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.

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

The end of abortion rights is on the horizon


The Republican supreme court agreed to hear an abortion law case from Mississippi. The MS law prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which is clearly unconstitutional under existing law and precedent of the last 48 years. In the past the supreme court declined to hear such cases and let stand appeals court decisions that struck down various laws from various states that were too burdensome on the right to abortion as outlined in Roe v Wade in 1973. That the court decided to hear this case indicates to me that it has found a set of facts it wants to use to overturn the Roe decision. 

The question the court will decide is whether there is a constitutional right to an abortion. The specific question the court will answer is this: “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” In other words, is any elective abortion constitutional? If the answer is no, then that's the end of all abortions based on a woman's choice to abort. 

It is reasonable to believe that the answer will be no, with about a 90% chance of that by my personal assessment. If the court does not overturn Roe, then taking up the case makes no sense because there is no disagreement among appeals courts about abortion law. To me, this is a clear signal that Roe is going to be overturned.

If it is no, the next question is how far will the court will go? It could leave abortions up to individual states, more or less restoring the old pre-Roe status quo. Or, maybe it would go further and declare that all abortions of choice are unconstitutional in all states. If it choses the latter option, then nearly all abortions in the US will be illegal. I do not have a feel for how likely the nationwide ban option is. Maybe it is unlikely, but probably not impossible given how radical the Republicans on the court are and how much they hate abortion. 

Given how the question is worded, if the answer is that no elective abortion is constitutional, then only reliance on state's rights would prevent the ruling from being nationwide. Maybe a nationwide abortion ban is the most likely outcome.

Republicans judges were put on the court specifically to overturn Roe. There has been a litmus test for Republican judges decades and it was Roe and abortion rights. Now the time of Roe is coming to an end.


America after Roe
Given the deep animosity of some or most republicans (and nearly all republican politicians and judges) to abortion, one can reasonably believe that laws will pass in republican states making essentially all abortions illegal in their states. They will probably also make it a criminal offense, e.g., murder or manslaughter, for a pregnant woman to leave or try to leave the state to get an abortion outside the state. If the supreme court says that abortions of choice are unconstitutional in all states, then pregnant women will have to travel outside the US to get an abortion and risk whatever punishments their states impose to try to stop them.

As usual, rich and most middle class women will usually be able to get abortions and poor women will usually be forced to have babies they do not want. Some women will try to get illegal abortions and some of them will die because of it. The lives of some women will be ruined. 

What the Republican court is probably going to do to Roe is not what most Americans support. That's no surprise. The fascist GOP usually rules without regard for public opinion. This case is no exception. That most Americans want to see Roe stay valid is of no concern. To head off a grumpy public response, the GOP might decide to crank up its massive anti-abortion propaganda, lies and slander machine to soften the blow. How successful that potential propaganda push might be is an open question.

If the court follows precedent for controversial decisions, the decision will be released at the end of June in 2021 or maybe 2022. That is when the court term ends, allowing justices who don't want to face big protests a chance to get the hell out of town and hope the backlash dies down before the next term starts in October of 2021 (or 2022).

On the positive side, it is reasonable to think that the number of unwanted pregnancies will noticeably decrease. Presumably most women will be very careful about birth control or abstinence from sex. Of course, that assumes that women are educated about sex and birth control methods. If they aren't they could be in for some nasty, life-changing surprises.


Question: Can one reasonably see this as another aggressive theocratic intrusion of Christianity into government, the law and society generally?

Monday, May 17, 2021

Mass incarceration: A tale of cruelty, racism and closed-mindedness



CONTEXT
To us, the Declaration of Independence is a glorious document and an affirmation of human rights. To the British, on the other hand, it was a statement notorious for its deceit by omission. In the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Particulars attesting to the reasons for the Revolution cited all the injustices which the colonists felt that England had been guilty of, but listed none of the benefits. .... The Declaration of Independence, as a declaration of war, had to be what it was, a 100 percent statement of the justice of the cause of the colonists and a 100 percent denunciation of the role of the British government as evil and unjust. -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, 1971

Germaine: Lies of omission: Deceit by intentionally omitting relevant facts, truths, and/or sound reasoning with intent to deceive. Lies of omission can be based on disclosed information that is 100% accurate and reasoning that is sound, but what is intentionally left undisclosed is what gives the lie to what is disclosed. Like lies of commission, lies omission requires intent to deceive on the part of the speaker or information source.

WikipediaLying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

As time passes, it becomes clearer to me that (i) my American history education in high school was more propaganda than fact, and (ii) what I have heard about America since high school was also more propaganda than fact. Apparently, mostly because of lies of omission. 


America's cruel mass incarceration experiment
One of the more discouraging bits I encountered in the last few years came last weekend from an NPR broadcast (original broadcast, Aug. 2019) of the program Throughline. Throughline focuses on analysis of American history to look for antecedents in our past to at least partly explain the present. 

This broadcast is a close variant of the history that Throughline focused on regarding the history of American policing a few weeks ago (discussed here). But this is even worse than that one was. The programs is about 49 minutes.



A summary of a few points I adopted from the transcript or the photos:

1. Eastern State Penitentiary (ESP) opened in Philadelphia in 1829 and it remained a functioning prison until 1971. It was part of the movement that laid the foundation for America's penitentiary system and it influenced prison design in other countries.  When it was first built, it was the largest public building in the U.S. The building had indoor plumbing before the White House. Today, it's a museum in the Fairmount neighborhood of Philadelphia. ESP is a central building with five corridors protruding from each side. Prison cells line the walls of each corridor. 



2. The designers of of the prison believed that all human beings regardless of their behavior have good in their hearts. Built on this optimism and faith in human character, they believed that ESP would inspire similar other prisons. The broadcast mentioned no empirical data to base that belief on, probably because there was none. The designers just made it up, most likely because what is what their minds wanted to believe. The prisoners were all kept alone in their cells for long periods of time.

3. ESP was a key part of the foundation for America's penal system. That approach to systematic imprisonment created the conditions for a huge mass incarceration problem that more than a century later. But initially, it was an idea based on arguably good intentions. The founders of the prison were Quakers. They believed the purpose of punishment was penance and rehabilitation would follow. The creators of ESP tried to make a more humane prison by moving prisoners into individual cells, giving them time to reflect, work and read the Bible. Again, no data, just faith, ideology and/or whatever led to that mindset. It turned out to be about as cruel as anything the Nazis came up with during their reign of horror and savagery.

4. Alexis De Tocqueville: Nowhere was this system of imprisonment crowned with the hoped-for success. It never affected the reformation of the prisoners. In order to reform them, they had been submitted to complete isolation. It destroys a criminal without intermission and without pity. It does not reform. It kills. De Tocqueville came to America from France to analyze the new solitary isolation prison design the Americans had come up with at ESP. Failure and cruelty was his assessment of the experiment. His analysis was ignored. A modern expert opined: "Eastern State is, without a doubt, the most influential prison that was ever built." 

5. Later prisons modeled on the flawed ESP ideology spread the idea that people who break laws are criminals who have an affliction and need rehabilitation. Prison was the cure. But we now know the remedy of isolation and contemplation failed.

PART 2: Pivot to the late 1800s and 1900s: The Birth of a Nation (1915) 

6.  The Birth of a Nation was a socially polarizing but very popular movie by the Klu Klux Clan. It significantly helped cement the idea among Whites that Black men were violent, dangerous criminals. President Woodrow Wilson screened the film at the White House and reportedly said, "it's like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." The fly in that ointment, assuming Wilson actually said it, was that it was so terribly false.

7. That  false belief was used to justify the racist idea that black people were more likely to be in prison than white people. This idea comes up again and again. More black people are in prison, so black people must be more criminal. It seems logical, but this ignores another fact - that black people were ending up in prison because an entire system was created to target them and make them into criminals. 

8. That system was set into motion when slavery ended. What created the social and economic motive for mass incarceration of Blacks was a profound flaw in the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. Specifically, the 13th allowed for slavery as punishment for crime. States in the South simply made a crime of almost everything a Black person could do. There was no way for Blacks to avoid being criminals. Therefore, they must be criminals because the law said so.

9. One modern expert, Doug Blackmon, commented: "That exception to the amendment was an opportunity for white Southerners, in particular, to resurrect new economic and labor systems that relied on the arrest of large numbers of African American men and the return of them to situations that looked extraordinarily like slavery had appeared before the Civil War." The new laws were called the black codes and they were explicitly intended to reimpose white control over all African Americans. Criminal violations included new vagrancy laws, which essentially criminalized unemployment. It became impossible for any African American man anywhere in the South not to be vulnerable to arrest on some spurious or specious or trumped-up allegation. And, all of this happened when the Ku Klux Klan was born in 1866. For context, the Civil War ended April 9, 1865. It didn't take long after the war for Blacks to go back to slavery.

10. The incarcerated Blacks were literally slaves of the state. The Virginia Supreme Court said in 1871 that such slavery was constitutional. By the end of Reconstruction in the late 1870s, this new slavery had begun to set in over black life all over the South.  Southern states passed Jim Crow laws to end black economic and political progress, which served essentially the same function as older the black codes.

11. Under Jim Crow law, it was a crime for a Black person to walk beside a railroad line, sell the produce of their own farm after dark, speak loudly in the company of a white woman and to leave the employment of one person and move to another without permission. All the arrests increased Black prison populations in Southern states dramatically, e.g., from ~1% in Alabama in the 1850s to ~85% in the 1870s.

12. Southern states were in debt for the Civil War and for loans from foreign investors. It turned out that huge returns on their convict-leasing investments affecting thousands of black men in the South solidified the idea that those convicted of crimes could be used as the state saw fit .

13. The black codes and Jim Crow laws began a culture of assigning criminality to African Americans. By the end of the 1890s, many white people viewed the fact that black people were disproportionately imprisoned at higher rates as indisputable evidence of black criminality. What was going on in the South did not matter to the evidence of this prison problem. White people simply could not see that laws had targeted Blacks who could not escape "criminality."

14. There was an economic angle too. Both white Southerners and Northerners began to see large numbers of genuinely independent black men, sometimes compete with white men for jobs and opportunities. That started a popular depiction of African American men as dangerous and America being safe only if they were somehow brought back under tight control of white society. The black criminality stereotype grew from decades of imprisonment in Southern states. By the beginning of the 20th century, black criminality spread from mass culture to the newly formed field of social science. That field falsely found that in fact, black people are different and inferior to white people and that black men are more prone to violence. The science was biased, untenable and is now discredited.

15. This was the most important way Northern Whites convinced themselves that black people were criminals and therefore they themselves were not racist. So if the North was free of racism, the only way you could explain disproportionate crime rates was to say that black people have an innate crime problem.


PART THREE, Pivot to the politics of modern mass incarceration --- the American Prosecutor 


16. From the opening monologue from the TV show Law & Order: "In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate but equal branches groups - the police who investigate crimes, and the prosecutors who try them." The problem is this description is missing two important parts, public defenders and judges. Both are ignored. The people are not represented only by the police and the prosecutors. The people are also represented by public defenders and judges. But that's not how law enforcement is portrayed in mass media or seen most people's minds.

17. Law & Order TV shows just how much emphasis and power we place in the hands of the prosecutor in America. District attorneys can essentially decide if and how to prosecute cases. They recommend prison sentences, and they have the power to offer plea bargains. The prosecutors also have the police on their side. They're the ones who know how an investigation is proceeding and who gather the facts of an investigation. Defense lawyers are lucky if they have any access to investigators at all. Where's the balance and fairness in any of that?

18. One expert on the power of prosecutors opines: "If I asked you who is the most powerful official in America, many people, you know, would first say the president. .... my answer to that person is the most powerful person in America is the prosecutor." For high levels of Black incarceration, the first thing most people blame is the war on drugs, but the fact is that about 15% of all people are in prison for drugs. The homicide rate now is lower than 1970, and starting in 1991, it started a long, slow, steady decline. So while over the 1990s and 2000s, arrests for serious violent and serious property crime dropped by about 25%, but the number of people being sent to prison kept going up and up.

19. The expert points out that there was a huge increase in the number of prosecutors and that lead to more prosecutions and jail sentences. Some of those prosecutors went on to be elected as politicians who campaigned that they were tough on crime. In in the 1940s the Republican Party doubled down on prosecutors for both president and vice president.

20. The two parties converged regarding crime. Robert and Ted Kennedy both reflected convergence of Democrats with the Republican Party in being tough on crime because many voters want a tough-on-crime posture in their politicians, even though crime in America isn't widespread. The great majority of Americans never experience crime, but they only feel it second-hand or third-hand through the news.

21. Prosecutors are usually not defeated in getting elected. Part of the reason is because prosecutors understand that the way to get defeated was to decline to prosecute someone in the past, and then that person went out and committed a rape or murder. Then everyone in hindsight second-guesses that prosecutor and blames them for not having been tough on crime. Hindsight's 20/20. Crime policy won't be the way out of mass incarceration as long as the underlying culture in America criminalizes African Americans and hold prosecutors in a social esteem they do not deserve. One expert opines that maybe there's no way out of mass incarceration without reconciling our history and the truths about our biases and prejudices.



Questions: Are the connections Throughline draws from the 1800s to today persuasive in terms of of the role of racism in modern mass incarceration? Should defense attorneys have the same access to police and the evidence that prosecutors have? Was or is any significant amount of this material taught in High School? Or is this withheld as lies of omission by school boards and/or is it just matter of something else, e.g., educator ignorance? 

Sunday, May 16, 2021

How most vaccine opponents seem to operate: Crackpottery, lies, slanders, ignorance and/or hate

Crackpots, ignorance and liars on parade


An AP article reminds us of the power of social media to poison society, truth and reason. The AP writes today:
Dr. Michelle Rockwell lost a pregnancy in December and shared her heartache with her 30,000 Instagram followers. Weeks later, she received the COVID-19 vaccine and posted about that, too.

By February, Rockwell was getting past the grief and finally starting to experience moments of joy. But then, to her horror, social media users began using her posts to spread the false claim that she miscarried as a result of the shot.

“They said horrible things to me, like how could I possibly get the vaccine, that I was a baby killer, and that I would be infertile forever and would never have babies again,” said Rockwell, a 39-year-old family medicine doctor from Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Even though she knows that research shows the vaccine is safe for pregnant women, she said the posts brought her trauma to the surface and hurt her “to the core.”

From a movie prop master in Texas to a professor in New York, people across the country have found themselves swept into the misinformation maelstrom, their online posts or their very identities hijacked by anti-vaccine activists and others peddling lies about the outbreak.

Sharing other people’s posts or photos out of context is a common tactic in the disinformation playbook because it’s an “easy, cheap way to gain credibility,” said Lisa Fazio, a Vanderbilt University psychology professor who studies how false claims spread.

The people who claim to distrust or refuse the vaccine and attack it based on hate, lies or ignorance online or in real life arguably are no different than any other group who spreads hate, lies or ignorance online or in real life. Facts, truths and reason are clearly not on their side. They have irrational fear, misinformation and crackpottery on their side. Their minds seem to be about the same as most American conservative political extremists in terms of morality related at least to facts, truths and reasoning. Arguably, the vaccine attackers are enemies enemies of the people, truth, reason, democracy and the rule of law.[1] 


Questions: Based on current evidence, is it reasonable to believe that people who refuse to take the vaccine are responsible for ~5% of COVID-19 deaths and long-term illness going forward from about now, say the end of May (or whenever people have had a reasonable chance to get vaccinated), until the deaths drop to some unstoppable level, including none? Is it reasonable to believe they are also responsible for ~15% of economic loss? If not, why not?


Footnote: 
1. Some research indicates that anti-vaxx mindsets (and this) tend to cluster with Republican affiliation, Christian Nationalism and/or authoritarianism. That mindset seems to often or usually be accompanied by deep distrust of elites and science experts. Once again, for the radical right and vaccine crackpots, inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning is rejected or distorted into irrelevance. It happens all the time now with right wing political extremists and vaccine attackers. It's the rule, not the exception.

Republican propaganda: focused, disciplined, aggressive and professional




Republican messaging
Over the last ~50 years, Republican messaging has greatly improved in its focus, discipline, aggressive presence and professionalism. It is now clearly anti-democratic and solidly authoritarian, arguably fascist. It is ruthless. It is devoid of any qualms about sweeping aside any facts, truths or sound reasoning that are inconvenient or contradictory. None of that is allowed to impede or complicate the GOP agenda and the propaganda used to advance it. Complexity weakens messaging greatly. Simplicity greatly aids it. 

Modern radical right propaganda is purely pragmatic and focused on only one thing, persuasion regardless of the means. Contrary facts and truths are irrelevant. They are denied, distorted and/or ignored. The unspoken goal is political and social power and wealth accumulation for elite donors and key supporters, while the publicly stated but contrary goals are prosperity, liberty and power for the little people. 

Disciplined GOP messaging always includes a frame that all of this sophisticated deceit is coming from “the people” or the “grassroots”, but in fact it is coming from extremely professional researchers and propaganda operatives that are funded by multi millionaires and billionaires, in particular the Koch propaganda Leviathan. That appears to be the case true even when the professionals are speaking to powerful insiders. That is an example of what I mean by discipline. 

It is military-grade: I now see that level of military-grade discipline as a key reason that RINOs, including people like Liz Cheney have been, or are still being, pushed out of the GOP by force. Dissent is simply not tolerated. Dissent is damaging to the power of GOP propaganda because it gives average people a reason(s) to question the message. With no dissenting counter message, most people usually see no reason to question a message, even if it is mostly or completely based on deceit, lies and slanders. That blindness is a well-known human trait. It is why tyrants, fascists and the like, almost always shut down dissent as much as they can, especially internal dissent. 

I made these some of points in a recent post that was based on a leaked 10-munite phone call among powerful Republicans.[1] The call was hosted by a Koch-funded operative doing research on ways to propagandize HR1 to get people to oppose it. HR1 is a democratic bill intended to defend voting rights. The GOP hates voting rights, except for Republicans. They have publicly stated will block its passage if they can. Right now, they can and are blocking it.

Attacking voting rights: A few days ago, Mother Jones (high fact accuracy rated) published an article based on a leaked video of a professional GOP propagandist discussing how fast, easy, quietly and effectively GOP elites were able to push forward laws in many states that are intended to limit voting by democrats and minorities. The frame in this messaging for deceiving the public is “election integrity.” The MJ article included this 3-minute video that summarized the talk to GOP insiders.


Yes, it can be that easy if you are dealing 
with an ideologically cleansed political party


The MJ article, Leaked Video: Dark Money Group Brags About Writing GOP Voter Suppression Bills Across the Country, includes this:
In a private meeting last month with big-money donors, the head of a top conservative group boasted that her outfit had crafted the new voter suppression law in Georgia and was doing the same with similar bills for Republican state legislators across the country. “In some cases, we actually draft them for them,” she said, “or we have a sentinel on our behalf give them the model legislation so it has that grassroots, from-the-bottom-up type of vibe.”

The Georgia law had “eight key provisions that Heritage recommended,” Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action for America, a sister organization of the Heritage Foundation, told the foundation’s donors at an April 22 gathering in Tucson, in a recording obtained by the watchdog group Documented and shared with Mother Jones. Those included policies severely restricting mail ballot drop boxes, preventing election officials from sending absentee ballot request forms to voters, making it easier for partisan workers to monitor the polls, preventing the collection of mail ballots, and restricting the ability of counties to accept donations from nonprofit groups seeking to aid in election administration.

All of these recommendations came straight from Heritage’s list of “best practices” drafted in February. With Heritage’s help, Anderson said, Georgia became “the example for the rest of the country.”
The deceit in this GOP messaging tactic is blatant. It speaks for itself. Nowhere in the video is there any mention of exactly how the new laws that limit non-Republican voting would reduce voter fraud. That is because the point is for Republicans to win elections, not to deal with almost non-existent vote fraud. The speaker noted about how the elites quietly influenced Iowa’s voter suppression law: “We did it quickly and we did it quietly. Honestly, nobody noticed.” 

The GOP elites, multi-millionaires and billionaires want their messaging against voting rights to “have that grassroots, bottom-up vibe.” This propaganda is pure deceit. GOP propagandists pay attention to professionalism of the messaging to falsely make it look like the urge to suppress votes comes from grassroots people, when instead the urge comes from quiet multi-millionaires and billionaires.


Democratic messaging: at a big disadvantage
By contrast with the GOP, Democratic messaging is not as nearly as dependent on deceit, lies and slanders. That put the Democrats at a big disadvantage in messaging. The world of messaging mostly based on deceit, lies, slanders and irrational emotional manipulation is vastly larger than the world mostly based on honesty, truths, respect and rational appeals to reason. Think about that for a moment. For a given issue, there are multiple way that deceit, lies, slanders and irrational emotional manipulation can be packaged for messaging. But there are far fewer ways to message honesty, truths, respect and rational appeals to reason. 

In other words, there are usually many lies and fantasies about an issue and many ways to deceive and disrespect, but usually (always?) far fewer defensible realities and ways to speak honestly and respectfully.

Look at how the GOP approached building opposition to HR1 and defense of voting rights. They relentlessly looked for angles based on their professional empirical research on public opinion responses to various test lines of messaging, true or not, rational or not, democratic or not. The GOP wanted to know how to persuade people into opposing HR1, regardless of what means the persuasion employed. Any angle that worked would be used. 

If one believes that the Democrats are at a disadvantage inherent in limits imposed by honesty, truths, respect and rational appeals to reason, then what does that says about what they need to do when it comes to messaging? It tells me that they need to get a lot more focused, disciplined, aggressive and professional than they are now. 

I listen carefully to messaging coming from both sides. I hear and see a great difference in focus, discipline, aggressive presence and professionalism. With the Republicans, talking points usually come from the top to the bottom, e.g., “the election was stolen,” Christians are persecuted, taxation is theft, government is evil tyranny, death tax, abortion is murder, etc. With the Democrats, messages seem to mostly come from the bottom, e.g., Black Lives Matter. Sometimes they are counterproductive, e.g., “defund the police.” Because the Democrats do not engage in DINO hunts and are ideologically far broader than the GOP, they don't speak with one voice. Most dems do not want to defund the police. So the dems have all kinds of dissenting voices in their messaging and that undermines all Democratic messages. 

In my opinion, and based mostly on my read of cognitive biology, social behavior, history and recent political events, the Democrats fight the messaging war with one hand tied behind their back. They have to somehow up their messaging game. If they don't, we just might lose democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law to some kind of a corrupt American fascism.


Questions: Is it even possible for the Democratic party to professionalize its messaging given the breadth and ideologies and associated internal divisions that diversity generates? 

Does it matter if persuasion is by any means necessary, or should persuasion be morally or otherwise constrained, e.g.  limited to truth, etc.? 

Is there an inherent major disadvantage to messaging based mostly on honesty, truths, respect and rational appeals to reason compared to the alternative?

Is the difference in focus, discipline and professionalism that I see mostly reality, mostly self-delusion, or is this so subjective that it's pointless to try to make such distinctions?  If it is pointless, then does that give a green light to the kind of messaging the GOP routinely employs? 


Footnote: 
1. The New Yorker article the leaked phone call is embedded in includes this opening paragraph:
In public, Republicans have denounced Democrats’ ambitious electoral-reform bill, the For the People Act, as an unpopular partisan ploy. In a contentious Senate committee hearing last week, Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, slammed the proposal, which aims to expand voting rights and curb the influence of money in politics, as “a brazen and shameless power grab by Democrats.” But behind closed doors Republicans speak differently about the legislation, which is also known as House Resolution 1 and Senate Bill 1. They admit the lesser-known provisions in the bill that limit secret campaign spending are overwhelmingly popular across the political spectrum. In private, they concede their own polling shows that no message they can devise effectively counters the argument that billionaires should be prevented from buying elections.
The deceit just gushes from this GOP messaging. GOP billionaires wants billionaires to have the liberty to buy elections. Period. The rank and file don't like that idea, so the GOP needs to trick or deceive them into giving the billionaires the power they lust for and are paying the GOP to get for themselves.

Saturday, May 15, 2021

Where are the independents in power?

In recent months, more Americans have been identifying as independents than Democrats or Republicans. Despite that, independents are not in power anywhere. There are very few independents in elected offices at any level of any government in the US. When only Democrats and Republicans are in power, gridlock and dysfunction is the now normal result. Republicans have sworn off compromise and belief in democracy and the rule of law, which is leading the US into actual fascism.

Given the constant state of dysfunction, it should be the case that where possible, independents should have more power than Democrats or Republicans. For example, the now completely dysfunctional Federal Election Commission is composed of 2 dems, 1 independent and 3 repubs. It should be composed of 3-4 independents, 1-2 dems and 1-2 repubs. 

Another example is the House finally being able to move forward with a commission[1] to investigate the 1/6 Republican coup attempt. Months of wrangling about this in the House has been bitter and highly partisan. House repubs want to muddy the waters to create confusion and deflect from  Republican party responsibility for the violence and intent to subvert the 2020 election. The proposed commission will be chaired by a dem and vice-chaired by a repub. That's a recipe for failure. The end result will probably be two reports, one dem and one repub. Each side will point to their report as authentic and accurate.

That is not acceptable. The commission should be dominated by independents with minorities of dems and repubs. There should be only one final report and if either side wants to dissent, they do it on their own and without commission authority. Absent that, two reports would just be seen by partisans as propaganda documents, even if one of the two was reasonably sound, not just partisan spin and lies.

Regime change and overthrow of the two-party system in America is long overdue. A pox on the Democratic and Republican Parties and their refusal to accommodate the fact that they are both minorities compared to independents. Both had many chances to govern intelligently and responsibly. They failed[2] and deserve no more chances.

Questions: Are both parties equally responsible for the dysfunction and deep distrust and hate American governance and society are hopelessly mired in? Or is one side more responsible than the other? For example, it looks to me that the fascist GOP is about 85% responsible and dems are about 15% responsible. Most conservatives will probably see it differently, e.g., dems and liberals are ~95% responsible, while repubs and conservatives are ~5% responsible. 

Or, since there are so few independents in elected office, do they deserve no place at the table of power? Does it matter that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have always fought dagger, tooth and claw to block (i) the rise of a third party, and (ii) power for independents?


Footnote: 
1. Whether the final commission report will lead to anything meaningful is highly doubtful. Official commissions, blue ribbon panels, major investigations, expert white papers and all the rest have often or usually been used to make politically unfixable problems go away. That happened after major race riots in the US since the 1800s. All the commissions came to the same conclusions. And the result was always the same: Nothing was done, nothing changed and predictable race riots occurred for known reasons. What we have with 1/6 coup attempt commission and inquiry clearly is a politically unfixable problem. The GOP is openly moving toward anti-democratic fascism and deep corruption, while the dems are still stumbling, fumbling and bumbling with eroding democracy and a weakening rule of law. That divergence is not fixable. The GOP has the power and will use it to make damn sure it doesn't get fixed.

2. Democrats had power for years, but never defended democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties, including voting rights, by passing laws with real teeth. That failure was colossal and still is unforgivable. They were content to rely on norms, ethics recommendations and other toothless guard rails to protect liberties and rights that Americans used to have but are now losing. From Jan. 2017 through Jan. 2021, the ex-president and fascist GOP acted together to finish blowing the guard rails and all respect for truth and the rule of law to smithereens. Now with our broken, corrupted government, it isn't possible to pass laws to defend what average Americans are on the verge of losing to fascism and corruption.

Friday, May 14, 2021

Blog update: Warning about Dissident Politics phishing threat

I just got a notice from Google alleging that my site is dangerous due to a phishing threat(s). I have no idea what Google is talking about. I ban spammers, trolls and anything that looks fishy. I sent Google a complaint and will wait to see what response, if any comes back. As far as I know, there is no phishing threat here. I do not know what triggered Google's response.

Please don't click on any links here that seem out of place. Something may be going on that I am not aware of.