Republicans threaten Democrats

The Washington Post writes in an article entitled, In wake of Bannon indictment, Republicans warn of payback: 

Republicans are rallying around former White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon after his indictment on charges of contempt of Congress on Friday, warning that Democrats’ efforts to force Bannon to comply with what they say is an unfair subpoena paves the way for them to do the same if they take back the House in 2022.

Bannon, like former president Donald Trump, has refused to comply with an order from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection to turn over records and testify about his actions leading up to the attack, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol trying to stop the certification of President Biden’s electoral college win.

Bannon is expected to turn himself in to law enforcement Monday ahead of a court appearance that afternoon. Democrats and a handful of anti-Trump Republicans argue that the indictment was necessary to enforce subpoenas issued by the Jan. 6 committee to Trump associates who are resisting cooperation and to witnesses summoned by other congressional panels.

Many GOP leaders, however, are seizing on Bannon’s indictment to contend that Democrats are “weaponizing” the Justice Department, warning Democrats that they will go after Biden’s aides for unspecified reasons if they take back the House majority in next year’s midterm elections, as most political analysts expect.  

“For years, Democrats baselessly accused President Trump of ‘weaponizing’ the DOJ. In reality, it is the Left that has been weaponizing the DOJ the ENTIRE TIME — from the false Russia Hoax to the Soviet-style prosecution of political opponents,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the third-ranking House Republican, tweeted Saturday.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) suggested that Republicans would seek payback if the GOP regained control of the House, signaling that in challenging the doctrine of executive privilege, Democrats were making it easier for Republicans to force Biden’s top advisers to testify before a future GOP Congress.  

“Joe Biden has evicerated Executive Privilege,” Jordan wrote on Twitter. “There are a lot of Republicans eager to hear testimony from Ron Klain and Jake Sullivan when we take back the House.” Sullivan is Biden’s national security adviser, and Klain is the White House chief of staff.

Various thoughts come to mind here. In no particular order:

• Maybe Democrats are, to at least some extent, trying to give the DoJ back some of the teeth it used to have, which is a good thing in view of how neutered it was under anti-rule of law Republicans
• Threats to force advisers to testify before congress doesn't seem to amount to much since advisers should talk to Congress and not just operate in secrecy as was the case under our corrupt, mendacious, treasonous ex-president with his corrupt, mendacious, treasonous advisers
• If a politician has done nothing grossly inept or illegal, then they have nothing to fear in testifying before Congress
• Being able to force an adviser, and IMO a president, to honestly communicate with Congress is a force for less corruption and more transparency, both of which are in short supply
• Yes, forcing an adviser or president to testify before Congress can amount to unwarranted harassment, but if no laws were broken that would just be part of the job, and the unreasonably harassed individual should be able to publicly criticize their attackers
• If Republicans get power and start issuing good faith subpoenas to Democratic advisers, there is nothing wrong with it, but if they do it in bad faith, then they are open to criticism for abuse of power and should be harshly sanctioned 
• By making these threats, Republicans make clear that they see the rule of law as subordinate to partisan politics and are thus reasonably seen as generally anti-rule of law, which is anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian
• Based on their behavior over the last couple of decades, it is likely that Republicans will not operate in good faith with this or most anything else, but there is no clear law that prevents this kind of rotten behavior, so this will be the new norm for the foreseeable future 
• If voters tolerate corrupt, mendacious bad faith politics and politicians then that is what the situation has come to for better or worse
• The DoJ under Biden has done a terrible job and anything that reinvigorates DoJ vitality and the rule of law is democratic and good if it is in done in good faith, and authoritarian and bad if done in bad faith
• Courts have ruled that the ex-president cannot claim executive privilege for the kind of information the Democrats are trying to get about the 1/6 insurrection, but at least some House Republicans and the ex-president claim otherwise, which suggests Republican bad faith (later court rulings might change this) 
  
  

Questions: 

1. Are these Republican threats a sign of respect for the even-handed rule of law, or a sign that the rule of law is to be used as a partisan weapon for partisan advantage?

2. How can a person distinguish a good faith House subpoena from one issued in bad faith?

Democrats will probably lose the House in 2022

In normal times, the party in power tends tom bet booted out of the House and/or the Senate. These are not normal times. New gerrymandered voting districts appear to make it almost certain that the ARP (authoritarian Republican Party) will regain control of the House. That will be the end of significant legislation at least until the 2024 elections, maybe longer than that. The New York Times writes:

A year before the polls open in the 2022 midterm elections, Republicans are already poised to flip at least five seats in the closely divided House thanks to redrawn district maps that are more distorted, more disjointed and more gerrymandered than any since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.

The rapidly forming congressional map, a quarter of which has taken shape as districts are redrawn this year, represents an even more extreme warping of American political architecture, with state legislators in many places moving aggressively to cement their partisan dominance.

The flood of gerrymandering, carried out by both parties but predominantly by Republicans, is likely to leave the country ever more divided by further eroding competitive elections and making representatives more beholden to their party’s base.

At the same time, Republicans’ upper hand in the redistricting process, combined with plunging approval ratings for President Biden and the Democratic Party, provides the party with what could be a nearly insurmountable advantage in the 2022 midterm elections and the next decade of House races.  

All told, Republicans have added a net of five seats that the party can expect to hold while Democrats are down one. Republicans need to flip just five Democratic-held seats next year to seize a House majority.

A recent NYT article analyzed and explained gerrymandering and the current process in detail.

Gerrymandering is used to rig both House and/or state legislature voting districts in most states. On top of gerrymandering that gives an ARP minority power to dictate control of the House, at least 17 states controlled by the ARP have passed laws intended to suppress Democratic votes and/or rig elections after votes are cast. Republican judges who support gerrymandering and voter suppression have been put on the bench. They are now in firm control of the Supreme Court.

 

Unless congress does something now to allow voters to pick their politicians in free and fair elections instead of the opposite, it looks like voters are going to get cracked, packed and fracked in future rigged elections. Federal courts will not save free and fair elections. Republican federal judges rationalize acceptance of rigged elections by calling it "just politics," which is not something that judges should interfere with. America could very well be on the verge of what turns out to be a long period of harsh, corrupt, authoritarian minority rule.

In hindsight, one can see the wisdom of decades of divisive, polarizing ARP propaganda and lies. By tearing American society apart and constantly vilifying Democrats as Godless radical socialist or communist tyrants, or something worse, most Republican voters are unlikely to ever vote for a Democrat. That seems to be the situation no matter how immoral, corrupt, inept or mendacious the ARP candidate is. The ARP is at least tribal, but arguably cult. For whatever reasons, there is asymmetry in how bad a successful politician can be between the two parties, with the strong advantage going to the ARP. In a cult, bad traits in your own leaders are denied or forgivable, but the same in the opposition is a horror that must be stopped at any cost by any means, including packing, cracking, fracking, deceiving, lying and cheating.

Questions: 

1. Are we witnessing just politics as usual, or is America more likely than not on the verge of a long period of rigid partisan rule or even a form of tyranny by an ARP minority?

2. Since congress is needed to suppress gerrymandering but that probably won't happen, should democratic states like California get rid of non-partisan districting and go back to the gerrymander to get rid of as many Republicans in the House as possible?

I love science!

There is a video going around of what all takes place when you get an mRNA COVID vaccine.  Pretty interesting.  

There are times when I’m actually proud of humanity.  Thank you science and technology! ❤️

Animation of the process 

Thanks for viewing and recommending. 😊

Apportioning responsibility for climate change

The Glasgow climate summit is over. In the last hour or two, the final agreement got diluted. India made demands that neutered a key provision(s). Funding a facility for pay poor countries got changed to talking about it. Poor countries are increasingly demanding payment for damage that rich countries have caused and are increasingly causing. A New York Times article published before the summit ended considered the issue of national responsibility.

The NYT writes: 

One of the biggest fights at the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow is whether — and how — the world’s wealthiest nations, which are disproportionately responsible for global warming to date, should compensate poorer nations for the damages caused by rising temperatures.

Rich countries, including the United States, Canada, Japan and much of western Europe, account for just 12 percent of the global population today but are responsible for 50 percent of all the planet-warming greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels and industry over the past 170 years.

At the summit, Sonam P. Wangdi, who chairs a bloc of 47 nations known as the Least Developed Countries, pointed out that his home country of Bhutan bears little responsibility for global warming, since the nation currently absorbs more carbon dioxide from its vast forests than is emitted from its cars and homes. Nonetheless, Bhutan faces severe risks from rising temperatures, with melting glaciers in the Himalayas already creating flash floods and mudslides that have devastated villages.

“We have contributed the least to this problem yet we suffer disproportionately,” Mr. Wangdi said. “There must be increasing support for adapting to impacts.”

A decade ago, the world’s wealthiest economies pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance for poorer countries by 2020. But they are still falling short by tens of billions of dollars annually, and very little aid so far has gone toward measures to help poorer countries cope with the hazards of a hotter planet, such as sea walls or early warning systems for floods and droughts.

“Lots of people are losing their lives, they are losing their future, and someone has to be responsible,” said A.K. Abdul Momen, the foreign minister of Bangladesh. He compared loss and damage to the way the United States government sued tobacco companies in the 1990s to recover billions of dollars in higher health care costs from the smoking epidemic.

At the same time, some of the world’s biggest developing economies are beginning to catch up on emissions. China, home to 18 percent of the world’s population, is responsible for nearly 14 percent of all the planet-warming greenhouse gases released from fossil fuels and industry since 1850. But today it is the world’s largest emitter by far, accounting for roughly 31 percent of humanity’s carbon dioxide from energy and industry this year.

At the climate summit, the United States and the European Union have argued that the world will never be able to minimize the damage from global warming unless swiftly industrializing nations like India do more to slash their emissions. But India, which recently announced a pledge to reach “net zero” emissions by 2070, says it needs much more financial help to shift from coal to cleaner energy, citing both its lower per capita emissions and smaller share of historical emissions.

An article from April of 2021 reported an economic analysis that estimated annual global economic loss would be as much as $23 trillion by 2050. The US and other wealthy Western nations could lose between 6 percent and 10 percent of their potential economic output. Most poor nations are projected to fare much worse. If the increase in global temperature is held to two degrees Celsius, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand would each see economic growth 20 percent below what they could otherwise expect by 2050.

Questions: 

1. Do wealthy polluting nations owe financial aid to poor low polluting countries, assuming that at least about 75% of the aid actually goes to mitigate climate impacts, less than ~25% being siphoned off by corrupt politicians and other kinds of crooks and kleptocrats? What about a roughly 50:50 split, e.g., ~47% for climate mitigation and ~53% for crooks, or vice versa? 

2. Some critics immediately criticized the final agreement as just another a greenwash, while at least some major world leaders hailed it as a significant step forward.  Based on past international failures to agree on significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but in view of increased public global concern for climate change, what is likely to be closer to truth about the impact of this agreement, (i) mostly reasons for reasonable pessimism, (ii) mostly reasons for reasonable optimism, or (iii) something closer to the middle? 

3. Will industries, companies and countries that profit heavily from selling oil and gas, e.g., Exxon-Mobile and Saudi Arabia, probably continue to publicly spout concern for climate change, while quietly and behind closed doors continue opposing, undermining and slowing the global response to climate change, just as they and their lobbyists and paid propagandists have been doing for decades? 

Critical Race Theory And Terry Mc Auliffe Postmortem

 

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is, among other things, a label. Labels matter. When Terry McAuliffe brushed off complaints about the Dept. of Ed. in his state teaching CRT, he did so with unequivocal statements like, "It [CRT] is not taught in Va. and never has been taught in Va.," adding, "“And as I’ve said this a lot, it’s a dog whistle. It’s racial, it’s division and it’s used by Glenn Youngkin and others, it’s the same thing with Trump and the border wall, to divide people. We should not be dividing people in school.” Based on this one would not expect the label CRT to be recommended in Dept. of Ed. memorandums, lesson plans, reading lists, etc. So when a single-minded conservative activist, Chris Rufo,  with investigative skills took the time and trouble to unearth evidence contradicting McAuliffe, he was stupidly ignored. I won't profile Rufo here, though he's been profiled by New Yorker and WaPo, and though they judged him to be only partly reliable and plenty ideological, Dems should have been much more prepared to deal with the allegations and evidence this man marshaled in making the case against CRT in our schools in various states, not least Va. 

 

According to exit polls, https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/02/politics/virginia-exit-polls/index.html    ~25% of voters considered education to be the number 1 issue. For most it was among the top issues, coming after the economy which another 33% pegged as the top issue. Now, if you only read the NYT, WaPo and watch only MSNBC and CNN; and if you systematically avoid Fox News, conservative radio, and local newspapers (e.g. in my city the NY Post which covered this election and the CRT issue), you will hear only McAuliffe's line that this is race-baiting based on fake information. I've seen it on this blog, "CRT is only taught in grad schools," and so on. Paul Krugman, an economist and opinion columnist I happen to like, seems to have assumed this talking point is correct as he dismissed the CRT issue as "bogus" and "a lie wrapped in a scam." But how many of us broadly left-leaning folk get out of the echo-chamber and do what even a good opposition researcher in a campaign does, viz., assess the evidence the other side has amassed?  Well, here are a few inconvenient facts for team McAuliffe (in retrospect) and a warning to all of us determined to defeat the GOP who plan to make this a major wedge issue next year and beyond..

Three days before the people of Va. voted, Fox News ran this story (reiterating other stories and claims they had made previously). 

 

Published October 30

Virginia Dept. of Education website promotes CRT despite McAuliffe claims it's 'never been taught' there

Virginia voters will decide their next governor in three days

 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-dept-of-education-website-promotes-crt-despite-mcauliffe-claims-its-never-been-taught-there

 

Is it bullshit?  A lie within a scam? No. It is embarrassingly true. The article states, 

"On the Virginia Department of Education website, several examples of the department promoting Critical Race Theory can be found, including a presentation from 2015, when Terry McAullife was governor,  that encourages teachers to "embrace Critical Race Theory" in "order to re-engineer attitudes and belief systems."

 

Click on presentation, and you'll be brought to a 30 page memo from the Commonwealth of Virginia Dept. of Ed. (DoE).  https://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/virginia_tiered_system_supports/resources/2015_fall_institute/Legal_implications_of_discipline.pdf  After several pages identifying problems regarding race relations and inequities targeted for rectification, there is a section on "Culturally Responsive Alternatives" to the status quo  approaches to school discipline (suspensions, expulsions, penalizing various behaviors-- all of which are described in terms of institutional racism). Starting on p. 22 we read the following:

_

Culturally-Responsive
Alternatives (Continued)
 

 Incorporate Critical Race Theory (CRT) Lens
 

 Critical Race Theory
Townsend Walker, 2015

 

Culturally Responsive Teaching
(CRT)
 

Teaching practices that use:
cultural knowledge
prior experiences
performance styles
 

CRT makes learning more appropriate and effective for students
from diverse backgrounds
(Gay 2000).
 

Townsend Walker, 2015 Culturally responsive
strategies
 

 Engage in self and institutional critiques

  Reconstruct imagery of African American males
Re-engineer attitudes and belief systems [emph. added, as Fox quoted this]
 

Adopt ethics of care and respect
Raise expectations and motivation
Use strength-based teaching and
communication techniques
Townsend Walker, 2015

 

Now, Fox shows like Tucker, and their regular news shows, as well as local newspapers, radio et al., point out, this memo a) comes from the Superintendent Virginia's DoE, and b) was written and circulated to K-12 educators throughout the state while McAuliffe was Governor. When parents who know that their kids are being taught about white privilege, internalized racism, and the need to "do the work" to become anti-racists hear these denials, and when there is objective evidence that CRT IS an element in K-12 education in the state, how should they feel towards the candidate making flat-out denials, despite archival evidence contradicting his claims? And then when that candidate goes on to say "I don't think parents should be telling schools what to teach," at a time when school-boards have become loci of parental activism, what might be an expected outcome at the polls? It's a gaffe. He was clearly unprepared to answer these questions, even though Rufo's campaign against CRT (which is what got Trump's attention when he wrote an executive order "banning CRT," had been identified months earlier (he advises multiple members of congress, and is the "point man" on the issue.

I know, I know. The GOP takes this information, and then on that basis starts to ban books by Toni Morrison. Yes. That's why I despise today's GOP (never liked it that much to be honest, but esp. now it's the political dregs). But there is something going on in the schools that is upsetting a lot of parents, and it does have something to do with contemporary applied CRT which overlaps with the so-called "Anti-Racist Movement" speer-headed by Ibram X. Kendi, among others. But this is not really a piece on what CRT today looks like, and its relation to Antiracism (that would require a whole separate piece). Even assuming it is all great stuff, the question is WHY DENY THE LABEL IS BEING USED IN K-12 PEDAGOGY MEMOS??? A few more examples (from Va., as there are plenty of other examples from other states too) just so you don't think this one memo is a fluke.

 

In 2019, the State Superintendent, James Lane,  sent a memo to all school districts in Va.,   promoting critical race theory, and describing it as  “an important analytic tool” for addressing “power and privilege” in schools. See https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21084733-resources-to-support-student-and-community-dialogues-on-racism

 The document ends with Lane's Recommended readings, including his blurbs endorsing 5 or 6 of the books he considers most important for people in the DoE to read. The first entry is Beverly D'Angelo's controversial, and largely hated book, White Fragility (plenty of liberals have criticized that book. A WaPo book critic complained about the concept itself writing, 

"As defined by DiAngelo, white fragility is irrefutable; any alternative perspective or counterargument is defeated by the concept itself. Either white people admit their inherent and unending racism and vow to work on their white fragility, in which case DiAngelo was correct in her assessment, or they resist such categorizations or question the interpretation of a particular incident, in which case they are only proving her point." https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/white-fragility-is-real-white-fragility-is-flawed/

This is a very common criticism of the book. Nevertheless, this book which asks students and employees in Diversity and Equity workshops to face and admit to their internalized racism, a sort of ongoing "soul-search" according to DiAngelo, heads the list of readings in the document. Even more troubling, in terms of McAuliffe's denial of CRT having no place in Va. public schools, is  the inclusion of the title, Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education, by Edward Taylor, et al. Lane writes:

"Dr. Lane’s February Reading List:I have received several inquiries and requests for the latest literature that examines the issues associated with racial inequities in education. Below are several pieces that I and other members of the VDOE staff are reading this month based on recommendations that we have received. 

-White Fragility, by Robin DiAngelo. Antiracist educator Robin DiAngelo illuminates the phenomenon of white fragility. Referring to the defensive moves that white people make when challenged racially, white fragility is characterized by emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and by behaviors including argumentation and silence. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and prevent any meaningful cross-racial dialogue. In this in-depth exploration, DiAngelo examines how white fragility develops, how it protects racial inequality, and what we can do to engage more constructively....

 

Foundations of Critical Race Theory in Education, by Edward Taylor, David Gillborn, and Gloria Ladson-Billings The emergence of Critical Race Theory (CRT) marked an important point in the history of racial politics in the legal academy and the broader conversation about race and racism in the United States. More recently, CRT has proven an important analytic tool in the field of education, offering critical perspectives on race, and the causes, consequences and manifestations of race, racism, inequity, and the dynamics of power and privilege in schooling. This groundbreaking anthology is the first to pull together both the foundational writings in the field and more recent scholarship on the cultural and racial politics of schooling. A comprehensive introduction provides an overview of the history and tenets of CRT in education.  [emph. added as Fox quoted this secction]Each section then seeks to explicate ideological contestation of race in education and to create new, alternative accounts. In so doing, this landmark publication not only documents the progress to date of the CRT movement, it acts to further spur developments in education."  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21084733-resources-to-support-student-and-community-dialogues-on-racism

 As I said at the outset, labels matter. If a politician says unequivocally "CRT has never been taught in Va." and documents like these surface predictably (as Rufo's research is well known among political strategists right now), you better have your defense well-prepared or it may cost you. The issue in this piece is not the value or lack of value attached to CRT, but rather the fact that in Va. (and also several other states including my own) CRT pedagogy and antiracist offshoots of it are fairly pervasive. One of the more controversial practices of Diversity/Equity training for classrooms today includes "affinity groups." This involves getting whites to discuss their internalized racism only amongst themselves, while blacks discuss the trauma of living in a racist society in a separate, all-black group, often in a separate room. These "safe spaces" for "doing the work" have offended many teachers and others who then contact Rufo with leaked documents. I'm not sure that came up in Va.,  but I can promise you it WILL be coming up in the 2022 elections, and we better be prepared. Perhaps in another post I can (if anyone is interested) discuss the actual content of earlier and contemporary CRT, related antiracism and Diversity/Equity/Inclusion models of social justice, as I believe the general public have been misled by the media on this. These are not simply accurate historical descriptions of racist practices in the past (i.e. history), but very much on the ground, and ongoing forms of racial justice activism, the contents of which are controversial and deserve to be aired out in public. But for now, I'm pointing out what happens when you tell voters that there's nothing to see or know; and that anyway, it's not your place to question curriculum, as McAuliffe ineptly said in a debate. Evasion and denial of facts in the face of contradicting evidence is always a losing strategy.

Menace Enters the Republican Mainstream

Protestors at the Arizona state capitol last September

The vaccine wedge issue: It's about politics, not public health

For a long time, it has been obvious to some that mainstream Republican rhetoric and policy has turned dark, authoritarian, and openly menacing to democracy, truth and expertise. That is true among most of Republican elected politicians and other elites, radical right propagandists (Fox News), major donors, and rank and file supporters. Some people saw threat from the radical right immediately after the 2016 elections. Some saw it years sooner. Some still do not see the threats. Few or none in the FRP (fascist Republican Party) see any threats from themselves. The authoritarians consider the real threat to be evil Democrats, their tyrannical socialism, Nazism, critical race theory and/or various other dark things. 

The New York Times published an article, Menace Enters the Republican Mainstream, as another of its periodic warnings about the bad intent and tactics of the modern FRP.

Threats of violence have become commonplace among a significant part of the party, as historians and those who study democracy warn of a dark shift in American politics.

At a conservative rally in western Idaho last month, a young man stepped up to a microphone to ask when he could start killing Democrats.

“When do we get to use the guns?” he said as the audience applauded. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” The local state representative, a Republican, later called it a “fair” question.

In Ohio, the leading candidate in the Republican primary for Senate blasted out a video urging Republicans to resist the “tyranny” of a federal government that pushed them to wear masks and take F.D.A.-authorized vaccines.

“When the Gestapo show up at your front door,” the candidate, Josh Mandel, a grandson of Holocaust survivors, said in the video in September, “you know what to do.”

From congressional offices to community meeting rooms, threats of violence are becoming commonplace among a significant segment of the Republican Party. Ten months after rioters attacked the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, and after four years of a president who often spoke in violent terms about his adversaries, right-wing Republicans are talking more openly and frequently about the use of force as justifiable in opposition to those who dislodged him from power.

Political violence has been part of the American story since the founding of the country, often entwined with racial politics and erupting in periods of great change: More than 70 brawls, duels and other violent incidents embroiled members of Congress from 1830 to 1860 alone. And elements of the left have contributed to the confrontational tenor of the country’s current politics, though Democratic leaders routinely condemn violence and violent imagery.

But historians and those who study democracy say what has changed has been the embrace of violent speech by a sizable portion of one party, including some of its loudest voices inside government and most influential voices outside.

In effect, they warn, the Republican Party is mainstreaming menace as a political tool.

From his earliest campaigning to the final moments of his presidency, Mr. Trump’s political image has incorporated the possibility of violence. He encouraged attendees at his rallies to “knock the hell” out of protesters, praised a lawmaker who body-slammed a reporter, and in a recent interview defended rioters who clamored to “hang Mike Pence.” 

Such views, routinely expressed in warlike or revolutionary terms, are often intertwined with white racial resentments and evangelical Christian religious fervor — two potent sources of fuel for the G.O.P. during the Trump era — as the most animated Republican voters increasingly see themselves as participants in a struggle, if not a kind of holy war[1], to preserve their idea of American culture and their place in society.  

Notably few Republican leaders have spoken out against violent language or behavior since Jan. 6, suggesting with their silent acquiescence that doing so would put them at odds with a significant share of their party’s voters. 

In that vacuum, the coarsening of Republican messaging has continued: Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona, this week tweeted an anime video altered to show him killing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and swinging two swords at Mr. Biden.

Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the left-leaning group New America who has studied political violence, said there was a connection between such actions and the growing view among Americans that politics is a struggle between enemies.

“When you start dehumanizing political opponents, or really anybody, it becomes a lot easier to inflict violence on them,” Dr. Drutman said.

“I have a hard time seeing how we have a peaceful 2024 election after everything that’s happened now,” he added. “I don’t see the rhetoric turning down, I don’t see the conflicts going away. I really do think it’s hard to see how it gets better before it gets worse.” 

Violent talk has tipped over into actual violence in ways big and small. School board members and public health officials have faced a wave of threats, prompting hundreds to leave their posts. A recent investigation by Reuters documented nearly 800 intimidating messages to election officials in 12 states.

By now, it is unlikely that warnings about the rise of violent authoritarianism from experts will change many minds. The FRP has been a significant factor in the successful poisoning of the reputation of experts, both in the party and apparently among at least some people outside the party. 

Minds open to this warning are aware of the threat by now. Minds not open are going to stay closed. Minds of deceived cultists and fascists who know better rarely change in the face of inconvenient facts, truths or reasoning. That some yahoo can seriously ask a crowd “When do we get to use the guns? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” and the audience applauds should be a wake up call for nearly all Americans, but it isn't. 

That exemplifies how malicious and dark that FRP rhetoric and politics have become.

The role of Christianity

The NYT article asserts that white racial resentments and evangelical Christian religious fervor are two sources of discontent the FRP has played on to radicalize the entire party. Both racial resentment and religious fervor are core aspects of Christian nationalism and the focus of much of its divisive propaganda, lies and slanders. Some of the FRP really does believe they are fighting a holy war and the ends justify all means, including shooting Democrats dead. Some evidence suggests that FRP politicization of Christianity is driving some Americans away from Christianity. The Guardian wrote in April of 2021:  

Just 47% of the US population are members of a church, mosque or synagogue, according to a survey by Gallup, down from 70% two decades ago – in part a result of millennials turning away from religion but also, experts say, a reaction to the swirling mix of rightwing politics and Christianity pursued by the Republican party.

The evidence comes as Republicans in some states have pursued extreme “Christian nationalist” policies, attempting to force their version of Christianity on an increasingly uninterested public.

This week the governor of Arkansas signed a law allowing doctors to refuse to treat LGBTQ people on religious grounds, and other states are exploring similar legislation.  

“Many Americans – especially young people – see religion as bound up with political conservatism, and the Republican party specifically,” Campbell said.

“Since that is not their party, or their politics, they do not want to identify as being religious. Young people are especially allergic to the perception that many – but by no means all – American religions are hostile to LGBTQ rights.”

Questions: 

1. If dehumanizing a group or political party makes it easier to inflict violence, how should the FRP be treated? Is the label authoritarian or fascist too dehumanizing to be more helpful than not, e.g., it won't change many or any minds now even if the label is accurate?

2. The NYT suggests that FRP leadership does not speak out against violent language or behavior to avoid being at odds with the rank and file, but how much of the silence comes from their support for violent language or behavior, e.g., Gosar's unprovoked video showing him killing Ocasio-Cortez and trying to kill Biden?

3. Given decreasing public participation in Christian religion, is it reasonable to believe that Christian nationalism is still a potent force in the FRP, more or less on a par with special interest money? 

Footnote: 

1. The NYT wrote this on Jan. 11, 2021:

A potent mix of grievance and religious fervor has turbocharged the support among Trump loyalists, many of whom describe themselves as participants in a kind of holy war. 

Before self-proclaimed members of the far-right group the Proud Boys marched toward the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, they stopped to kneel in the street and prayed in the name of Jesus.

The group, whose participants have espoused misogynistic and anti-immigrant views, prayed for God to bring “reformation and revival.” They gave thanks for “the wonderful nation we’ve all been blessed to be in.” They asked God for the restoration of their “value systems,” and for the “courage and strength to both represent you and represent our culture well.” And they invoked the divine protection for what was to come.

Then they rose. Their leader declared into a bullhorn that the media must “get the hell out of my way.” And then they moved toward the Capitol.