The next phase in the march of neo-fascism: Demagoguing a survivalist mode mindset

The warnings need to be repeated 24/7/365. There's no denying the Republican Party is trying to achieve its goal of installing a corrupt, bigoted tyranny in the US. They are doling it by demagoguery, crime and any other tactics that might work. The GOP close to achieving its evil goal. Warnings must now be constant. Maybe a few minds can still be shaken awake to help defend democracy. Maybe.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat writes at Lucid: 

When polarization shifts into survivalist mode, democracy is in danger

“I went to Congress as a collaborator, and now I'm in an environment where the Republicans want to rule or ruin-- that's the mindset,” Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) told me in January. “There's no room for collaboration…Do you believe in rule of law or do you believe in violence? That's the battle in Washington right now.”

Rep. Swalwell’s comment, which reflects a political class that is deeply divided, prompts thoughts on polarization. We often hear about polarization as a fixed state of affairs, rather than as a process that can deepen if there is a political will driving it, as there is in the US today.

Disaffection with liberal democracy, rising economic inequality, and social media’s exposure of billions to disinformation are among the factors that have contributed to the spread of polarization around the world, as studies show. Polarization is likely here to stay, and democracies need to find ways to contain and reverse it.

History is clear on who benefits from polarization: It’s never democracies. For a century, anti-democratic movements and parties have encouraged it. When it is joined to an illiberal political design, polarization can become “energized,” shading into survivalist states of mind.

In the hands of authoritarians, the low-level rancor of me vs. you can become me or you –the idea that only one of us can survive the encounter – leading to violence and other lawless behaviors. It is deeply worrying that in the US, Republicans are not just accelerating polarization, but shifting into survivalist mode.

Polarization, like propaganda, feeds on existing biases and tribalist impulses that are continually refreshed as we do research on line or scroll through the news, absorbing algorithmically-selected ads and friend/follow suggestions.

Illiberal [Germaine’s label: neo-fascist] politicians and their media allies build on this, feeding us images and rhetoric designed to encourage anti-democratic behaviors and outcomes. Media disinformation and conspiracy theories that undermine shared assumptions and truths act in harmony with political polarization, creating enemies and scapegoats that further foment division, suspicion and hostility.

The global right’s exploitation of the pandemic to destroy accepted scientific and public health practices is one example. Schools, town councils, hospitals and clinics become sites of conflict. Anti-science aggression (to use Peter Hotez’s term) and hostility to education have turned previously respected community members, like teachers, health officials, and nurses, into enemies. 

How rank and file republicans see reality --

His opinion is worse than worthless and insulting, it’s neo-fascist

Polarization is just the start of a process that aims to get people into a state of fear about losing everything, preparing them to accept authoritarian solutions to democratic issues of free speech and coexistence with diversity.

The crystallized Republican strategy and tactics on fraudulent elections

The GOP propaganda and sleaze Leviathan appears to have settled on a strategy to appear rational about an argument that is pure partisan vaporware. Here's the secret: Argue vehemently that Democrats commit vote fraud, but Republicans do not.

It's not true, but it is brilliant. Sheer brilliance.

A Washington Post opinion piece comments:

You might have noticed that many of the same Republicans who insisted that “voter fraud” cast doubt on Donald Trump’s 2020 loss mysteriously don’t see fraud at play in elections that they win. This is routinely described as “hypocrisy.”

But the “hypocrisy” charge doesn’t do this justice. Because embedded in this tactic is something more than mere political double talk. It embodies an actual principle of sorts: that when Republicans lose elections, the voting can be presumed illegitimate or suspect, and when Republicans win them, the voting can be presumed legitimate and above suspicion entirely.

Usefully enough, Rep. Mo Brooks has now stepped forward to confirm this. And the Alabama Republican’s corroboration is noteworthy in light of emerging details about a complex new GOP plan to make this principle actionable in future elections.

Brooks’s latest comes in a New York Times piece that reports on the selective approach that Republicans take with charges of voter fraud. As the Times notes, this exposes a “fundamental contradiction,” in which those charges are used to challenge GOP losses but not GOP wins.

Pressed further by the Times, Brooks blithely suggested that in Alabama, the fraud took place “in predominantly Democrat parts of the state.”

You see, in primaries decided by Republican voters in red areas, the voting is pure and unsullied. By contrast, in general elections that Democrats are trying to steal from Republicans, the voting in blue areas is marred by widespread fraud.

That form of fraud alleged by Brooks happens to be virtually nonexistent. But the point is that the mere assertion that something illicit happened is the coin of the realm here. It’s meant to give some kind of patina of a public rationale for naked efforts to subvert election losses.

I raised the question here before of who is disrespecting whom. I raise it again. This is another reason to raise it again. 

Republican elites and their propaganda and slanders Leviathan claiming that Republican voters are honest citizens, while claiming that Democratic Party voters are evil criminal socialist-communist tyrant pedophiles, and cannibal baby killers, or whatever other bullshit lies and slanders that (i) GOP elites choose to use, and (ii) most of its rank and file (~97% ?) indefensibly and unjustifiably believe.

It is past time to be outraged by corrupt, incompetent, lying neo-fascist Republican elites and their complicit rank and file. They are evil criminals and human scum, not the political opposition.

Questions: 

1. Is that rant over the top, or is there at least a non-trivial basis in fact to support most of that blunt harshness? 

2. Is it OK for Republican elites to call Democrats criminals on the basis of zero evidence because it is just politics?

This insulting stupidity is about what passes for mainstream 

Republican elite propaganda reasoning

The radical right legal onslaught in defense of demagoguery

This is a complex area of legal attack that is heavily shrouded in sophisticated disinformation, misdirection, spin and lies. But as the attack proceeds into laws that are challenged in courts, some of the deceit and opacity are stripped away by court filings that are public documents. The Republican radicals attacking the right of private citizens to control speech are focused on the big social media platforms. 

What is going on right now is a fascinating attack on private platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Radical right Republicans have passed laws that prevent the platform from banning people like the ex-president for bad speech. Those laws are clearly unconstitutional, but this line of attack directly challenges what had been settled law, namely the right of a private entity to control or ban whatever speech it chose for any reason or no reason. 

To try to simplify and clarify what is going on, my analysis and opinion follows:

Radical Republican neo-fascists need unfettered access to big social media to maximize the impact of their divisive propaganda. That propaganda is necessary for success of their run for neo-fascist power and kleptocratic wealth. As discussed here before, most big neo-fascist Republican online sites instantly ban critics and inconvenient truth because it weakens the power of their lies and divisiveness. They demand that the really big sites carry their propaganda without interference. The misdirection here is that the really big sites are targeted, while leaving all the smaller ones free to censor dissent and inconvenient truth. If that analysis is basically correct, and I believe it is, the Republican calculation probably is that the neo-fascist cause will be helped more than hurt by doing what they are now trying to do. 

From what I can tell, Republicans rely on, and their rank and file responds to, demagoguery significantly more than Democrats and independents. The advantage is with authoritarian demagogues over the democrats and honest speech. That is something, arguably a fact, not an opinion, that has been known since at least Plato and Aristotle. 

One troubling factor here is that some liberal judges appear to be buying into this line of attack. Apparently, they cannot see the threat of demagoguery in the form of protected free speech. The radical right myth has always been, the more speech the better. That poison dart is false. But it quite effectively denies or deflects from the fact that dark free speech can be and now is being used to attack democracy. The attack of authoritarian demagogues is not just ongoing in America. It is being applied to all democracies everywhere. Simply put, it is not always true that more speech is better. In the hands of authoritarian demagogues, more speech is worse.

The New York Times writes:

Supreme Court Blocks Texas Law Regulating Social Media Platforms

The law, prompted by conservative complaints about censorship, prohibits big technology companies like Facebook and Twitter from removing posts based on the views they express. 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a Texas law that would ban large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express.

The court’s brief order was unsigned and gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The order was not the last word in the case, which is pending before a federal appeals court and may return to the Supreme Court.

The vote was 5 to 4, with an unusual coalition in dissent. The court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — filed a dissent saying they would have let stand, for now at least, an appeals court order that left the law in place while the case moved forward. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also said she would have let the order stand, though she did not join the dissent and gave no reasons of her own.

Justice Alito wrote that the issues were so novel and significant that the Supreme Court would have to consider them at some point.

“This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this court’s review,” he wrote. “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

Justice Alito said he was skeptical of the argument that the social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment like that enjoyed by newspapers and other traditional publishers.

“It is not at all obvious,” he wrote, “how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”  

The law’s supporters said the measure was an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship, saying major platforms had removed posts expressing conservative views. The law was prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

The law, H.B. 20, applies to social media platforms with more than 50 million active monthly users, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. It does not appear to reach smaller platforms that appeal to conservatives, like Truth Social and Gettr, the law’s challengers told the Supreme Court.  

The law also does not cover sites that are devoted to news, sports, entertainment and other information that their users do not primarily generate. The covered sites are largely prohibited from removing posts based on the viewpoints they express, with exceptions for the sexual exploitation of children, incitement of criminal activity and some threats of violence.

Keeping in mind the advantage of demagoguery over honest speech, just consider (i) how the radical far right justice Alito frame this issue for authoritarian advantage, and (ii) how the Texas law was written for partisan advantage: “It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.” He conveniently leaves out medium and small social media companies. He does not define the concept of large. 

In my opinion, what is in Alito’s mind is partisan advantage for the outnumbered neo-fascists. The six Republican Christian nationalists on the court can conveniently decide such lawsuits case by case. That allows maximum advantage to the demagogues who can (1) force big social media to accept their poisonous democracy killing demagoguery, and (2) which demagoguery sites remain free to reject inconvenient honest speech. Or the radicals can simply define large to maximize benefit to radical right demagoguery while blunting benefits to honest speech as much as possible. When one (i) frames the issue like this, and (ii) considers the differences in mindset between modern radical right conservatives and most everyone else, the possibilities for radical right partisan advantage start to come into view.

Does all of this sound cynical, hyper-partisan or shockingly hypocritical? Maybe, but the scope of objective political reality can include ice-cold political cynicism, foaming at the mouth, self-serving hyper-partisanship and ghastly hypocrisy. As far as I know, no law stands in the way of any of that, just like no law stands in the way of ~99.9% of political lies and deceit. 

Obviously, the demagogues will vehemently deny cynicism, partisanship and hypocrisy. They will demagogue this as just them valiantly trying to defend free speech for the benefit of all. That propaganda conveniently ignores and denies that their speech is poison to democracy, inconvenient truth and some other good things. 

Republican Party success in advancing its climate change goals

The GOP is achieving it's goals for the climate. The New York Times writes:

For four years under President Donald J. Trump, the United States all but stopped trying to combat climate change at the federal level. Mr. Trump is no longer in office, but his presidency left the country far behind in a race that was already difficult to win.

A new report from researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities shows that the United States’ environmental performance has tumbled in relation to other countries — a reflection of the fact that, while the United States squandered nearly half a decade, many of its peers moved deliberately.

The report, called the Environmental Performance Index, or E.P.I., found that, based on their trajectories from 2010 through 2019, only Denmark and Britain were on a sustainable path to eliminate emissions by midcentury.

China, India, the United States and Russia were on track to account for more than half of global emissions in 2050. But even countries like Germany that have enacted more comprehensive climate policies are not doing enough.

The United States ranked 43rd overall, with a score of 51.1 out of 100, compared with 24th place and a score of 69.3 in the 2020 edition. Its decline is largely attributable to the bottom falling out of its climate policy: On climate metrics, it plummeted to 101st place from 15th and trailed every wealthy Western democracy except Canada, which was 142nd.

The climate analysis is based on data through 2019, and the previous report was based on data through 2017, meaning the change stems from Trump-era policies and does not reflect President Biden’s reinstatement or expansion of regulations.

The Republican Party, pro-pollution, pro-corruption, pro-Christian fundamentalism, anti-inconvenient truth and anti-democracy. What a fun party!

Would public showing of images of gun violence help?

This issue is being considered now for some reason. Maybe the fairly close timing of recent mass shootings and murders of innocents is triggering some introspection at least in the mainstream media. Vanity Fair writes: 

“WE CANNOT SANITIZE THESE KILLINGS”: NEWS MEDIA CONSIDERS BREAKING GRIMLY ROUTINE COVERAGE OF MASS SHOOTINGS

As journalists descend on Uvalde—as they did on Columbine, Newtown, and Parkland—some are questioning whether a more graphic approach is required to capture the reality of America’s gun violence epidemic. “It’s time,” suggests one industry leader, “to show what a slaughtered 7-year-old looks like.”

The Texas Tribune’s staff has felt determined to aggressively cover this week’s horrific school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, said editor in chief Sewell Chan, even as they are “exhausted that we have to cover this at all, exhausted that we have to cover this again, and resigned to taking part in what sometimes seems like a numb, meaningless ritual.” In newsrooms across America, a country where mass shootings have become a gruesome facet of daily life, the process has sadly become routine. “We all know the playbook by now. We all know how it unfolds,” Chan added. “The grief, the announcement, the outrage. Some semblance of public debate. And then generally no action. And that has been the pattern, really, for at least two decades, going back to Columbine.”

Indeed, as NPR national correspondent Sarah McCammon put it, “I was in high school when Columbine happened. I had a kindergartener during Sandy Hook. I have an elementary school student now. And I’ve covered so many of these.” With Tuesday’s killing of at least 19 children and two teachers at a Texas elementary school coming on the heels of a mass shooting in a Buffalo supermarket—and amid decades of recurring tragedies in Newtown, Parkland, and elsewhere—journalists and academics are questioning whether the traditional coverage model is adequately capturing the carnage, and even considering whether showing more graphic footage would force the public, and political leaders, to fully confront the sickening reality of America’s gun violence epidemic.

The New York Times writes: 

WASHINGTON — After Lenny Pozner’s six-year-old son Noah died at Sandy Hook, he briefly contemplated showing the world the damage an AR-15-style rifle did to his child.

His first thought: “It would move some people, change some minds.”

His second: “Not my kid.”

Grief and anger over two horrific mass shootings in Texas and New York only ten days apart has stirred an old debate: Would disseminating graphic images of the results of gun violence jolt the nation’s gridlocked leadership into action?

“What makes this a challenging ethics call is that when you’re a photo editor, you never really do know which is the photograph that is going to seem exploitative, and what image will touch the conscience of people and move the needle on the debate.”

Mainstream news organizations sometimes show disturbing images of people who have died to illustrate the horrors of an event, like the photograph by Lynsey Addario of a mother, two children and a family friend killed in March in Irpin, Ukraine, or the image of a three-year-old Syrian Kurdish boy whose body washed ashore in Turkey in 2015. But they rarely show human gore.

“We’re always trying to balance the news value of an image and its service to our readers against whether or not the image is dignified for the victims or considerate toward the families or loved ones of those pictured,” said Meaghan Looram, the director of photography at The New York Times. “We don’t want to withhold images that would help people to understand what has happened in scenarios like these, but we also don’t publish images sheerly as provocation.” 

Noah Pozner was among the first children buried after the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which killed 20 first graders and six educators. Noah hid with 15 classmates in the classroom bathroom, a 4½ by 3½-foot space into which the gunman fired more than 80 rounds from a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, killing all but one child.

Bullets tore through Noah’s back, arm, hand and face, destroying most of his jaw. Mr. Pozner and Noah’s mother, Veronique De La Rosa, held a private, open-coffin viewing before his funeral service, which was attended by Dannel Malloy, Connecticut’s governor at the time. When Mr. Malloy arrived, Ms. De La Rosa took him by the hand to see her son, lying in a mahogany coffin in a room at the back of a funeral home in Fairfield, Conn.  

“I’m thinking to myself, ‘I’m going to pass out. She’s going to show me open wounds and I’m not going to handle it very well,’” Mr. Malloy said in an interview for my book “Sandy Hook: An American Tragedy and the Battle for Truth.”

The damage to Noah’s mouth was hidden by a square of white fabric, so Mr. Malloy was not shown raw wounds. “I wouldn’t have taken it to that level,” Ms. De La Rosa said. But the governor “was still looking at a dead child,” she said. “A child who practically the day before had been running around like a little locomotive, full of life.”  

After Sandy Hook, Connecticut passed some of the most stringent gun safety measures in the nation.

The cognitive biology of it

Human are visual creatures. The human mind is a story or narrative creating machine that operates automatically, fast and unconsciously. We respond to things we see at least as much as we do to things we hear. Without images of reality, people cannot understand that specific reality, but their minds create realities they are comfortable with. For most people, they do not conjure up images of bodies with bullet holes and blood. It is too uncomfortable to most many people to even think that, so they don't. Think of your own experiences. What images of bodies did you think of after hearing about the mass shooting in Uvalde, TX? I guarantee that your mental blankness on this point would not be nearly so blank if you had seen a couple of images of bloody, dead, bullet mangled children.

What a bullet does to living tissue

Yes, leave it to the family to decide whether to release photos or not. Some will not, some will. That would be the family's choice. But given America's gun violence situation, releasing the photos to the public is likely to be more beneficial than harmful. The families should at least have that right as an option to honor their murdered family member.

But do not leave it to the police, the NRA or the Republican Party. They will suppress all images they possibly can because they do not want the American people to see how hideous human on human violence actually is.

Firefighter carrying the body of 1-year-old Baylee Almon, who 

was fatally injured in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995

Acknowledgement: Thanks to SNOWFLAKE for raising this issue on his blog and citing the articles.

Democratic Party detachment from reality and its internal weakness

An article in The Guardian that PD cited discusses the weakness of the Democratic Party. It is weak opposition to the Republican Party neo-fascist threat now gaining power over American government and society. The Guardian writes in a review of the book, This Will Not Pass, Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future:

This Will Not Pass is a blockbuster. Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns deliver 473 pages of essential reading. The two New York Times reporters depict an enraged Republican party, besotted by and beholden to Donald Trump. They portray a Democratic party led by Joe Biden as, in equal measure, inept and out of touch. 

On election day 2020, the country simply sought to restore a modicum of normalcy. Nothing else. Even as Biden racked up a 7m-vote plurality, Republicans gained 16 House seats. There was no mandate. Think checks, balances and plenty of fear.

Biden owes his job to suburban moms and dads, not the woke. As the liberal Brookings Institution put it in a post-election report, “Biden’s victory came from the suburbs”.

Said differently, the label of socialism, the reality of rising crime, a clamor for open borders and demands for defunding the police almost cost Democrats the presidency. As a senator, Biden knew culture mattered. Whether his party has internalized any lessons, though, is doubtful.

This Will Not Pass also amplifies the disdain senior Democrats hold for the “Squad”, those members of the Democratic left wing who cluster round Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Martin and Burns quote Steve Ricchetti, a Biden counselor: “The problem with the left … is that they don’t understand that they lost.”

Cedric Richmond, a senior Biden adviser and former dean of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), is less diplomatic. He describes the squad as “fucking idiots”. Richmond also takes exception to AOC pushing back at the vice-president, Kamala Harris, for telling undocumented migrants “do not come.”

This Will Not Pass also attempts to do justice to Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona senator and “former Green party activist who reinvented herself as Fortune 500-loving moderate”. In addition to helping block Biden’s domestic agenda, Sinema has a knack for performative behavior and close ties to Republicans.

Like Sarah Palin, she is fond of her own physique. The senator “boasted knowingly to colleagues and aides that her cleavage had an extraordinary persuasive effect on the uptight men of the GOP”.

It is not clear what can be done to fix the Dems. At this point, probably nothing. They cannot see the reality of the neo-fascist threat. They are distracted by internal bickering. How the 2022 and 2024 elections will play out ought to make reasonably clear whether the Dems will remain a significant source of opposition.