Idle musings about politics, democracy and pragmatic rationalism

The news is rather uninspiring today. Various polls seem to indicate that Harris is now about even with DJT. Her public approval seems to be real. Maybe she can beat back the authoritarian kleptocratic threat that DJT and the Republican Party constitute. 

I haven't posted anything about PR (pragmatic rationalism) recently, e.g.,  post 1, post 2, post 3, etc.  Maybe a revisit is called for. This is a stream of consciousness post, maybe too boring and/or wonky for most people.

We found ourselves at the end of chapter 3 with a dystopian assessment of democracy, an apparent ill-suited match between the mental apparatus of the public and the high-minded requirements of democracy: People should be well informed about politically important matters, but they are not. People should think rationally, but they most often do not. -- Political psychologist George Marcus, Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics, and Politics, 2013 (PR probably is one of those high-minded, out-of-reach ideals)

PR is designed to be an anti-biasing, anti-ideology ideology (or mindset) that reveres (i) facts, evidence and reason-based politics, and (ii) defense of the public interest, democracy, transparency, civil liberties and the rule of law. Those are the core moral values. Those moral values all stand in opposition to what DJT and the Republican Party stand for, regardless of how vehemently they might deny it.

The main idea is to focus on tamping down the aspects of human nature, primarily cognitive biology, social behavior and moral beliefs, that lead to things like the irrationality, bigotry, false beliefs and sometimes violence that often prominently characterizes politics and political rhetoric. That asks an awful lot of most people. More than they can deliver.

Under current polarized social, commercial, religious and political circumstances, PR cannot gain much traction. It asks more than can reasonably be expected, e.g., because facts and sound reasoning often generate unpleasant cognitive dissonance and/or threats to self-esteem. Worse, it is in opposition to more powerful and much more pervasive authoritarian dark free speech. Cognitively heavy facts, truths and conscious reasoning are usually significantly less appealing than fast, cognitively light, and fun (self-affirming) lies, slanders, crackpot conspiracy theories, irrational partisan emotional manipulation, etc. (dark free speech - DFS). DFS is designed to minimize or avoid cognitive dissonance that often accompanies unspun reality and sound reasoning. PR doesn't really stand a chance against DFS under current circumstances.

One thought by a commenter about the human condition posited this: Our human psyche is simultaneously organic and social in nature.

I've constantly cited human cognitive biology (organic) and social behavior, to help explain the human condition doing politics and probably most everything else. PR is in synch with that idea.

Another thought: A key question about humans asks, can I live with others?

A key point of PR is to foster a mindset that lives with and tolerates others, especially including others who are different politically. It is usually easy to tolerate people like oneself politically. But it is usually a lot harder to tolerate those who significantly differ. That has been the case since the polarization US has undergone since the 1960s, and especially since the rise of MAGA. Serious polarization makes it harder, often impossible, to live with or at least tolerate others.  

At least two factors seem to be dominant in the weakening of Americans being able to live with others. One is personal bias, the other is ideology (political, religious, economic, political, philosophical, etc.), both of which have cognitive (organic) and social origins. PR is designed to tamp down the inherently divisive and distrust-fomenting effects of bias and ideology. That ought to make it a little easier to live with others in a tolerant, liberal democracy.  

“One cannot fully grasp the political world unless one understands it as a confidence game, or the stratification system unless one sees it as a costume party. . . . . Finally, there is a peculiar human value in the sociologist’s responsibility for evaluating his findings, as far as he is psychologically able, without regard to his own prejudices likes or dislikes, hopes or fears. . . . . To be motivated by human needs rather than by grandiose political programs, to commit oneself selectively and economically rather than to consecrate oneself to a totalitarian faith, to be skeptical and compassionate at the same time, to seek to understand without bias, all these are existential possibilities of the sociological enterprise that can hardly be overrated in many situations in the contemporary world. In this way, sociology can attain to the dignity of political relevance, not because it has a particular political ideology to offer, but just because it has not.” -- Sociologist Peter Berger in his 1963 masterpiece, Invitation to Sociology, commenting on the poison that ideology typically is for most people most of the time, which modern cognitive and social science has now shown to be basically true (See why PR is an anti-ideology ideology?)

Of course, it is possible to force people to live with each other in a non-democracy society, e.g., a dictatorship or theocracy. But PR rejects authoritarianism and force as deeply immoral (often evil). Free will and choice is the best and most moral possible way for societies to live in peace. 

Societies under authoritarian regimes are power-concentrated, usually also wealth-concentrated. If power and wealth concentration is a reasonable indicator, the US arguably is well on its way to some form of kleptocratic authoritarianism, e.g., a deeply corrupt DJT-dominated MAGA dictatorship. In essence, PR is a moral framework that fosters ethical understanding among people, which tends to have a humanizing effect among people locked in disagreement. If one has no understanding of the "other", it is a heck of a lot harder to have some trust and respect. 

Instead of changing minds, trying to reach stasis, the point at which people in disagreement can state why they disagree is a far more realistic goal than shooting for a change of mind about something. I posted on the importance of stasis in political disagreement a few yeas ago.  

Understanding why people disagree with each other in an online forum like this has at least three significant pro-democracy effects. One is that mutual understanding tends to humanize the one who is understood, which tends to rationalize how we think about others.  The second is onlookers who are not part of the discussion can asses for themselves what, if anything to believe about what the two in conflict are saying and whether the basis for their beliefs is credible or not.  The third is that by laying out one's facts and reasoning for personal political beliefs and behaviors, bias and ideology are directly tested against actual reality far more than discussions that rely only on opinions, personal biases, personal morals and ideology. In other words, trying for stasis is inherently anti-biasing and anti-ideology.  

But getting to stasis is unusual very likely because it forces scrutiny of unpleasant things, especially things that contradict belief or undermine self-esteem or identity. Most people are uncomfortable having that scrutinized. But as unusual as getting to stasis is, changing minds is nonetheless a lot less common. 

In my experience, trolls and political ideologues usually refuse to state why they believe what they believe. The reason is that either (1) they don't care and are just playing nasty games (trolls), or (2) they unconsciously know that they cannot support their beliefs very well or at all (ideologues). I use the quest for stasis to suss out trolls. I banned a troll a several days ago because he/she refused to state their facts. They had their chances but refused, so I whacked 'em. Ideologues are harder to deal with because they tend to conflate opinion with fact, while rejecting inconvenient fact and reasoning as lies and crackpottery (a function of cognitive bias and tribe social loyalty). 

“Time as cyclical, especially when married to the idea of fate and destiny, is inherently conservative, protective of the established social order, established political authority, and dominant traditions. .... In addition, with time as cyclical, the debate between advocates of democracy, such as Aristotle, and those who advocated aristocratic rule, such as Plato, is stable. Nothing new will alter that debate as human nature is fixed and our natures either suit us for democracy, as some have it, or for aristocracy as others have it.” -- Psychologist George Marcus, chapter 3 of his 2013 text book, Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics and Politics, about the difficulty of mindset change -- this hints at why pragmatic rationalism has been such a difficult concept for me to explain and why it can't gain public acceptance in the face of an ocean of normalized and accepted authoritarian radical right DFS (whether it admits it or not, America's mainstream media has also significantly contributed to normalizing and social acceptance of radical right DFS that has poisoned America and torn its society apart)

A rare glimpse of how the USSC works

Our thesis may be simply stated: basic democratic theory requires that there be knowledge not only of who governs but of how policy decisions are made. .... We maintain that the secrecy which pervades Congress, the executive branch and courts is itself the enemy. .... For all we know, the justices engage in some sort of latter-day intellectual haruspication, followed by the assignment of someone to write an opinion to explain, justify or rationalize the decision so reached. .... That the opinion(s) cannot be fully persuasive, or at times even partially so, is a matter of common knowledge among those who make their living following Court proclamations. -- AS Miller and DS Sastry, Secrecy and the Supreme Court: On the Need for Piercing the Red Velour Curtain,  Buffalo Law Review, 22(3):799, 1973 (my blog post on this paper)

Everything degenerates, even the administration of justice, nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity. .... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. -- Lord Acton, 1834-1902

To hell with that mode of operations --

it's busted

The Daily Beast reports about a rare leak regarding internal USSC (US supreme court) operations to CNN:

The Supreme Court has been hit by a new damaging leak over its abortion decisions in a fresh blow to its embattled reputation—and a hint of even more leaks to come.

Intimate details of months of disagreement among the nine justices were reported at length by CNN Monday, just hours after President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both backed major reforms to the court, with the president accusing justices of being “above the law.” CNN also said its report was the first of a series, suggesting more leaks ahead.

The justices are likely to be extremely concerned at the level of detail CNN has obtained about their internal divisions over the case Moyle v. United States. It was prompted by Idaho introducing an extreme abortion ban in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which would have criminalized doctors performing abortions under any circumstances. That move prompted the federal government to introduce formal guidance that hospitals receiving federal Medicare funding had to offer emergency abortions—which Idaho’s Republican attorney general tried to challenge.

Initially Idaho had the case taken up as an emergency by the Supreme Court and got an emergency stay of the federal Medicare move in January on the court’s so-called “shadow docket.”

CNN revealed Monday that the stay was issued 6-3, splitting along ideological lines, a split which had never been known before and should be a secret.

But that split was then followed by sixth months of fracturing among the conservative justices, the outlet revealed. Among the leaked facts were that after a public hearing on the case in April, the justices’ private vote revealed no clear majority for resolution. Private votes of the justices are considered one of the court’s most closely guarded secrets.

Conservatives John Roberts, the chief justice, and Brett Kavanaugh both “expressed an openness to ending the case without resolving it,” CNN reported.

The leak also reveals that Roberts then abandoned normal protocol and did not assign the writing of the majority decision to any of the justices, leading to months of negotiations.

Instead he, Kavanaugh and conservative Amy Coney Barrett worked on an opinion which would call the case “improvidently granted,” a rare move to essentially admit that the court should never have taken it up.

But CNN reveals that the other conservatives—Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs decision, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch—argued from April until June that Idaho should have its abortion ban upheld. Alito was described as “adamant” that the Biden administration was in the wrong, CNN said.

The report reveals that Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh were then offered a compromise in “negotiations” with liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, which was eventually what prevailed: a ruling not that the court had made a mistake in taking the case, but that Idaho had not shown “irreparable harm” by the Supreme Court setting aside its emergency stay of the federal guidelines. The liberals accepted, leading to the June ruling.

Such a lengthy and extensive leak of internal disagreements and the specifics of procedures and draft opinions are likely to cause extreme concern inside the court and particularly for Roberts. A lengthy probe into the 2022 Roe v. Wade leak— called “appalling” by Roberts—saw U.S. Marshals demand access to clerks’ private texts and emails but did not find a culprit.

Given the moral collapse and authoritarian radicalization of the Republicans on the USSC, there is no reason to trust its opinions or its fidelity to democracy or the rule of law. I sincerely hope that CNN leaks and leaks and leaks. The leak of the Dobbs case that overturned Roe was not appalling as the radical authoritarian justice Roberts claims. It is the six Republicans on the bench and the secrecy they demand to operate in that is appalling. And in view of the current circumstances of radical authoritarian extremism, secrecy as usual is ghastly and unjustifiable.

Of course, if transparency is injected into internal USSC operations and decision-making, what might the bad consequences be assuming there would be some? I assume that the six Republicans could simply stop talking to the three Democrats and just do whatever they want without any input from them other than their dissenting or concurring votes and opinions. That would make the USSC just like the House is now (and the Senate probably will be if the Repubs regain Senate control and DJT wins re-election). Raw power is the only thing that counts. 

If it boils down to just raw power in all three branches of government, one can argue that our democracy and the compromise that it demands will be severely damaged. Maybe that is inevitable.

Election updates

Maddow on MSNBC

Deep corruption: Last night, Rachael Maddow show made three disturbing but important points on her show. First, she reviewed the evidence that DJT does policy flips after meeting with billionaires who what a policy change from him. She pointed out that happened with Bitcoin, electric cars, TikTok and Anheuser-Bush regarding its evil "woke" Bud Light beer. In each situation, DJT did a complete reversal after a meeting with super wealthy people or lobbyists involved in those businesses. Basically DJT is for sale, as he has indicated in the past.

4-minute flip-flop video

Plutocracy: Second, Maddow asserted that billionaire Peter Thiel said that democracy is incompatible with freedom and he chooses freedom. Presumably freedom to people like Thiel means plutocracy with super-rich people like him above the law and completely unburdened by taxes, regulations, social conscience and any accountability for his bad actions and inactions. That is true plutocracy. For context, Thiel was responsible for getting JD Vance elected to the US senate via a $15 million donation to his campaign..

Election subversion: Third, Maddow played three video clips of DJT at three different campaign events telling people in the crowd that they do not need to vote for him in the 2024 election because he already "has plenty of votes." Maddow questioned why a candidate in a close race would ever say such a thing multiple times. Her interpretation of that strikes me as probably (~90% chance?) correct. She argues that DJT has no intention of winning the election by votes, but instead he plans to subvert the election itself. 

For evidence, Maddow pointed out that hard core 2020 election deniers have been put in key election subversion positions in several counties in some battleground states. Those election officials can prevent a state from certifying the state's votes by refusing to certify the votes in the counties where they can block certification. Maddow's hypothesis seems highly plausible because, (1) DJT tried to subvert the 2020 election via a violent coup attempt, and (2) those election officials have already been recalcitrant about certifying vote counts in their counties. Those officials need to be removed from office and jailed for treason.

"Free speech absolutist" and shameless hypocrite Musk

Multiple sources are reporting that Musk has suspended a pro-Harris X account after it raised money for her campaign. yahoo News reported:

‘White Dudes for Harris’ X Account Suspended After Raising 

$4 Million for Kamala Harris

The X account for the White Dudes for Harris campaign group was suspended on Monday, apparently just minutes after its debut fundraising event raised $4 million for Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential bid.

Asked on his personal X account why the organization, which boasted over 13,000 X followers, was blocked, organizer Ross Morales Rocketto responded, simply, “Got Elon Musk scared.”

“The ‘free speech absolutist’ has now suspended White Dudes for Harris. Presumably for raising $4 million in a few hours. The fascists are terrified. Good,” wrote one verified supporter.

This is more evidence of the intent and tactics that America's radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement plans if it gains control of the federal government. Free speech is only for the elites, not political opposition or independent thinkers in dissent.

Peanut gallery commentary:

Musk is a frothing hypocrite who only supports free speech for racists.

We severely fucked up as a society if someone with a petulant 6th grader mentality has that much money and influence over folks.

It's precisely because he came into that much money that he hasn't had to develop any sense of maturity, civic responsibility, or basic manners.

Where are the right wingers that cry about censorship?

They lied about the left doing it so now they can pretend to be justified in actually doing it themselves. A lot of right wing projection is this way. That is literally the fascist playbook.

Fiddly bits: Petition to sign; Trump says he is not Christian; New use for Wi-Fi jammers

MoveOn.org has is collecting signatures on a petition to have Clarence Thomas impeached. The petition is at this link and it takes a few seconds to sign it, just be sure to uncheck the box at the bottom of the petition if you do not want emails from the group. There are close to 1.39 million signatures so far.

Get out there and support Clarence by

getting him impeached! He deserves it!

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

In this 26 second video clip at 17-18 sec. into the clip, DJT says "I'm not Christian." 

I've listened to that part of the video repeatedly and it really does sound like he said what the captioning says. A Daily KOS article comments on this exact point:

Did Trump Confess: "I'm Not Christian?" 

2nd Update: Guardian Drops Quote

Update: I’ve read the comments that he was actually saying, “I’m a Christian.” Listening to the clip some more, I’m not sure either way. The Guardian story linked by B sides in the comments is still up, so for now my title is in the form of a question. I have also added an “unproven” tag.

“You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians. 

I love you, Christians. I’m not Christian.”

I’ve listened to the clip, over and over, not really able to believe what I heard, but there it is.

Donald Trump has finally come forward to clarify his position on Christians. He loves them, for their votes, but he is not one of them. 

Personally, I think that line is more politically dangerous than admitting he doesn’t intend to let people vote again if he gets back in office. Heck, we knew that.

But coming right out and admitting he’s no believer, just a huckster hustling the Christians for their votes? That’s new.

And, imo, it should be news.

According to Wikipedia, rational people of good will should practice the Principle of Charity, which requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

In a case like this, what is the best, strongest possible interpretation? If one adopts DJT's mindset and intent, he would say he said "I'm a Christian", not "I'm not a Christian." If one adopts the mindset of a rational pro-democracy person of good will, knowing that DJT is a chronic liar, a bullshitter** and a grifter, one can easily say that he accidentally said "I'm not a Christian" and is lying when he denies it.

Q: Did he say it or not?

** Bullshit: Rhetoric without concern for truth or falsity, but instead focused on telling good story and/or persuasion by any means, rational, truthful or not.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

tom's Hardware reports about a new use for Wi-Fi jammers:

LAPD warns residents after spike in burglaries using 

Wi-Fi jammers that disable security cameras, smart doorbells

Wilshire-area neighborhoods were told to be particularly vigilant

About DJT & American authoritarianism -- another warning

Notice: For people who don't want to hear more criticism of DJT or warnings about the threat of American radical right authoritarianism, ignore this post.

CONTEXT

On Jan. 6, 2021 I posted this in intense anger and moral outrage:

Trump's Attempted Coup Is In Progress Right Now

2:25 PM EST

News sources are reporting now on the attack on the US Capitol by enraged Trump supporters. Capitol police have been overwhelmed and pushed back. Congress has been told to shelter in place until more police can be brought in. Meanwhile, the seditionist Trump does nothing because he is a tyrant who wants to topple democracy.

All blood that will be shed, if any, is on Trump's filthy, treasonous tyrant hands. Radical right GOP Republicans in congress are also fully culpable for all violence and deaths, even the ones who feebly pretended to be distressed by this possibility.

At the time, people who called it a coup attempt were criticized as alarmist, liars, hyperbolic, brainwashed, communists, Democrats, traitors, stupid, etc. Some Americans today, e.g., most Republicans (~95% ?), still do not see it as a violent coup attempt or as fomented by a morally rotted, kleptocratic dictator and America's lying fraud and Fornicator-in-Chief. I still see it that way.

American authoritarianism

The American Autocracy Threat Tracker analyzes commitments by autocratic actors to implement in our country in 2025. History teaches us that threats to assault core democratic principles should not be taken lightly. On the contrary, contemporary lessons from backsliding democracies like Hungary, Turkey, and Poland, not to mention from more ominous historical parallels, are that autocratic plans must be taken seriously. Conversely, social science data and lived experience teach us that big tent pro-rule of law coalitions that are multi-ideological and multi-partisan are an antidote to autocratic advance and have a proven record of success.

The Autocracy in America conference will sound the alarm on this rising threat in the United States— and advance both short- and long-term responses.

A WaPo opinion (not paywalled) by Jennifer  Rubin opines:

Last week, I participated in the Anti-Autocracy Conference. I was joined by a bipartisan assortment of academics, activists, whistleblowers from the Trump administration, lawyers, journalists, civil society leaders, and current and former elected officials, plus a lively audience, all to discuss the looming threat to pluralistic democracy.

Many participants noted that the authoritarian threat is well underway. The MAGA GOP rationalizes a violent coup and refuses to commit to respecting the election results; its nominee dabbles in Hitlerian language; a radical, right-wing Supreme Court damages our constitutional system by granting the president broad criminal immunity; and, an array of state laws aim to suppress voters.

Kicking off the proceedings, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a leading scholar on totalitarianism, explained:

This is an anti-autocracy conference because autocracy is what we are looking at if Donald Trump is reelected.

I know many Americans feel this is hyperbole, even after MAGA attempted to overthrow the government to keep Trump in office illegally. In my line of work, we call this a coup attempt. Even now, Trump is continuing to use his rallies to market strongman rule to Americans. Just a few days ago he praised Xi Jinping, a Communist dictator, as “brilliant” because he rules with an “iron fist.”

She explained: “Project 2025 is a recipe for mass chaos, abuses of power, and dysfunction in government. It aligns not only with the agendas of present foreign autocracies, especially the Hungary of Viktor Orban … but also with the policies of past dictatorships.”

Norm Eisen, co-founder of State Democracy Defenders Action✓ .... told me, “There is much more that unites us as Americans than divides us.” He laid out 10 principles at the conference that “define what a long-term right, left and center coalition would look like to unify the vast majority of Americans against Trump’s authoritarianism and ensure that the American democratic tradition continues — and that Trump led autocracy is permanently banished from the American political scene.” These principles boil down to:

1. Democracies rest on rule of law; someone who denies the sanctity of the Constitution and serially violates our laws cannot be president.

2. Democracy cannot survive without truth, facts, science and evidence.

3. Free and fair elections are the essence of democracy, where power resides in the people.

4. Civil discourse must be the means to resolve differences; compromise is essential to governance.

5. A democratic government cannot operate without an independent, nonpartisan civil service, and subject matter expertise is essential to good government.

6. An ethical government free from corruption and self-interest is essential to our democracy.

7. The United States is the indispensable nation for international stability, economic prosperity and democracy. Our military takes an oath to the Constitution, not to a single leader.

8. Democracies require and ensure widespread prosperity. Democracies that deliver economically for citizens require a domestic calm, commitment to the rule of law and opposition to cronyism.

9. A vibrant, independent press is vital to democracy.

10. Equality and civil rights (“All men [and women] are created equal”) are foundational to our American creed.

The good news: These ideas might provide the glue to hold together the anti-autocracy coalition if they can gather support across the ideological spectrum.

One can quibble with some of those principles or how they are worded, but in them and the other parts of the opinion I quoted, the key moral values and warnings I have been arguing for years are all there. Democracy over authoritarianism, rejection of DJT and MAGA, respect for the rule of law, civil liberties (we are all equal), and truth, facts, science and evidence, transparency in government (anti-corruption), free and fair elections, etc.

Fact checking DJT; A quick character update

An opinion the NYT published (not paywalled) was a fact check of DJT's 90-minute acceptance speech. Here are some of the lies the NYT fact checked:

Jobs

Lie: “The only jobs [President Biden] created are for illegal immigrants and bounce-back jobs — they’re bounced back from the Covid.”

Inflation

Lie: “It’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore. They can’t — you look at the cost of food where it’s doubled, and tripled and quadrupled. They can’t live. They’re not living anymore.”

Tax cuts

Lie: “What we did was incredible …. We got the largest tax cut in history.”

Tariffs

Lie: “[Tariffs are] not going to drive [prices] higher. It’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like China — and many others, in all fairness to China — it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money.”

Immigration

Lie: “Americans are being squeezed out of the labor force and their jobs are taken. By the way, you know who’s taking the jobs, the jobs that are created? One hundred and seven percent of those jobs are taken by illegal aliens.”

Presidential ranking

Lie: “[President Biden is] without question the worst president, the worst presidency in the history of our country.”

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Leopards don't change spots. DJT does not change his character. The NYT writes:

Early in his speech in Minnesota on Saturday night, former President Donald J. Trump made clear just how quickly he has jettisoned the appeal for national unity that he made after he survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania two weeks ago.

“I want to be nice,” Mr. Trump said. “They all say, ‘I think he’s changed. I think he’s changed since two weeks ago. Something affected him.’”

But to a cheering crowd of thousands, Mr. Trump quickly conceded the point. “No, I haven’t changed,” he said. “Maybe I’ve gotten worse. Because I get angry at the incompetence that I witness every single day.”  

During a speech lasting roughly 90 minutes, Mr. Trump called Ms. Harris “evil,” “unhinged” and “sick.” He lied about her views on abortion in an effort to paint her as extreme, and he mocked her laugh and her demeanor. 

“We have a brand-new victim,” Mr. Trump told thousands of people inside the Herb Brooks National Hockey Center in St. Cloud, Minn. “And, honestly, she’s a radical left lunatic.”

Kilotons of hypocrisy? . . . . . Sounds about right.