DFS getting a tamp down / aka a “bubble popping”

Dark Free Speech has finally gotten Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in actionable trouble.  His law license is being suspended with a better than good chance of being totally revoked in the not-too-distant future.  He will be allowed to have his day in court.

In a ruling released following disciplinary proceedings, the court concluded that "there is uncontroverted evidence" that Giuliani, the former Manhattan US attorney, "communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020."

Could it be the we are finally seeing some cracks in the DFS dam?  The First Amendment is a slim tightrope to walk, but I think it’s this kind of legal slap-down that can maybe make influential people think twice about spreading lies to the masses and getting away with it, scot-free.  These lies are a huge (if not total) part of all the dysfunction in U.S. politics.  They foment conspiracy theories, insurrections, unwarranted law-making (e.g., voter suppression), and even enable someone, like a Donald J. Trump, to get elected.  Not good, and continues to knock the hell out of e pluribus unum.

So, is this Giuliani thing just a fluke?  Will anything substantial come of it?  Is it just one droplet in the American ocean of DFS justice, and not of any significant importance?

What are your thoughts on the Giuliani smack-down?

Thanks for posting and recommending.

An analysis of American illiberal anti-democratic extremism

The polling site 538 recently posted an in-depth analysis of the rise of polarization and extremism in the US. The analysis points to factors that make the American variant of anti-democratic extremism unique among democracies. 538 writes:

There’s no shortage of plausible explanations for why U.S. politics has become so polarized, but many of these theories describe impossible-to-reverse trends that have played out across developed democracies, like the rise of social media and the increased political salience of globalization, immigration and urban-rural cultural divides. All of these trends are important contributors, for sure. But if they alone are driving illiberalism and hyper-partisanship in the U.S., then the problem should be consistent across all western democracies. But it isn’t.

What’s happening in the U.S. is distinct in four respects.

First, the animosity that people feel toward opposing parties relative to their own (what’s known as affective polarization in political science) has grown considerably over the last four decades. According to a June 2020 paper from economists Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, the increase in affective polarization in the U.S. is the greatest compared to that of eight other OECD countries over the same time period.

Second, the change in how Americans feel about their party and other parties has been driven by a dramatic decrease in positive feelings toward the opposing party. In most (though not all) of the nine democracies, voters have become a little less enthusiastic about their own parties. But only in the U.S. have partisans turned decidedly against the other party. 

Boxell, Gentzkow and Shapiro caution that the cross-country comparisons are not perfect, since they rely on different survey question wordings over time. But they also don’t pull any punches in their findings: “[O]ur central conclusion — that the U.S. stands out for the pace of the long-term increase in affective polarization — is not likely an artifact of data limitations.”

Third, more so than in other countries, Americans report feeling isolated from their own party. When asked to identify both themselves and their favored party on an 11-point scale in a 2012 survey, Americans identified themselves as, on average, 1.3 units away from the party that comes closest to espousing their beliefs, according to an analysis from political scientist Jonathan Rodden. This gap is the highest difference Rodden found among respondents in comparable democracies. This isolation matters, too, because it means that parties can’t count on enthusiasm from their own voters — instead, they must demonize the political opposition in order to mobilize voters.

Fourth, and perhaps most significant, in the U.S., one party has become a major illiberal outlier: The Republican Party. Scholars at the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden have been monitoring and evaluating political parties around the world. And one big area of study for them is liberalism and illiberalism, or a party’s commitment (or lack thereof) to democratic norms prior to elections. And as the chart below shows, of conservative, right-leaning parties across the globe, the Republican Party has more in common with the dangerously authoritarian parties in Hungary and Turkey than it does with conservative parties in the U.K. or Germany.

The U.S. is truly exceptional in just how polarized its politics have become, but it’s not alone. People in countries with majoritarian(ish) democracies, or two very dominant parties dominating its politics like in the U.S. — think Canada, Britain, Australia — have displayed more unfavorable feelings toward the political opposition.

In fact, in a new book, “American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective,” another team of scholars, Noam Gidron, James Adams and Will Horne, shows that citizens in majoritarian democracies with less proportional representation dislike both their own parties and opposing parties more than citizens in multiparty democracies with more proportional representation.

This pattern may have something to do with the shifting politics of coalition formation in proportional democracies, where few political enemies are ever permanent (e.g., the unlikely new governing coalition in Israel). This also echoes something social psychologists have found in running experiments on group behavior: Breaking people into three groups instead of two leads to less animosity. Something, in other words, appears to be unique about the binary condition, or in this case, the two-party system, that triggers the kind of good-vs-evil, dark-vs-light, us-against-them thinking that is particularly pronounced in the U.S.  

In the U.S., meanwhile, (and to some extent the U.K.), politics have become extremely nationalized. Cities became more socially liberal, multiracial and cosmopolitan, most of the rest of the country held onto more traditional values and stayed predominantly white, and suburbs turned into the political battleground. And as Rodden explains in “Why Cities Lose,” parties with rural strongholds often wind up with disproportionate electoral power, since their opposition tends to over-concentrate its vote in lopsided districts. This rural bias is especially pronounced in the U.S. Senate, for instance.  

While it is both easy and appropriate to criticize Trump and fellow Republicans for their anti-democratic descent in service of the “Big Lie,” it takes more work to appreciate how the structure of the party system itself laid the groundwork for the former president’s politics of loathing and fear. A politics defined by hatred of political opponents is a politics ripe for hateful illiberalism.

The new scholarship on comparative polarization is crucial in understanding this dynamic. In one sense, it offers a very depressing view: Given the current binary structure of American party politics, this conflict is mostly locked in. No level of social media regulation or media literacy or exhortation to civility is going to make much of a difference. But it also offers a kind of master key: If the structure of a party system is as crucial as these studies suggest it is, then the solution is obvious: The U.S. may want to change its voting system to become more proportional.

Questions: Does the quoted material adequately address the reality of what the Republican Party is doing to American democracy, society and politics, e.g., constantly spewing intentionally divisive, mendacious rhetoric and rigging elections in the hope that Democrats cannot win elected office? Should voting in America be made more proportional?

Critical race theory explained

The presentation of truth in new forms provokes resistance, confounding those committed to accepted measures for determining the quality and validity of statements made and conclusions reached, and making it difficult for them to respond and adjudge what is acceptable. —Derrick Bell, Faces at the Bottom of the Well

Critical race theory (CRT) arose among academics beginning in the 1970s as an attempt to explain why progress stalled after major 1960s legislation to protect civil rights was passed into law. America is in a period of civil rights reversals after decades of relentless fascist propaganda attacks and lies, mainly from Republicans and Christian nationalists. The AP writes:

Critical race theory is a way of thinking about America’s history through the lens of racism. Scholars developed it during the 1970s and 1980s in response to what they viewed as a lack of racial progress following the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

It centers on the idea that racism is systemic in the nation’s institutions and that they function to maintain the dominance of white people in society.

The architects of the theory argue that the United States was founded on the theft of land and labor and that federal law has preserved the unequal treatment of people on the basis of race. Proponents also believe race is culturally invented, not biological.

In 2019, America's fascist right has locked onto CRT as a false, toxic revision of history that is being taught in public schools and poisoning children's minds. The trigger was the 1619 Project, a New York Times initiative that was told a story of American history that put slavery at the center of America’s founding. The slavery-centric founding of America aspect of the 1619 Project has been criticized by real historians (not politicians) as inaccurate. 

The people behind the project, including the academic Nikole Hanna-Jones, have refused to correct their errors. That failure opened the entire project up to attack by extremists on the political and Christian right. That failure is on the people who produced the document. As usual, the fascists have discredited the entire idea and claim that America was and is not systemically racist. CRT has expanded to include various controversial aspects of racism in America today. CRT is now a powerful rallying cry for American fascism to push back against the evils of liberalism and Democrats generally.

In general, the fascists are lying about the corrosive influence of CRT on K-12 public education. AP comments: 

There is little to no evidence that critical race theory itself is being taught to K-12 public school students, though some ideas central to it, such as lingering consequences of slavery, have been. In Greenwich, Connecticut, some middle school students were given a “white bias” survey that parents viewed as part of the theory.

Many Republicans view the concepts underlying critical race theory as an effort to rewrite American history and persuade white people that they are inherently racist and should feel guilty because of their advantages.

But the theory also has become somewhat of a catchall phrase to describe racial concepts some conservatives find objectionable, such as white privilege, systemic inequality and inherent bias.

Critical race theory popped into the mainstream last September when then-President Trump took aim at it and the 1619 Project as part of a White House event focused on the nation’s history. He called both “a crusade against American history” and “ideological poison that ... will destroy our country.”  

So far, 25 states have considered legislation or other steps to limit how race and racism can be taught, according to an analysis from Education Week. Eight states, all Republican-led, have banned or limited the teaching of critical race theory or similar concepts through laws or administrative actions. The bans largely address what can be taught inside the classroom. While bills in some states mention critical race theory by name, others do not.

The hyperbole and lies of the fascist right is loud and clear. This is a new tool that fascist dark free speech merchants are using to instill more fear, anger, hate, intolerance, bigotry and distrust on the radical right. 

Not surprisingly, teachers’ unions, educators and various social studies organizations are concerned that Republican restrictions will wind up (i) allow a whitewash of American history by diminishing the influences that past injustices still exert today, and (ii) have a chilling effect on classroom discussions. CRT scholars see the new fascist laws as "hijacking the national conversation about racial inequality that gained momentum after the killing of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minnesota."

A common fascist criticism of CRT is that it teaches hatred of white people and is designed to perpetuate divisions in American society. One CRT expert, Cheryl Harris, a UCLA law professor, believes that GOP proposals are political and intended to “ensure that Republicans can win in 2022.” Given current fascist Republican and Christian nationalist hardball politics, including the hyperbole and lies, that explanation seems to be right.

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

For the wonks 

A quick scan of a couple of the ~100,000 hits in the research literature on CRT makes it clear why White-centric Christian nationalism hates the CRT concept. Inconvenient history, is inconvenient and that causes cognitive dissonance. For fascist Republicans who aren't all that serious about their Christianity, it is clear why they hate CRT and attack it as ideological poison. Same reason the Christian nationalists hate and attack it. Inconvenient history and too much cognitive dissonance.

This is from a 1995 research paper, Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education:

This article asserts that despite the salience of race in U.S. society, as a topic of scholarly inquiry, it remains untheorized. The article argues for a critical race theoretical perspective in education analogous to that of critical race theory in legal scholarship by developing three propositions: (1) race continues to be significant in the United States; (2) U.S. society is based on property rights rather than human rights; and (3) the intersection of race and property creates an analytical tool for understanding inequity.

In 1991 social activist and education critic Jonathan Kozol delineated the great inequities that exist between the schooling experiences of white middle-class students and those of poor African-American and Latino students. And, while Kozol’s graphic descriptions may prompt some to question how it is possible that we allow these “savage inequalities,” this article suggests that these inequalities are a logical and predictable result of a racialized society in which discussions of race and racism continue to be muted and marginalized.

This is from a 2011 paper, Critical Race Theory (CRT): 

CRT is a body of scholarship steeped in radical activism that seeks to explore and challenge the prevalence of racial inequality in society. It is based on the understanding that race and racism are the product of social thought and power relations; CRT theorists endeavor to expose the way in which racial inequality is maintained through the operation of structures and assumptions that appear normal and unremarkable. 

There is no single position statement that defines CRT. The approach continues to undergo revision and refinement in response to the scholarship experiences of CRT theorists and in relation to new developments in legal doctrine and policy discourse. However, CRT scholars do have in common a social constructivist perspective of race and racism and a commitment to understanding - and opposing - the systems that subjugate people of color.

There are several themes that are central to Critical Race Theory: 

1. Centrality of Racism CRT begins with a number of basic insights. 

One is that racism is normal, not aberrant, in American society. Because racism is an ingrained feature of our landscape, it looks ordinary and natural to persons in the culture. 

CRT regards racism as so deeply entrenched in the social order that it is often taken for granted and viewed as natural. CRT scholars emphasize that racism does not necessarily operate in crude explicit form s but operates in a sociopolitical context where it is becoming more embedded and increasingly nuanced. Racism can be evidenced in the outcome of processes and relations irrespective of intent.

2. White Supremacy 

Understanding the role and power of White Supremacy in creating and reinforcing racial subordination and maintaining a normalized White privilege is central to the CRT imperative to reveal and oppose racial inequality (Crenshaw et al. 1995; Harris 1995). In this perspective ‘White supremacy’ does not relate to the obvious crude race hatred of extremist groups but to forces that saturate society as a whole: 

[By] ‘White supremacy’ I do not mean to allude only to the self- conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic, and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and nonwhite subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.  

This presents a particular challenge because of the taken-for-granted privileges of Whiteness. White scholars engaging in CRT must strive to be aware of and committed to critically interrogating their own racial privilege and unmasking the invisibility of racism.