sought information to quell fear. Over the last five months, the advice given by “experts” has fluctuated wildly, despite having been given with seemingly well-informed confidence.
By now, I think we all realize that it’s all baloney, bunk, BS. No one really knows, “Is it safe for kids to go back to school?” “Can people contract COVID-19 twice?” “Will a vaccine be ready by the end of the year?” “Will this pandemic ever end?” But when the public demands answers, experts must deliver.
In the military community, baloney is not generally tolerated. We respect clear communication, pinpoint accuracy and straight talk. However, months of widespread pontificating about the pandemic has shown that BSing actually requires skill and chutzpah.
Anyone who has ever been to a golf course has undoubtedly been in the midst of a talented BSer. Or two. Or twenty-seven.
Ex: “Now, unless you want to chili dip that thing into the frog hair and risk army-putting another triple bogey, you oughta milk the grip and let the big dog eat,” Chaz quips between swigs of Bloody Mary, leaning heavily on his Cobra driver after duffing two balls into the pond.
The Golf BSer may not be good at the sport, but his commitment to the craft of baloney-slinging is undeniable. Imagine the hours spent perusing Golf Digest in the proctologist’s waiting room to memorize golf terminology? The thousands spent on trendy golf equipment and over-priced, insignia-embroidered, moisture-wicking golf apparel to overcompensate for his lack of skills? The sunburns he endures while secretly tanning in his backyard wearing his golf glove, so he can sport a characteristic golfer’s pale left hand? Now that’s dedication.
Of course, lawyers, politicians, car salesmen, stockbrokers and their ilk are branded, sometimes unfairly, as BSers, because they are paid to have all the answers whether they do or not.
Ex: “You see, George, your mutual funds tanked last quarter due to the unprecedented negative rumors of predicted speculations, so I’d be inclined to take the long view here,” a financial advisor might hedge to keep his client confused enough to continue forking over his life savings.
But this questionable style of communication is not reserved for fast-talking professions alone. Even the well-intentioned must sometimes BS. Unable to say, “I don’t know” to her incessantly curious first grade students, my mother mastered the skill of bluffing as a first grade teacher, making stuff up on the fly to answer questions like, “Why is the ocean blue?” and “Why does Mrs. Fletcher have a mustache?”
Graduate students must also maintain their reputation for knowing everything there is to know about everything. Take a stroll through any campus quad across this nation, and you will see them with their longish hair, graded term papers in hand, leaning against ivy covered walls, arguing over whether or not the international relations theory of holistic constructivism is a useful tool in analyzing the efficacy of post-war US foreign policy.
And all those people in Starbucks deserve some recognition here, too, from the employee with the nose piercing who steams the non-fat milk for your double espresso macchiato, to the metrosexual with the European scarf who ordered a chai tea, to the yoga-pant wearing mom in her SUV yelling into the drive-thru window. Essentially, anyone who has uttered the word “Vente” or referred to something with 20 grams of sugar as “skinny” is a card-carrying BSer, whether she likes it or not.
Surprisingly enough, even parents are masterful BSers. Think about it – what does Dad say when his six-year-old daughter looks adoringly into his eyes and asks, “Daddy, where do babies come from?” And what baloney must Mom come up with to explain what happened to Gus the Guppy who was last seen napping on the bottom of the tank?
Let’s face it – we are a nation of baloney-slingers, and it’s about time we wake up and smell the Grande iced latte. Let’s finally give BSing the respect it deserves!
And if you believed that, I’ve got some really nice swampland in Florida to sell you.
US supreme court upholds state limits on ballot counting based
on no rational basis or evidence
“This is a spiritual battle we are in. This is good versus evil. We have to do everything we can to win.” -- Radical right GOP activist Bill Walton speaking at a Council for National Policy meeting in August 2020; Walton is CNP’s executive committee president
“Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor, you’re a racist and so forth.” -- Radical right GOP activist J. Christian Adams speaking to GOP elites at the CNP strategy meeting in 2020
For reasons completely unclear to me, the radical right is actually starting to publicly state why it wants an authoritarian regime with minimal or no input from voters. This is as frightening as anything I can recall from the president, the GOP or wealthy supporters since January 2017.
It is not just a matter of raw, blind lust for power by the president, GOP elites and major wealthy supporters. It is also a matter of the rise of a radical ideology that has been weaponized by closed minded, self-righteous morality and the unquestionable certainty that such morality and mindset leads to.
Voter suppression - the election is illegitimate if Trump wins
The Rachael Maddow broadcast last night included a segment on the status of voting. Based on that and reporting elsewhere, several points jumped right out. First, 29 states require that mail-in ballots be received by Nov. 3 at the time the polls close. Other states set various times after Nov. 3 for a ballot to be received and counted. Thus, every single ballot that arrives on Nov. 4 or later will not be counted.
Second, the Trump administration has intentionally subverted US postal service, and because of that, as of yesterday it is too late to send in ballots by mail. One state posted a notice to voters warning them not to send their ballots by mail because they would not be received in time to count.
Third, various conservative GOP states have limited the time and/or means for voters to vote early. In Texas, without explanation or warning, the republican governor ordered the number of ballot drop sites to be limited to one per county, a ludicrous act clearly intended to suppress as many votes as possible. As discussed here, a 2013 conservative supreme court decision gutted enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in conservative states with a record of voter suppression. Since then, the affected states closed 1,688 polling places, making it harder for African Americans to vote.
In an MSNBC segment by Chris Hayes yesterday, he highlighted a very recent supreme court decision authored by the radical right justice Brett Kavanaugh that upheld state power to not count ballots that cannot all be counted by Nov. 3. Compounding that severe and unjustifiable limit on ballot counting, is a law in some states that ban preparation of mail-in ballots for counting before Nov. 3. Mail-in ballot counting requires several steps including time consuming removing of the ballots from their envelopes and checking to verify voter signatures. This is happening in the key battleground states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Kavanaugh's nonsense justification for such state laws is a transparent voter suppression effort. In his opinion, he explained it like this: “States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” Kavanaugh cited no evidence that of any widespread impropriety in any state counting ballots after election day that indicates any rational basis for any chaos or suspicions. The Kavanaugh ‘rationale’ is nonsense built on crackpot conspiracy theory vapor, not any tangible evidence.
That same Hayes segment also pointed out this is a complete reversal of Kavanaugh's position on counting ballots after election day. A commentator observed that “before Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the position he took in that opinion, lawyer Brett Kavanaugh stood in court and argued that votes could be added to the tally as late as Thanksgiving.” That even applied to ballots that had no postmark at all and could thus have been sent after the time limits for main-in ballots. Lawyer Kavanaugh was arguing for republican Bush and against Gore in the 2000 election. Now justice Kavanaugh argues for Trump and against Biden in the 2020 election. The supreme court has fallen to the radical right and its ideology.
Conclusion: Based on the evidence so far on how some GOP-controlled states are moving to suppress votes, it is reasonable to believe that (i) millions of votes, maybe 10-15 million, will be suppressed by combined GOP suppression efforts in democratic and minority areas of GOP-controlled states, and (ii) evidence of this (the number of uncounted ballots) will also be suppressed, denied or destroyed. From that, one can reasonably conclude that (i) if the president is re-elected, he will be an illegitimate president once again, and (ii) the GOP leadership and wealthy supporters are now full-blown anti-democratic and authoritarian.
America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy --
democracy is mob rule
This is what explains the overt GOP push to suppress as many votes as they can. This is the ideology that underlies and justifies massive voter suppression. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) stated that the US is not a democracy and the word democracy does not appear in the US constitution.
“‘We’re not a democracy,’wrote Mr. Lee, 49, who is in isolation after testing positive for the coronavirus last week.
‘The word ‘democracy’ appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. That is a good thing. It’s a constitutional republic. To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that. .... Government is the official use of coercive force — nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution protects us by limiting the use of government force.’
There it is. Right out in the open. America is not a democracy, and according to Mr. Lee, democrats are ‘too dangerous to rule’. In view of that, one can see why the radical right views voting by democrats and minorities as dangerous, unconstitutional mob rule.
What Lee is completely oblivious to is the fact that while he complains about widespread voting, which distributes at least a little power to voters, he claims to fear concentrated power. At present, the GOP fighting tooth and claw to concentrate power in the radical right minority, while disempowering the majority by disenfranchisement. In essence, the radical right openly accuses the left of authoritarianism, while it is clearly authoritarian.
I have argued as clearly and directly as I can that the radical right is authoritarian and profoundly anti-government, anti-democracy and anti-civil liberties. Mr. Lee’s comments now complete the picture and the ideological pieces fall into place. As I have argued before, this anti-government effort has been going on at least since the 1954 supreme court Brown v. Board of Education decision that ordered public school desegregation. That decision enraged the radical right and arguably created it as a cohesive political movement that is now in power in the US.
A last point merits comment. Mr. Lee's comments, “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that”, seem to contradict my assertion that the radical right wants liberty. How can the radicals want liberty, but oppose civil liberties, e.g., voting rights, school desegregation, public schools, discrimination protections, etc., at the same time? The conflict is resolved by understanding that Lee’s conception of liberty means freedom of people to operate in unregulated, free markets. That does not include any right to vote or enjoy the protection of civil liberties. Autocrats and/or an imperial president will have the concentrated, unopposable power to insure the radical right’s vision of what liberty, peace, and prosperity are, whether citizens want it or accept it or not.
The stakes in this election are even higher than I understood as of yesterday morning. By last night, new evidence and analysis led to a more complete level of comprehension of the radical right. That is just what sometimes happens when one is pragmatic, rationalist and Bayesian when it comes to evidence and reasoning.
Questions:
What is the real authoritarian political force here, the radical right GOP and its ideology or the democratic party and its ideologies?
Who has been inclusive, the RINO-hunted-to-extinction GOP or the huge tent democratic party?
Does unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism, with its sole moral value of profit above all else, insure protection of civil liberties and the rule of law better than regulation and independent law enforcement and courts?
What is harder to corrupt and capture, state governments with a state voice or a much larger central government with competing state voices?
Ontario Sen. Lynn Beyak — who has been suspended twice from the Senate over her comments about the Indigenous residential school system — donated to the Republican National Committee in May despite a U.S. election law forbidding campaign contributions by foreign nationals.
According to Federal Elections Commission records, Beyak donated $300 to U.S. President Donald Trump's party while reporting a home in Dryden, N.Y. as her home residence and supplying a postal code from that area.
Beyak lives in Dryden, Ont., in the province's northwest.
Under the U.S. Federal Election Campaign Act and commission regulations, foreigners are prohibited from making any contributions in connection with any federal, state or local elections in the United States.
The law also prohibits any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district or local political party.
Those who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may face an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both, according to the commission.
While barred from making donations, foreign nationals can volunteer for a U.S. candidate or political committee as long as they're not being compensated by anyone.
Sen. Lynn Beyak donated $300 to the Republican National Committee in May 2020, according to a Federal Election Commission donation report. A staffer for Beyak told VICE News the donation was made in error. (Federal Election Commission)
In making her contribution, Beyak listed her occupation as "retired," although, at the time, she was still a member of the Red Chamber.
In a statement to that news outlet, Beyak's office confirmed that the senator did make a contribution but said the money was sent in "error."
VICE reports that after it made inquiries about the donation, Beyak's office said the money would be paid back; a staffer said that the money was "being returned in its entirety, simply because it was erroneous."
Beyak's office did not immediately respond to CBC's request for comment and clarification on whether Beyak, a former real estate agent, holds dual Canada-U.S. citizenship.
In February 2020, Beyak was suspended by her colleagues for the remainder of the parliamentary session after she failed to complete the anti-racism training she was directed to undergo the last time she was temporarily kicked out of the upper house for posting racist letters to her taxpayer-funded website.
The letters in question were sent to Beyak after CBC News reported on comments she made about the residential school system in March 2017.
Beyak praised the "well-intentioned" instructors at these schools and chastised the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for not "focusing on the good" coming out of these institutions.
Beyak's suspension ended when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament.
Beyak is again collecting her full salary — $157,600 a year — and has access to Senate resources.
The Senate ethics committee report recommending a vote on reinstating her to the chamber — after she completed her anti-racism education and issued a formal statement of apology — died on the order paper over the summer.
Beyak, who was appointed by former prime minister Stephen Harper, was kicked out of the Conservative caucus in January 2018.
She subsequently backed People's Party Leader Maxime Bernier in the last election campaign.
The New York Times interviewed some eligible citizens who will not vote in 2020. The main reasons boil down to (i) distrust in both parties and politics, and (ii) a wish to avoid the anger and nasty tone of it all. The latter group have succumbed to the intentional goal of the radical right to get as many potential voters to not vote as they can by any means possible. By making politics unpleasant, the radical right has probably driven millions of voters out of politics entirely. That constitutes a huge political win for the right because most of these people would probably vote democratic if they weren't so alienated. The NYT writes:
"But Ms. Fedrick, who works two jobs, at a hotel and at a department store, does not trust either of the two main political parties, because nothing in her 31 years of life has led her to believe that she could. She says they abandon voters like “a bad mom or dad who promises to come and see you, and I’m sitting outside with my bags packed and they never show up.”
That is why Ms. Fedrick does not regret her decision in 2016 to skip the voting booth. In fact, she plans to repeat it this year — something that she and a friend have started to hide from people they know.
“We said we’re just going to lie, like, ‘Oh yeah, I voted,’” she said. “I don’t feel like getting crucified for what I think.”
An analysis of Census Bureau survey data from the 2016 election shows a deep class divide: Americans who did not vote were more likely to be poor, less likely to have a college degree, and more likely to be a single parent than the people who voted. They were also less likely to be in the labor force.
But with razor-thin margins in a number of states last time, nonvoters have taken on outsize importance: Even a small victory in converting some of them may tip the scales.
They [non-voters] expressed a profound distrust of politics and doubted their vote would have an effect. They felt a sense of foreboding about the country and saw politics as one of the main forces doing the threatening. Many were not particularly partisan, and said they shrank from people who were.
“I try to avoid it because it gets angry and nasty,” said Susan Miller, 42, a waitress at Compton’s Pancake House in Stroudsburg, who said she had voted once in her life, for Barack Obama in 2008.
Like many people interviewed for this article, Ms. Miller was scrambling to pay rent and buy groceries. Monroe County’s unemployment rate stood at around 13 percent in August, as the coronavirus pandemic bit into the county’s tourism industry. Her tips have fallen by half and she is now working for Instacart to make up the difference. Two close relatives have died of Covid-19. “Politics? It’s the least of my worries. I’m just trying to make it through,” she said.
Marriage mattered, too: Just 45 percent of single women who had children and were eligible to vote cast ballots compared with 70 percent of married mothers.
Jennifer Martin, 46, a single mother waiting in line in her car at the Pleasant Valley Ecumenical Network food pantry in Sciota, Pa., said the last time she voted she was in her 20s. Politics, she said, has little relevance to her life. The two political parties seemed about the same. “I work at a day care where they pay their workers nothing,” she said. “That’s why I have to come to places like this to feed my family.” Might the election change things? “I’m not interested in it,” she said.
Ms. Sanchez is part of a demographic that also had low turnout in 2016: American-born Hispanics. She said that in 2008 she swallowed her cynicism and cast the first vote in her life, for Mr. Obama. “I had to just close my eyes and say, ‘If this is fake, I don’t care. I want to be part of this.’” But she did not vote for him again. Politicians are noisy, but ultimately of no use. “They rent space in my brain and they frustrate me, but in the end, they do what they want anyway,” she said."
That speaks for itself. These people have lost trust, hope and/or just want to avoid the anger and nastiness. Some fear even voicing their opinions because they do not want to lose friendships. They just want to live their lives as they have been. Sure, most of them appear to want their lives to be better, but they no longer believe that will happen.
