What is a uniparty?

 ANYONE?

From Ralph Nader to Steve Bannon, self-styled populists and outsiders have disparaged Washington’s “uniparty.” When this critique turns to foreign policy, the uniparty is accused of groupthink and militarism—dragging the U.S. into unnecessary and endless wars while neglecting the concerns of regular Americans.

While the epithet is often overstated and used in bad faith, it contains a kernel of truth. Foreign-policy experts from both parties agree on a lot, and that consensus can lead to poor decisions. The wars in Gaza and Ukraine, as well as America’s geopolitical competition with China, expose a bipartisan problem of this sort that critics of U.S. foreign policy frequently miss.

Today’s uniparty isn’t defined by a zeal to export democracy and launch ill-advised wars against governments that don’t threaten us. Rather, it is defined, on both the Democratic and the Republican side, by a lack of initiative and an urge to do things on the cheap and halfheartedly, to manage crises instead of resolving them. It is also fundamentally dishonest, as it suggests that peace and security can be sustained without major sacrifices.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-uniparty-is-real-but-it-isnt-what-you-think/

You hear a lot of griping about the alleged “uniparty” — really just relatively rare areas of agreement between Democrats and Republicans — but those gripes rarely address the most consequential, and harmful, areas where the two parties agree. Neither party wants to tackle Social Security, Medicare, or any other entitlement-reform proposal; both parties have convinced themselves that tariffs are the road to prosperity; and, to take an example near and dear to my heart, neither party is all that interested in investigating or discussing the origin of Covid anymore. 

Large, irreconcilable differences remain between Republicans and Democrats on such issues as immigration, environmental policy, guns, taxes, religious liberty, the role of the courts, and the politicization of government agencies. That is not to say there are no areas in which both parties are complicit in bad policy. They have both presided over years of ballooning budgets and skyrocketing deficits and have refused to address the entitlement spending at the root of our fiscal crisis.

Sure, there is a de facto uniparty............

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-real-uniparty/

What is the Uniparty?

The uniparty is a political machine that dominates the landscape of American politics, a shadowy entity that transcends the traditional boundaries of the two-party system. Comprised of the establishment elites from both sides of the aisle, this unspoken alliance prioritizes the interests of the wealthy and powerful, maintaining the status quo and stifling any real change that might threaten their dominance. 

Through a complex web of financial interests, backroom deals, and media manipulation, the uniparty sustains itself, creating the illusion of choice while offering little in the way of genuine alternatives. Voters are presented with two sides of the same coin, each offering different flavors of the same failed policies, while those who challenge this system are dismissed as outsiders or extremists.

The uniparty's stranglehold on American politics has far-reaching consequences, undermining the democratic process and eroding trust in our institutions. It perpetuates a system that prioritizes the needs of the few over the needs of the many, leaving average Americans to suffer the consequences of a rigged game.

From taxation to foreign policy, the uniparty's influence is pervasive, and its impact is felt in every corner of society. Its interests are not those of the people, but rather those of the wealthy donors and special interests that keep it in power.

The uniparty is a threat to democracy and a barrier to progress. It represents a political system that has lost touch with the needs and aspirations of the people, and it is time for a change. Only by shining a light on the uniparty's inner workings and rejecting its tired narratives can we hope to restore true representation and democratic values to our nation

https://libertymaniacs.com/en-ca/pages/what-is-the-uniparty?srsltid=AfmBOooQhHNzbFoE_PyDCcKPzRpYiyvYsHMGmkPfNtGuKpYXs7YHxOyu

The "Uniparty" is a term that describes the globalist establishment's control over politics and policy to the extent that every or nearly every major political party or politician are controlled by them and, thus, have far more in common than different, policy-wise. It is essentially synonymous with the deep state, as it retains control almost regardless of which political party or politician is elected.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Uniparty

All makes sense, doesn't it? Doesn't it? 

A physical-chemical basis for memory discovered: What about consciousness & free will?

One of the central issues in neuroscience is understanding the basis of memory. Assuming that memory comes from just (1) regular physical matter (atoms, molecules, cells, etc.), and (2) forces known to science, then this discovery could go a long way toward understanding the basis of memory. A SciAm article describes the discovery:

Brain Scientists Finally Discover the 

Glue that Makes Memories Stick for a Lifetime

A long-running research endeavor reveals key chemical players that cement memories in place—and still more have yet to be discovered 

A milestone in the effort to answer this question came in the early 1970s, with the discovery of a phenomenon called long-term potentiation, or LTP. Scientists found that electrically stimulating a synapse that connects two neurons causes a long-lasting increase in how well that connection transmits signals. Scientists say simply that the “synaptic strength” has increased. This is widely believed to be the process underlying memory. Networks of neural connections of varying strengths are thought to be what memories are made of.

A synapse between two neurons, A and B

In the search for molecules that enable LTP, two main contenders emerged. One, called PKMzeta (protein kinase Mzeta), made a big splash when a 2006 study showed that blocking it erased memories for places in rats. If obstructing a molecule erases memories, researchers reasoned, that event must be essential to the process the brain uses to maintain memories.

[There were some problems with the 2006 study that raised questions about the PKMzeta memory hypothesis]

A new study published in Science Advances by Sacktor, Fenton and their colleagues plugs these holes. The research suggests that PKMzeta works alongside another molecule, called KIBRA (kidney and brain expressed adaptor protein), which attaches to synapses activated during learning, effectively “tagging” them. KIBRA couples with PKMzeta, which then keeps the tagged synapses strengthened.

A synapse showing the PKMzeta and KIBRA "glue" or

"tag" that strengthens the electrical-chemical connection 

between synapses involved in long-term memory

This reinforces one postulated mechanism of long-term memory formation. There are a couple of others the SciAm article discusses. There could be other memory mechanisms that remain unknown. Regardless, this PKMzeta-KIBRA tag discovery appears to be a fundamental step forward. Other memory-forming mechanisms may exist, but at least this one appears to rely only on physical matter and known forces in nature.

What about consciousness and free will?

This research still cannot rule out involvement of something not known to science. Neurons in the human brain can have thousands of synapse connections with approximately 1,000 to 10,000 other neurons. Only some of those are strengthened with the PKMzeta-KIBRA tag the researchers found. But why only some are strengthened is still unknown. Is that selective biological activity a manifestation of consciousness or free will? Maybe so.

Imagine a halo of thousands of synapses connecting 

to thousands of other neurons

The matter and known forces of nature alone still cannot explain consciousness or free will, assuming free will exists. Consciousness does seem to exist and free will probably does too. There seems to be an inexplicable a leap between matter and known forces of nature and manifestations of the human mind such as consciousness and free will.

At the moment, I cannot envision an experiment to test for a way(s) to discover a basis for consciousness based on what we currently know about matter and known forces of nature. Maybe experts can think of one. But at present, there is no definitive evidence that human consciousness requires anything beyond physical matter and the forces of nature. Maybe consciousness and free will are emergent properties of matter and forces of nature. 

Current technology cannot yet fully explain or detect consciousness solely within known material-physical processes. Things like AI-assisted "brain decoding" techniques can reconstruct speech and imagery from brain activity with increasing fidelity. Thoughts processes through AI have been transmitted over the internet, but is a thought like that conscious? I doubt it. Things like that can be called correlates of consciousness, but they are not necessarily consciousness itself.  

There are things we still do not understand. Probably always will be.

If it is all pre-programmed, then maybe 

we do not have free will?

Reframing affirmative action; Recent headlines

Mother Jones published an article about how the Democrats are reframing a potent authoritarian radical right talking point:

The affirmative action of generational wealth. That’s a smart reframing of a longtime conservative hobby horse.

Republican politicians and right-wing media have regularly attacked programs designed to counter the generational impacts of government-sanctioned discrimination in housing, education, and veterans benefits. Now they’re targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs—see JD Vance’s recently introduced “Dismantle DEI Act“—and trying to brand Kamala Harris a “DEI hire.” That’s a laughable assertion. (New York Times columnist Lydia Polgreen argues that the moniker applies more aptly to Vance.)

But the critics of DEI and affirmative action want to have their cake and eat it too. For example, if you, like our Supreme Court, think the use of race as a factor in college admissions should be illegal, that’s your prerogative. But I hope you are similarly inclined to outlaw the practice of elite colleges giving an admissions boost to children of alumni and to students (like Jared Kushner) whose parents are major donors. Because isn’t that, too, a kind of affirmative action?

The issue of framing is critically important in persuasion. Recently, the phrase freedom from has been voiced by some prominent Democrats and opinionators. That was applied in the context of freedom from, e.g., living with personal and economic hardships caused by global warming, and living in fear of mass murders linked to easy access to assault weapons. Maybe the Dems could reframe the socialist epithet as freedom from unregulated capitalism. Claiming freedom from fear of bankruptcy from unregulated capitalism-imposed medical costs might be another reframing opportunity. Another reframe opportunity might be freedom from religious bigotry and oppression from attacks on the LGBQT community.

If reframing sone key issues is what the Dems are considering, they are probably already aware of the fact that if they do reframe, there are two requirements. One is being persistent and disciplined in using their own frames consistently over time. The other is to never get pulled into using Republican framing.* Authoritarian radical right claims of "tax relief" could be turned into "middle class tax fairness" to implicitly point out that the rich already have massive tax relief. Reframing issues around core values like freedom, opportunity, and security, seem like a major opportunity for Democrats. Who knows, maybe the Dems want to improve their messaging game from whatever it is now.

* I posted about how important framing is in political rhetoric. One of the biggest mistakes a person can make is to step into an opponent's frame. By doing that, one put's one's self at a serious disadvantage. When in the wrong frame, a person usually has a much heavier burden of proof to debunk an opponent’s frame. A lot of contrary evidence and explanation is usually needed to overcome a bare assertion, lies or even a little evidence. Responses within an opponent's frame usually need to be too complicated to carry persuasive power.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

 

Something seems to be changing for the worse with DJT, and his campaign, donors and political party. Some headlines carry that message.

Team Trump Makes Arlington Cemetery Fight Way Worse With Army Insult
Gold Star father slams Trump’s 'disgusting' Arlington Cemetery stunt near his son's grave

J.D. Vance Booed by Entire Crowd During Dumpster Fire Speech

If Trump loses, expect a Republican civil war

Trump’s Team Overruled Him on Debate Rules Out of Sheer Desperation

Firefighters Union Boos JD Vance—So He Calls Them ‘Haters’

Donald Trump claims ‘107%’ of new jobs are being taken by ‘illegal immigrants’

Trump Threatens to Jail Mark Zuckerberg for Life

The GOP is making false claims about noncitizens voting. It’s affecting real voters

‘The chilling effect’: behind GOP-led states’ aggressive efforts to stop some from voting

Jack White rips Trump campaign for posting band’s song: ‘Don’t even think about using my music you fascists’

Trump amplifies posts calling for televised military tribunal for Liz Cheney

Elon Musk's X labels NPR story on Donald Trump, Arlington cemetery as unsafe | Censorship

Jim Jordan targets daughter of judge from Trump’s hush money case

Trump Goes Full Fascist in Truth Social Posting Spree

Trump Goes on Crazed, Violent Rant Calling for Death of His Enemies

Trump Shares Social Media Posts with QAnon Phrases and Calls for Jailing Lawmakers, Special Counsel

There is a lot more like that in just the last few days. It feels like something has changed with DJT, but what that may be is unclear. A minor stroke or mental illness flare up? Or, maybe reporting is now more election-focused than a few weeks ago. Regardless, something feels different even if this is just authoritarian radical right politics as usual. 

InfoWars on the legal front

An extremely long post by Steve Vladek includes him defending himself against gross errors (at best) or lies (more likely) leveled at him by a prominent MAGA operative, Carrie Severino, President of the authoritarian radical right Judicial Crisis Network. Vladek is a prominent legal scholar and critic of DJT and MAGA generally. These are some parts of Vladek's post that deal with how Severino attacked and misrepresented him:

I wanted to use this week’s issue to address a piece published by Carrie Severino in the National Review on Friday—titled “The Left’s Lies About the Fifth Circuit’s Reversal Rate.” I’m not usually inclined to engage with Severino (or the NR more generally). But given that I’m one of the people Severino accuses of lying, it seemed worth summarizing exactly what her claim is and then explaining, in detail, why she both (1) completely misstates what I’ve previously written; and (2) makes some pretty egregious data-driven mistakes of her own. The former may help, if nothing else, to correct the record; the latter may be useful more generally because it underscores the dangers of superficial attempts to use data when trying to describe the Supreme Court’s output.

I wrote a piece in July for The Atlantic, titled “The Fifth Circuit Won By Losing,” which attempted to document both how bad a term the Fifth Circuit had at the Court and how much it nevertheless succeeded—both in the three cases in which it was affirmed (each of which came in ideologically charged disputes) and, more generally, in moving the Overton Window with respect to the kinds of arguments that are now viable. Although the piece is behind a paywall, here’s the central claim it made:

But for as bad a term as the Fifth Circuit would appear to have had, it still succeeded in shoving American law far to the right. First, even when the Fifth Circuit lost, it usually picked up at least one vote (and as many as three) from the justices, validating the non-frivolousness, even if not the correctness, of its extremist reasoning. Second, the losses have the effect of making the most radical Supreme Court in our lifetime appear to be more moderate than it in fact is—with the Court’s defenders seizing upon some of the reversals of the Fifth Circuit as proof that, despite a rash of controversial, ideologically divided rulings in other cases on everything from January 6 to environmental law to homelessness, the Court really is “surprising” in its moderation. Third, and most important, the Supreme Court still affirmed three of the Fifth Circuit’s outlier rulings—all in cases in which the three more liberal justices dissented. The Fifth Circuit lost a lot—and somehow it still won.

Enter, Carrie Severino, President of the “Judicial Crisis Network.” .... As she wrote, “In its chastisement of the Fifth Circuit, the Left willfully ignores the broader universe of appeals to the high court, and presents a seriously distorted picture in the process.” .... [S]he argues, anyone who criticizes the Fifth Circuit but doesn’t mention its “wins” or criticize these other courts (“commentators who do not feign scholarly objectivity”) is engaged in a double standard.

5th Circuit = TX, LA, MS

To limit the length of this post, here is what Severino accused Vladek of doing, and his response regarding radical federal appeals court decisions coming out of the hyper-radical 5th Circuit in the last term:

• First, Severino claimed that Vladek said the 5th Circuit has the highest reversal rate by the USSC, which is false. What Vladek said was the 5th Circuit had most USSC reversals of any other circuit, but with three affirmations. But of the three cases that the USSC did not reverse, they where radical right and pushed the legal Overton Window far to the right, which was the main point of what Vladek is arguing. Mistake or lie by Severino? You decide.

• Second, Severino treats all USSC cases as equal, a point that Vladek strongly rejects. Those three 5th Cir. cases the USSC upheld were major in their impact and reach, not medium or small. He points out that the USSC picks the cases it wants to hear and those vary widely in their legal impact. In essence what the USSC is doing is allowing authoritarian radical right cases to be filed in the 5th Cir. and letting that appeals court spew out radical right decisions that the USSC uses to convert the rule of law into radical right authoritarianism. It does not matter that most of the 5th Cir. cases get reversed. The few that are upheld is a major driver of the toxic radicalization of American law. So, is that sloppy analysis by Severino or good analysis? You decide. (IMHO, this is a superb propaganda tactic to obfuscate what the radical right is doing to American law)

• Finally, and this one is wonky (sorry), Vladek argues that Severino cherry picked a USSC emergency ruling to make the 5th Cir. look even less influential than it really is. Again, that reasoning by Severino rests on the flawed analysis that all cases are equally important. Vladek points out that if one includes all the emergency USSC decisions from the last court term, “it makes the Fifth Circuit look even worse.” 

Moving the window to the right or left

makes the radical and unthinkable

seem more acceptable and sensible

Normalizing radical and unthinkable concepts

makes them feel like something they are not

Vladek concludes his article with this:

I don’t know if Severino just didn’t read what she was purporting to criticize, or if she did. But it seems like we all ought to be more careful before we accuse anyone of “lying” about something related to the Supreme Court—especially when our accusations are based upon descriptively and methodologically flawed accounts of our own.

Q: Is a USSC decision about, e.g., a federal trademark infringement case by Jack Daniel's* as important as the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the national right to an abortion, i.e., are all USSC cases about equally important?

* The subject matter of Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products—a squeaky dog toy (Bad Spaniels) that resembles the iconic JD's whisky bottle and label, but with scatological puns in place of the original language on the whiskey bottle.

Fascism revisited, again

Has enough evidence accumulated to reasonably consider DJT, the GOP, Project 2025, Christian nationalism and all the rest of the American MAGA package close enough to old-fashioned fascism to call it fascism or some form of it, e.g., American fascism or soft fascism? DJT and the GOP have certainly gone authoritarian. Project 2025 looks awfully authoritarian and shockingly Dark Ages in some policy areas, e.g., climate science. Some supreme court rulings since the six Republican radicals took control and are now running free and butt naked wild are undeniably anti-democracy and authoritarian.  

Or, is it the case, that given modern circumstances that old-fashioned fascism or something close to that is simply impossible to happen. Lots of people believe that, probably most, maybe ~75%.

Q: What are similarities and differences of the MAGA and Christian nationalist movements and classical fascism?

A: The relationship between MAGA/Christian nationalist movements and classical fascism is complex, with some notable similarities but also key differences:

Similarities

1. Both MAGA/Christian nationalism and fascism emphasize a strong nationalist ideology that references an idealized mythic past. For MAGA, this involves nostalgia for a perceived "great" America of the past, while Christian nationalism connects America's founding and future success to its Christian heritage.

2. There are parallels in hostile attitudes toward intellectualism, education, and science (anti-intellectualism). Christian nationalism is associated with opposition to scientific consensus on issues like evolution and climate change. Classical fascism also promoted anti-intellectual and anti-science views.

3. There are similarities in the emphasis on "law and order" and support for strongman leadership figures. Both movements can display authoritarian leanings.

Differences

1. MAGA politicians generally argue that America's liberal democratic tradition needs to be saved, rather than abolished. Classical fascism explicitly rejected liberal democracy.

2. Classical fascism involved totalitarian one-party rule, secret police, and comprehensive control of society. The MAGA movement operates within the existing democratic system, despite concerns about democratic backsliding.

3. The MAGA and Christian nationalist movements arose in a very different historical context than classical fascism of the early 20th century. They lack the same mass movement character and paramilitary organizations.

Scholarly debate
There is ongoing debate among scholars about how to categorize these movements. Some see clear parallels to fascism, while others argue the differences are significant enough to warrant distinct classifications. Terms like "semi-fascism" or "neo-Bonapartist patrimonialism" have been proposed as alternatives. .... The debate over proper classification remains active in academic and political discourse.

Differences #1 and 2 arguably are more mirage than real. I don't believe either is more true than false. Available evidence strongly indicates that MAGA explicitly rejects liberal democracy. DJT and the GOP are both openly anti-voting rights and anti-free and fair elections.[1] After DJT's 1/6 auto-coup attempt, here is no way anyone can rationally argue that the MAGA movement operates within America's existing democratic system. That is pure blithering nonsense. MAGA has accepted, rationalized and justified the insurrection, elevating that to mandatory core belief in the GOP. 

However, difference #3 is real -- these are different times and circumstances. And, there still isn't a real fascist American paramilitary presence here yet.

Not surprisingly, DJT and the MAGA movement do not refer to themselves as fascist. They are superb propagandists. They shamelessly and cynically claim to be pro-democracy while being at least authoritarian, if not close to fascist.

Other commentary include this from 2022:

“To call a person who endorses violence against the duly elected government a ‘Republican’ is itself Orwellian. More accurate words exist for such a person. One of them is ‘fascist.’” .... Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank dropped the f-word after the Republican National Committee (RNC) on February 4 declared the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol “legitimate political discourse.”

Others—former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and Democratic journalist Ed Kilgore among them—agree that the Trump-appeasing GOP is akin to the European fascists who rose to power between the two world wars. The concern predates the RNC’s endorsement of violence. Frum noted the insurrection itself, while Kilgore detected such parallels to interwar fascism as a “foundational” lie (Nazi claims about German sellouts after World War I, Trump supporters’ claims about election theft) and alliances with “reactionary religious interests and radical elements among the police and military veterans.”[2]

A Wikipedia article comments on Trumpism:

Trumpism is a political movement in the United States that comprises the political ideologies associated with Donald Trump and his political base. It incorporates ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, and neo-nationalism, and has been described as authoritarian and neo-fascist. Trumpist rhetoric heavily features anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nativist, and racist attacks against minority groups. Identified aspects include conspiracist, isolationist, Christian nationalist, evangelical Christian, protectionist, anti-feminist, and anti-LGBT beliefs. 

Trumpism has significant authoritarian leanings, and is strongly associated with the belief that the President is above the rule of law. It has been referred to as an American political variant of the far-right and the national-populist and neo-nationalist sentiment seen in multiple nations worldwide from the late 2010s to the early 2020s. 

Some commentators have rejected the populist designation for Trumpism and view it instead as part of a trend towards a new form of fascism or neo-fascism, with some referring to it as explicitly fascist and others as authoritarian and illiberal. Others have more mildly identified it as a specific light version of fascism in the United States. Some historians, including many of those using a new fascism classification, write of the hazards of direct comparisons with European fascist regimes of the 1930s, stating that while there are parallels, there are also important dissimilarities (links and citations removed to reduce distractions)

Q: Is authoritarianism a better, i.e., more persuasive, label for DJT, the GOP and MAGA than fascism, American fascism, semi-fascism, soft-fascism, defanged fascism (no paramilitary thugs on the streets) or neo-Bonapartist patrimonialism? 

PS: Consider this highly charged interaction: 

Irate neighbor: Hey, you neo-Bonapartist patrimonialist, get off my lawn!

Neighbor kid picking up ball that rolled onto the lawn: Huh?

Footnotes:

1. Also, the state of Georgia has just implemented new rules or laws that allow easy disruption of election results that Republicans refuse to accept. Georgia state government has gone full-blown authoritarian. And, DJT has publicly made clear his seething hate of political opposition, the Democratic Party and a free press. That is definitely authoritarian. 

2. That article included these comments:

Boston University Today: Could the Republican Party be described as either fascist or fascist-leaning?

Historian Jonathan Zatlin: From the historian’s perspective, fascism was a response to problems after 1918—the collapse of multiethnic empires, economic crises—that we don’t have today. If we’re experiencing crises, they’re crises that only superficially resemble what was going on in the interwar period: high inflation, the pandemic [of] the Spanish flu. What we’ve been experiencing the last couple of years are just very different situations. And we don’t have a four-year-long war that killed millions and traumatized a whole generation of young people who found it hard to be integrated back into society and work 9-to-5 jobs, then later experienced mass employment and a Depression lasting years. That, plus weak democratic traditions, led many Europeans to conclude that democracy brought crisis and poverty, and that only authoritarian regimes could ensure prosperity and stability.

One can rationally argue that DJT, his MAGA movement and Project 2025 are all doing their absolute best to weaken, discredit and subvert American democratic traditions and institutions, especially the rule of law and elections.

Beau gets it right!

(who is Beau?)

Brain Imprinting...

Q1: Do you believe everything we’ve ever experienced is imprinted on our brains?  If yes…

Q2: Once imprinted, barring injury (think “needle scratching a vinyl record”), can it ever be deleted/erased?  Or, is it there for good?

Make your case(s).

(by PrimalSoup)