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.
The US presence in larger towns and cities was different than its presence in rural areas where most of the fighting was done. The Washington Post writes:
SINZAI, Afghanistan — The white flags flutter in the apple orchards of this serene hamlet ringed by oatmeal-colored mountains. They mark the precise spots where U.S. airstrikes killed Afghans. In the village center lies the destroyed shell of a building that once housed shops; down the road is a mangled, rusted car.
There are white flags there, too.
Together, they’re reminders of the legacy the United States has left in many rural areas across Afghanistan.
“Everyone here hated the Americans,” said Zabiullah Haideri, 30. His shop was shattered by an airstrike in 2019 that killed 12 villagers. “They murdered civilians and committed atrocities.”
In Kabul and other Afghan cities, the United States will be remembered for enabling two decades of progress in women’s rights, an independent media and other freedoms. But in the nation’s hinterlands, the main battlegrounds of America’s longest war, many Afghans view the United States primarily through the prism of conflict, brutality and death.
Here in Wardak province, 25 miles southwest of the capital, the U.S. military, the CIA and the ruthless Afghan militias they armed and trained fought the Taliban for years. Trapped in the crossfire were villagers and farmers. Many became casualties of U.S. counterterrorism operations, drone strikes and gun battles.
They [the Taliban] were abetted by the harsh tactics of U.S. forces and their Afghan allies and by the corruption and ineffectiveness of the U.S.-backed Afghan government. Exacting any justice or compensation from the U.S. military or the government was elusive.So the killings of their relatives and the lack of accountability drove many villagers to support the Taliban.
To be certain, the Taliban controlled the villagers through fear, intimidation and their own brand of viciousness. But rural Afghan society is largely conservative, and residents mostly agreed with the militants’ harsh interpretation of Islam.
With the departure of U.S. forces and the fall of President Ashraf Ghani’s government, there’s now a calm unlike any the villagers have experienced in two decades. With the conflict ended and the Taliban in control, the violence has stopped.
“The major change is there is peace and security now, and the killings of the people have stopped,” Mohammed Omar, the village imam, said in front of a mosque peppered with bullet holes. “You can move freely now anywhere. Death has disappeared.”
“There are no airstrikes, no night raids, no bombings,” said Haideri, tall and wiry with a black beard and wavy hair. “But the problem now is there is no work and no money. People here are facing hunger.”
The Taliban, by then [2015], controlled much of Nerkh. The government was entrenched in the district’s center. The villagers were caught in between. Even mundane tasks became matters of life or death. If Haideri shaved, for example, would the Taliban consider him loyal to the foreigners and the government? If he grew out his beard, would the government or U.S. forces consider him a spy?
“Whenever we left our homes we told our families, ‘goodbye,’ ” he said. “We didn’t know whether we would return home alive.”
This is an unusual bit of reporting about what some rural Afghanis saw, experienced and believed about the war. This fits with other, limited reporting from rural areas that suggested there was significant public support for the Taliban. It adds to the reporting about (i) the kleptocracy and incompetence of the Afghan central government, (ii) the brutality of US military and allied operations, and (iii) the arrogance-plagued futility of the entire US enterprise. To this day, the pentagon refuses to answer villagers’ questions about the status of investigations into allegedly unwarranted killings of villagers by US forces.
Question: What the hell did the US government think it was doing there all those years?
Two bits of stuff help put this fun discussion in context.
First bit: We all remember this from the scintillating Senate hearings in 2017 during Brett Kavanaugh’s delightful confirmation hearings.
Ben Sasse (R-NE) said this: “. . . . . the people don’t have a way to fire the bureaucrats. What we mostly do around this body is not pass laws. What we mostly decide to do is to give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy X, Y or Z to make law-like regulations. That’s mostly what we do here. We go home and we pretend we make laws. No we don’t. We write giant pieces of legislation, 1200 pages, 1500 pages long, that people haven’t read, filled with all these terms that are undefined, and say to secretary of such and such that he shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That’s why there are so many fights about the executive branch and the judiciary, because this body rarely finishes its work. [joking] And, the House is even worse.”
For the most part, Sasse is a far right radical fascist extremist, but in this instance he nailed it dead on. Congress does not like to legislate because it might upset some voters and imperil re-election. Sasse was frustrated because the refusal of congress to actually legislate competently and coherently shifts a huge amount of power from congress to federal agencies. Sasse, hates, hates, hates federal agencies, mainly because he hates government just as much. In large part, federal agencies are the federal government. His logic is impeccable. Except for the Department of Defense, federal law enforcement and federal courts to protect sacred property rights, Sasse wants to see most or all of them obliterated. One can certainly feel his pain and frustration.
Second bit: We all also remember how hostile fascist Donnie and his mendacious cadre of crooks and thugs were to the federal government. People like Betsy DeVos and Louie DeJoy were put in charge to destroy their agencies, Education Department and Post Office, respectively. The animosity was blatant.
It is a huge mistake to believe that the FRP (fascist Republican Party) is not radical and extremist in its animosity to the federal government and its intent to gut it. FRP hate of government is aimed at nearly everything, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, environmental regulations, workplace regulations, and on and on and on. The goal is to shift power to the business sector and the states and to shift wealth to elite White Christians and authoritarian White faux Christians, e.g., fascist Donnie, at the top of society.
Buggs bunny voice: Meeaaah, what’s on the docket, doc?
Yesterday, a segment on the NPR program 1A discussed some of the cases the Supreme Court has accepted for review and decision in this term. Given the court’s current political makeup, radical right fundamentalist Christian and staunch extremist Republican ideologue, one can pretty much guess what’s on the docket.
Wait! What?? Obliterate federal agency power? Yes, check, check . . . . . . can't you read?
OMG, what fresh fascist hell is this!?
The court will hear an obscure case, Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, which centers on FRP demands to limit the power of federal agencies to interpret congress’ often incomprehensible statute language. In the past, federal agencies had the Supreme Court’s blessing to do this based on a major 1984 case, Chevron.
Wikipedia: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency’s interpretation of a statute which it administers. The decision articulated a doctrine now known as the “Chevron deference.” The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: “whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute”, so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.
Well, if congress writes a law that is ambiguous or incoherent, license to interpret it according to what can be seen as a “permissible construction” is shockingly broad. That is what Ben Sasse was complaining about in 2017. This is what the FRP refers to as the “deep state.” According to the FRP, the deep state is experts in federal agencies interpreting the incoherent slop that congress routinely produces in the form of statutes it passes. The court in Chevron decided that federal agencies with actual experts should turn incoherent congressional blither into at least semi-coherent regulations.
So, in the Becerra case, the FRP is asking the Supreme Court to reign in, or overturn Chevron, thereby neutering the power of federal agencies to recycle congressional garbage into something useful in the form of usually mostly understandable federal regulations.
Wait a minnit! What about power? Where will it go?
Usually power does not just go away. If the court does gut Chevron, the power that federal agencies used to have can go one of four basic places. It can revert back to congress, but since congress refuses to be competent and does not have the expertise even if it did try, power won’t go there. Besides, there are those pesky socialist-communist tyrant Democrats in congress who would interpret laws the wrong way if they ever got power. That’s no good.
Power could flow to the people, but as a whole, the American public seems to be a herd of uninformed, perpetually grumpy cats. That doesn’t seem to be a promising place for power to go. Besides, the FRP is authoritarian and wants power concentrated at the top, not distributed to the people. Power to the people is a non-starter.
What’s left? The private sector and the courts themselves.
The power could go to special interests who are affected by federal laws. They do have the experts needed to be coherent. Unfortunately, the business sector would make damn sure that federal law gets interpreted as they see fit, i.e., in social and environmental damage and profit-maximizing, and regulation and cost-minimizing ways. The business community would love that outcome and presumably so would the FRP.
According to the person A1 interviewed, Leah Litman a professor at U. Michigan law school, surmises that the FRP is angling for power to flow to the courts. The radical Republicans that dominate the Supreme Court would give legal interpretations the FRP and the business community would want. Even though the courts do not have the expertise to regulate, they would be free to decide case by case based on the briefs that the disputants submit. The courts would be free to decide in favor of Christian churches and the business community, which is what the FRP wants.
1. Should partisan political federal courts or experts in federal agencies interpret incoherent congressional language, or should congress actually try to do its job better?
2. Is it credible to think that congress could ever obtain the expertise to regulate in complex areas, e.g., because congress is broken, or because the FRP hates government and has no intention of ever governing in the public interest?
3. Does this help bring into focus why the people that FRP elites coaxed fascist Donnie to put in power were there to attack and subvert the federal agencies they in charge of, not to make their agencies function better or work for the public interest?
4. How good, bad or ambiguous a job has the MSM done on informing the American people of what the Supreme Court is up to? (here's one source, E&E News, that discusses some upcoming cases the Supreme Court has decided to hear[1])
Footnote:
1. E&E News writes on how the radical right court thinks about environmental regulation:
But the real blockbuster environmental battles could come through a series of pending petitions for the Supreme Court to get involved in legal fights over the scope of EPA regulations under the nation’s bedrock clean air and water laws.
“The fight about the environment at the Supreme Court significantly overlaps with the fight about executive power and agency power,” said Sean Marotta, a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells. “What we see in the court’s environmental rulings is not so much strong feelings about the environment but fears of agency overreach.”
With the FRP, “agency overreach” is synonymous with the despised “deep state.”
The dictator shakes hands with the dictator wannabe in 2019 --
they really do see eye to eye and share a love for unrestrained power
Context
For most businesses, the business of business is business, i.e., profit. For the most part, the morality of business is profit. In theory, the business of the US government is protecting the public interest, which includes protecting the environment and business interests. Government is a balancing act. For the most part, business is a really big bulldozer that only moves toward profit and flattens or weakens things that get in the way, e.g., environmental regulations. Of course these days, the business of government is mostly business because business has mostly bought government.
Obviously, that is just my opinion, but there is evidence to support it. It is not just made up mindless crap like "Argggh!!! The election was stolen!!!" or "GADZOOKS!!! The Democrats are a bunch of lying, cannibalistic pedophilic lizard people who are going to take our guns away and force us into re-education camps and turn us into GODLESS atheists!!!" The point here is simple: Money, protected as free speech, can and does buy influence in government and society. It does not matter if the free speech is pure crap, lies and anti-democratic nonsense. Dark free speech gets just as much protection as honest speech, and these days arguably somewhat more.
And, in case anyone is unsure about it, the business of US propaganda companies is business, i.e., profit, not defense of democracy, liberty, truth or civility.
One way to influence government and society is to hire professional propaganda (public relations) companies to make up lies, crackpot conspiracies and outrageous nonsense and then help spread that poison as truth. Interests who hire these propagandists include foreign dictators. The New York Times writes on how this is playing out in real time in the US:
Former Vice President Mike Pence turned up in Hungary last month to speak to a conference on conservative social values hosted by the far-right government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general, was another recent visitor. Tucker Carlson did his Fox News show from Hungary for a week this summer. The American Conservative Union is planning a version of its CPAC gathering in Budapest early next year.
Those are among the more visible recent fruits of a well-funded campaign by Mr. Orban in the United States that stretches back a decade and now stands as a case study in how governments around the world seek to shape policies and debates in Washington, sometimes raising concerns about improper foreign influence in U.S. politics.
Carried out by a network of government offices, Washington lobbyists, Hungarian diaspora groups, educational institutions and government-funded foundations, the effort’s main impact has been to bolster Mr. Orban’s image as a conservative leader on the world stage — and to counter his reputation as an authoritarian nationalist who is cozying up to Russia and China.
It has also notched some tangible, if fleeting, policy victories for Mr. Orban, including the withdrawal during the Trump administration of a State Department grant to nurture independent news media in Hungary and the securing of a long-coveted Oval Office meeting for Mr. Orban in 2019 with President Donald J. Trump.
Much of what the Hungarian network has done is legal and standard operating procedure in Washington. But some of its activities touch on gray areas, including transparency requirements for those acting on behalf of foreign interests, concerns arising from overseas efforts to sway presidential campaigns, and the ethics of think tanks accepting money from governments or their proxies.
That is more evidence of the anti-democratic authoritarianism of the modern FRP (fascist Republican Party). Prominent Republican politicians, political groups and media entertainers (Carlson) have bought in on the dictator's lies about what a great thing his brand of kleptocratic dictatorship is and it should be installed here in the US. A few Democrats also like Orban's dictatorship, but that party has tried to distance its self from them.
Questions:
1. Is this relevant evidence that (i) professional US propaganda companies are happy to work for anti-democratic dictators, and (ii) the FRP is more than just sympathetic to dictatorship, e.g., actively supporting dictatorship in the US and abroad?
2. Should US companies that work for anti-democratic dictators he taxed more heavily, e.g., as a sin tax for fighting against democracy and truth, sort of like a heavy tax on cigarettes? What about the FRP, higher tax on it due to its anti-democracy ideology and rhetoric?
Handicapped by History: The Process of Hero-Making is chapter 1 of historian James Loewen's 2018 edition of his book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. This is another of those eye-openers. It is one thing to say, 'Yeah, my history in school wasn’t so good. Too much got whitewashed or omitted' or something like that. It is a quite different thing to read the details about just how bad the problem was and still is, and why it was and is that way. Chapter 1 gives a nice summary. Lowen is an expert on American history school textbooks and has written one himself.
In the introduction, Loewen makes this rather interesting observation: “Chapter 13 looks at the effects of using standard American history textbooks. It shows that the books actually make students stupid.”
That’s an interesting start to a book. Lowen argues that the stupidification of students by standard American history education includes boring them to death. Lowen hated reading the main textbooks, in large part because vibrant history and personalities gets crushed into dull, bland pulp, myths and lies.
Heroification and American myths
The main themes of chapter 1 relate to heroification and American myths that shoot through and poison history textbooks in American public schools. It also poisons the minds of children and adults who cling to the heroes and myths. Heroification is, as one would expect, treating venerated persons in history as mythic heroes rather than real people. Real people have strengths and flaws, and good and bad traits. Heroes don’t. Lowen sees heroification as a degenerative, reality distorting process about historical figures akin to calcification, resulting in a state on mind where “we cannot think straight about them.”
The rationale for heroification that Lowen describes amounts to a desire to protect children. Textbook writers and publishers want to leave children with a mental framework that posits historical figures as people who are usually uniformly good and wise. Heroes are people to be emulated and inspired by.
Lowen builds chapter 1 mostly based on two historical figures, Hellen Keller (1880-1968) and Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924).[1] He points out that teaching about Keller ends with her heroic effort to overcome being deaf and blind. Textbooks uniformly ignore the last 65 years of her life and the fact that she was not the first person to do what she did to overcome her handicaps. Keller herself was aware that stories about her life would focus on her fight to learn to speak and write, while ignoring her later life, which she really wanted the world to understand.
Public school history textbooks (and the mainstream media) ignore the fact that Keller wanted to use her experience to help others with similar handicaps. In the process of doing that she found that those people were usually poor and lived in literally stinking squalor. That led to her political radicalization. She came to publicly support socialism, labor unions, the NAACP, and Eugene Debs as the socialist candidate for US president. She co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union to fight for free speech rights for poor people. She openly admired and supported the rise of Communism in Russia.
Lowen points out that American history textbooks ignore Keller’s later life because of her radical socialist politics and her belief in this radical heresy, which she wrote in 1929:
“I had once believed that we were all masters of our fate -- that we could mould our lives into any form we pleased. .... I had overcome deafness and blindness sufficiently to be happy, and I supposed that anyone could come out victorious if he threw himself valiantly into life’s struggle. But as I went more and more about the country I learned that I had spoken with assurance in a subject I knew little about. I forgot that I owed my success partly to the advantages of my birth and environment. .... Now, however, I learned that the power to rise in the world is not within the reach of everyone.”
Keller directly attacks the great American myth of equal opportunity. Lowen comments on Keller's epiphany:
“Textbooks don’t want to touch this idea. ‘There are three great taboos in textbook publishing,’ an editor at one of the biggest houses told me, ‘sex, religion and social class.’ While I had been able to guess the first two, the third floored me. .... Reviewing American history textbooks convinced me that this editor was right, however. The notion that opportunity might be unequal in America, that not everyone has ‘the power to rise in the world,’ is anathema to textbook authors and to many teachers as well. .... [Authors, editors and educators] leave out her adult life and make her entire existence over into a vague ‘up by the bootstraps’ operation. In the process, they make this passionate fighter for the poor into something she never was in life: boring.”
Lowen argues that heroification is potentially crippling to children because people like Keller are treated like bland children devoid of the complexities and vibrancy of the fascinating adults they usually are. Those myths are unrealistic Disneyland role models. In addition to that Lowen writes:
“Students also develop no understanding of causality in history. Our nation’s thirteen separate incursions into Nicaragua, for instance, are surely worth knowing about as we attempt why that country embraced a communist government in the 1980s. Textbooks should show history as contingent, affected by the power of ideas and individuals. Instead, they present history as a ‘done deal.’”
Once again, one sees the endless battle raging between facts, truths and sound reasoning against deceit, misdirection, emotional manipulation and ideology-inspired motivated reasoning.
Question: Should American history be taught more honestly, or would that damage children somehow, e.g., by turning them into cynics and/or inspiring them to want to do some or all of the bad things that famous people do?
Footnote:
1. To shorten this review, the following comments briefly summarize the importance of Wilson and how history fails to deal competently with him. Wilson sent US troops into Mexico, Latin America and
Russia many times. The US fought on the side of the anti-communists in Russia and that held usher in the cold war and intense distrust of Western nations. Wilson talked a lot about self-determination and democracy, but at his core he was a crude racist, White Supremacist, colonialist, anti-communist and a shockingly intolerant authoritarian. Wilson rebuffed Ho Chi Minh’s appeal to the US to help it reach self-determination, setting up its gradual move toward communism. History textbooks whitewash all of that. But Wilson also signed some major pro-democracy legislation into law, e.g., some safety net protections. Lowen writes:
“American needs to learn from the Wilson era, that there is a connection between racist presidential leadership and like-minded public response. .... Wilson vetoed a bill that would have abolished Espionage and Sedition Acts. .... Neither before nor since these [pro-WW I federal government propaganda] campaigns has the United States come closer to being a police state.”
Lowen wrote that in 2018. One can wonder if he still feels that way. Probably so, given how close to being a police state the US was under Wilson. Lowen helps put America’s currently bad political situation into a useful historical context.
My assessment of the debacle that is unfolding over the Democrat's inability to get Joe Biden's agenda over the finish line is pretty much echoed by the following opinion piece, because folks, I simply couldn't have written it any more concisely than the following:
Dick Polman: Are Dems going to get their act together or what?
Back when my kids were little and I was always schlepping them hither and yon, they’d squabble in the back seat at ever-increasing decibels until I would inevitably unleash my most fervent Dad-ism:
“I don’t care who started it, just knock it off!”
Well, Dad is even more pissed these days at the House and Senate Democrats. Do they somehow not understand that failing to enact President Biden’s sweeping infrastructure and social spending packages – at least in some form, with wise compromises – would be tantamount to political suicide? That their voters will dismiss them as do-nothings and stay home in droves during the 2022 midterm elections, to the delight of the galvanized MAGA hordes?
I don’t care which faction – the “centrists” or the “progressives” – has the better grievances. Just knock it off.
The centrists think the $3.5-trillion social reform price tag is too big? Well, guess what: That money would be spent over a period of 10 years, and it totals roughly 1.2 percent of the economy.
The progressives don’t want to compromise by perhaps shaving that price tag a bit? Well, guess what: The facts of life on Capitol Hill require compromise, because the Democratic majorities are thinner than dental floss and, given the unified Republican opposition, nothing will pass unless virtually every Democrat of blue and purple hue is brought on board.
That’s because Biden, despite his solid victory, had no coattails. The Democrats lost 12 House seats, and eked out a no-wiggle-room Senate majority only because Stacey Abrams ginned up grassroots turnout in Georgia.
This is not the New Deal or Great Society era, when Democrats had power in numbers. In the words of commentator Jeff Greenfield (a former Democratic operative), our current era requires “an honest embrace of what the politics of the moment will accept. It recognizes the wisdom of Ronald Reagan’s aphorism that ‘my 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy.’ It argues for the kind of result that gives Democrats the only reasonable chance to wage a midterm fight where they will be weighed down by Republican perfidy in gerrymandering and voter restrictions…Without visible evidence of the Democrats’ core (agenda) – without (universal) pre-K, some form of expanded health care, some steps toward a fairer tax system – Democrats will go into next year with one or both hands tied behind their back.”
Or, as House Democrat Jim McGovern, chairman of the Rules Committee, reportedly said the other day, “If we can’t deliver on this, God help us in the next election.”
Biden staked his candidacy on the promise of leveraging his Washington experience in order to get things done – most notably, things that are long overdue (lowering prescription drug prices, expanding child tax credits, fighting climate change, repairing roads, broadening Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing, and much more), but it won’t help his case, or the party’s, if the squabbling rank and file makes our legislative process even more dysfunctional than it already is. If the party of government can’t prove that it can govern – and this particular week is crucial, with a looming Sept. 30 deadline to avoid a federal shutdown – then what’s the remaining alternative? The cult that doesn’t give two figs about governing?
On policy, in fact, Democrats have public opinion on their side. A recent national poll found landslide support for Biden’s infrastructure bill (65 percent yes, 28 percent no), and landslide support for the $3.5-trillion social reform package (62 percent yes, 32 percent no).
In a sense, they’ve already won the argument.
The only road forward is to deliver something substantive, even if it falls short of the most sweeping ambitions. That way Democrats can go to the voters in 2022 and say, with empirical proof, that “we’re making a positive difference in your lives, and the Republicans opposed every single thing.”
That’s a whole lot more palatable than blowing their best opportunity in years to fix so much of what’s broken. All of them surely must realize that with democracy itself now hanging in the balance, failing to deliver is not an option.
NOW IF the Dems DO deliver, I will be happy to revisit this thread and eat my hat, but till then................................................. they need to KNOCK IT OFF!
The Washington Post writes in an article, Koch-backed group fuels opposition to school mask mandates, leaked letter shows:
It is motivated, the author explains, by a desire to “speak up for what is best for my kids.” And it fervently conveys the author’s feelings to school leaders: “I do not believe little kids should be forced to wear masks, and I urge you to adopt a policy that allows parental choice on this matter for the upcoming school year.”
But the heartfelt appeal is not the product of a grass roots groundswell. Rather, it is a template drafted and circulated this week within a conservative network built on the scaffolding of the Koch fortune and the largesse of other GOP megadonors.
That makes the document, which was obtained by The Washington Post, the latest salvo in an inflamed debate over mask requirements in schools, which have become the epicenter of partisan battles over everything from gender identity to critical race theory. The political melee engulfing educators has complicated efforts to reopen schools safely during a new wave of the virus brought on by the highly transmissible delta variant.
The document offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of a well-financed conservative campaign to undermine regulations that health authorities say are necessary to contain the coronavirus. The frustration of many parents who want a greater say is deeply felt, school superintendents say. But their anger is also being fueled by organized activists whose influence is ordinarily veiled.
The letter was made available on Tuesday to paying members of the Independent Women’s Network, a project of the Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Voice that markets itself as a “members-only platform that is free from censorship and cancellation.” Both are nonprofits once touted by their board chairman and CEO, Heather Higgins, as part of a unique tool in the “Republican conservative arsenal” because, “Being branded as neutral but actually having the people who know, know that you’re actually conservative puts us in a unique position.”
Tennessee parents make threats after school board mandates masks: ‘We will find you’
Implication: We will murder you
Last March, the New Yorker wrote about the billionaire radical right Koch propaganda Leviathan's money-drenched tactics that necessarily[1] dominate the fascist Republican Party's elites' approach to politics:
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.
A recording obtained by The New Yorker of a private conference call on January 8th, between a policy adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell and the leaders of several prominent conservative groups—including one run by the Koch brothers’ network—reveals the participants’ worry that the proposed election reforms garner wide support not just from liberals but from conservative voters, too. The speakers on the call expressed alarm at the broad popularity of the bill’s provision calling for more public disclosure about secret political donors. The participants conceded that the bill, which would stem the flow of dark money from such political donors as the billionaire oil magnate Charles Koch, was so popular that it wasn’t worth trying to mount a public-advocacy campaign to shift opinion. Instead, a senior Koch operative said that opponents would be better off ignoring the will of American voters and trying to kill the bill in Congress.
Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow-conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a “spoiler.” “When presented with a very neutral description” of the bill, “people were generally supportive,” McKenzie said, adding that “the most worrisome part . . . is that conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public was when they read the neutral description.” In fact, he warned, “there’s a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these types of efforts.”
As a result, McKenzie conceded, the legislation’s opponents would likely have to rely on Republicans in the Senate, where the bill is now under debate, to use “under-the-dome-type strategies”—meaning legislative maneuvers beneath Congress’s roof, such as the filibuster—to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be “incredibly difficult.” He warned that the worst thing conservatives could do would be to try to “engage with the other side” on the argument that the legislation “stops billionaires from buying elections.” McKenzie admitted, “Unfortunately, we’ve found that that is a winning message, for both the general public and also conservatives.” He said that when his group tested “tons of other” arguments in support of the bill, the one condemning billionaires buying elections was the most persuasive—people “found that to be most convincing, and it riled them up the most.”
McKenzie explained that the Koch-founded group had invested substantial resources “to see if we could find any message that would activate and persuade conservatives on this issue.” He related that “an A.O.C. message we tested”—one claiming that the bill might help Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez achieve her goal of holding “people in the Trump Administration accountable” by identifying big donors—helped somewhat with conservatives. But McKenzie admitted that the link was tenuous, since “what she means by this is unclear.” “Sadly,” he added, not even attaching the phrase “cancel culture” to the bill, by portraying it as silencing conservative voices, had worked. “It really ranked at the bottom,” McKenzie said to the group. “That was definitely a little concerning for us.”
With so little public support, the bill’s opponents have already begun pressuring individual senators. On March 20th, several major conservative groups, including Heritage Action, Tea Party Patriots Action, Freedom Works, and the local and national branches of the Family Research Council, organized a rally in West Virginia to get Senator Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat, to come out against the legislation. They also pushed Manchin to oppose any efforts by Democrats to abolish the Senate’s filibuster rule, a tactical step that the Party would probably need to take in order to pass the bill. “The filibuster is really the only thing standing in the way of progressive far-left policies like H.R. 1, which is Pelosi’s campaign to take over America’s elections,” Noah Weinrich, the press secretary at Heritage Action, declared during a West Virginia radio interview. On Thursday, Manchin issued a statement warning Democrats that forcing the measure through the Senate would “only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.”
Aw, jeez. It was "a little concerning" that ruthless Republican fascist propagandist polling research indicated that an intentionally divisive and deceptive label such as cancel culture wasn't persuasive enough to do the job of deceiving and ripping American society apart to the satisfaction of corrupt anti-democratic, autocratic Koch lies, deceit and misdirection.
What a shame. /s
Presumably, most fascist Republican elites are thankful for Joe Manchin, their fascist champion in the Democratic Party.
Questions:
1. Is the Koch propaganda Leviathan more democratic than anti-democratic?
2. Is the Koch propaganda Leviathan not influential enough to bother mention by the MSM, so it is just the Koch propaganda pipsqueak minnow?
3. Is it possible that political and economic propaganda induce adult Americans to actually participate in public in this kind of deranged lunacy, or is it just harmless ranged lunacy?:
Valiant anti-mask patriots at a school board meeting:
Yeah!! Our kids deserve oxygen!!
Yeah!! Make breathing great again!!
Yeah!! Masks murder children!!
Yeah!! Slaughter all pedophile Democrats, meaning all Democrats!!
(or is at least some of this unfair and/or over the top?)
Footnote:
1. Necessarily because the FRP (fascist Republican Party) has known for decades that it cannot win majority public support, majority votes and/or autocrat/plutocrat-level power on the basis of honest debate, real acts or transparency. So, it has to rely on cheating such as unwarranted opacity, lies, slanders, unwarranted emotional manipulation, partisan motivated reasoning and other anti-democratic means to win votes and power.
