Regarding the disgruntled/confused radical right and the Golden Rule

Authoritarianism: the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom; lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others, i.e., ignoring majority public opinion

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about two surprisingly large groups of grumpy/confused MAGA voters:

What Polls Say About a Key Group: 

Begrudging Trump Voters

The race for the White House couldn’t be much closer. With less than two months to go until Election Day, the latest New York Times/Siena College polling has Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in a campaign with no clear front-runner. Beyond the national numbers, there are key battleground state polls that suggest the same state of play, with Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump essentially evenly matched.

In a race this tight, even a seemingly small development could matter a lot. Swaying a few thousand voters in the right places could make all the difference. In a race with a large portion of voters saying they’ll never vote for Mr. Trump and a nearly-as-large portion saying they’ll never vote for Ms. Harris, the range of potential movement in the electorate is limited.

Love him or hate him, people already know how they feel about Mr. Trump. In the Times/Siena poll, only 9 percent of likely voters say they still need to learn more about him. [Only about 9%?? That’s freaking huge!] If you like him today, you’re almost certainly choosing him. However, there’s a small group I’ll call “begrudging Trump voters” — those who dislike him but plan to vote for him anyway. In the Times/Siena poll, about 7 percent of those who said they would vote for Mr. Trump fell into this category; he gets their votes even though they also say they think of him unfavorably.

These begrudging Trump voters are the most important audience for Ms. Harris to speak to when the candidates debate on Tuesday night. What does she need to do to sway them? I believe the key will be credibly conveying a sense of confident moderation, as a matter of both ideology and temperament.

About 9% still need to learn more about DJT. About 7% dislike him but will voted for him anyway, most presumably seeing DJT as the lesser of two evils. Given how close the election looks set to be, those are two huge groups of voters.

In my opinion, that says a lot about politics. It's not much different than what various groups of people say the bible says or Jesus said. Politics really is like religion in important ways.

It also says a lot about the staggering power of dark free speech. What about rhetoric from DJT, the GOP  and much, maybe most, of the MAGA rank and file? It clearly is far darker, far more disrespectful and far more explicitly threatening compared to Harris and Dem rhetoric. That is a fact, not an opinion.

At the recent Dem convention, both Barak Obama and Bill Clinton said that we need to apply the golden rule to our fellow voters. Give them respect, listen to their grievances and worries, and act in grace and good will with genuine empathy for their intense anger at and fear of political opposition, and their deep distrust of us in the opposition and our preferred political candidates. 

☹️

🤨

😠

🥺

🤔

😱

I confess to a gush of emotional reactions to the reality of authoritarian radical right tactics like dark rhetoric juxtaposed with the much lighter rhetoric of the Dems and the left generally. The preferred DJT/GOP/MAGA policies among many or most on the radical right are openly bigoted (anti-LGBQT, etc.), in open denial of global warming, openly anti-democracy, openly anti-civil liberties, clearly deeply corrupt (anti-rule of law, pro-secrecy, etc.) and deeply authoritarian (a mix of autocratic, plutocratic and Christian theocratic). 

From what I can tell, the feelings, grievances and worries of most of the MAGA rank and file are significantly to mostly based on lies, slanders and flawed, crackpot conspiracy theories and/or reasoning. By contrast, most of the elites are not deceived like the rank and file. They know exactly what they are doing, killing democracy and civil liberties, and what they want, i.e., a lot more wealth and power. How can a person address a grievance that is based on a lie?

Barak and Bill want us go high and to apply the Golden Rule to people who support bigoted, radical right kleptocratic authoritarianism. Is that mostly a form of appeasement or mostly something else?

Can DJT or MAGA authoritarianism be appeased? Will applying the Golden Rule make a detectable difference? I do not know the answer (but have opinions) and cannot change anything. All I can do is watch how this plays out.

Does anyone sense a reality and/or logic disconnect between what Barak and Bill urge and the reality of MAGA? I think there is non-trivial disconnect. So, one final thought in the form of a Perplexity Q&A:

Q: In general, has it been possible to appease and blunt the forces of authoritarianism when they attack non-authoritarian regimes?

A: In general, appeasing or blunting authoritarian forces when they attack non-authoritarian regimes has not been an effective long-term strategy. There are several reasons for this:

Emboldening Authoritarian Aggression 

Attempts to appease authoritarian regimes often embolden them to become more aggressive rather than moderating their behavior. Authoritarian leaders tend to view concessions as signs of weakness that can be exploited further. This can lead to escalating demands and attacks on democratic institutions.

Undermining Democratic Norms
Making concessions to authoritarian forces often requires compromising core democratic principles and norms. This can weaken the foundations of democratic systems from within, playing into the authoritarian playbook of gradually eroding checks and balances.

Salami Tactics 

Modern authoritarian leaders often use "salami tactics," chipping away at democracy incrementally rather than through sudden takeovers. Appeasing individual actions fails to address this gradual erosion and can allow authoritarians to consolidate power over time.

Attacking Vulnerable Groups

Authoritarian regimes frequently scapegoat and attack vulnerable communities to sow division. Appeasing such attacks on minority groups contradicts core democratic values of equal rights and protections.

International Collaboration 

Authoritarian regimes increasingly collaborate to support each other and undermine democracy globally. Appeasing individual authoritarian actors fails to address this broader trend of authoritarian cooperation.

Enduring Impact 

Even if an individual authoritarian leader is appeased or removed from power, the institutional damage and ideological forces they unleashed can persist long after. This makes it difficult to fully blunt authoritarian forces through short-term concessions.

Rather than appeasement, effectively countering authoritarianism generally requires robustly defending democratic institutions, protecting civil liberties, addressing underlying societal grievances, and coordinating internationally to support democracy. While engagement and diplomacy have roles to play, history suggests that appeasing authoritarian aggression often leads to further democratic backsliding rather than moderating authoritarian behavior. 

Can I get a word in edgewise?

 I have decided I need to vote against the Democrats.

Why?

Because I have heard that the Democrats have allowed Haitian refugees who are eating ducks and cats.

And ONLY Trump can protect them.

• Add bookmark
• 
  

This is some serious shit folks, voting for Democrats is voting for Haitian immigrants to come here and eat YOUR ducks and cats.

Vote MAGA!

Bits: Regarding old farts signing documents, etc.

Most of the online MSM news is not new or important, e.g., pundit speculation about what Harris should do or say in the debate tomorrow. Anyway, maybe at least one of these bits could be of some utility to some people. Maybe.

Irrationality: Former President Donald Trump, 78, indicated at a Wisconsin campaign rally Saturday that "people in their 80s" are too frail to competently sign documents. .... Trump would be 80 years old in the middle of his term if he wins the White House in November, and would likely be signing lots of very important documents. .... Underscoring his own issues with aging, Trump made another notable gaffe during his speech, calling Elon Musk "Leon."

Leon Musk? Love it. Whaddabout Odnald Trump?

Whining, slandering & lying: The former president's campaign got the muted mics it wanted—and yet Trump is still trying to save face for a potentially poor showing. .... “They are the most dishonest network,” Trump said of ABC News, in a taped sit-down with Fox News’ Sean Hannity Wednesday, baselessly suggesting that Harris would be provided questions in advance and mocking anchor George Stephanopoulos with one of his pet names—“George Slopadopoulos”—to the delight of his audience. “They’re very nasty. I think a lot of people are going to be watching to see how nasty they are.”

Entrepreneurship: Former President Donald Trump can "probably take money" for pardoning January 6, 2021, Capitol rioters due to the Supreme Court's recent presidential immunity ruling, legal analyst Melissa Murray said on MSNBC's The Weekend on Sunday.

Police state: Florida voters who oppose the state's 6-week abortion ban say they are being visited by police. Critics accuse Gov. Ron DeSantis of seeking to intimidate supporters of a pro-choice referendum. .... Pro-choice campaigners gathered and submitted nearly one million signatures to place on the ballot Amendment 4, a referendum that would overturn the ban and restore reproductive rights in the state. Now Florida's Department of State is claiming it suspects fraud in the signature-gathering process.

Promises of bloody violence: Former President Donald Trump drew fierce backlash this weekend for his latest attack on undocumented immigrants. .... “Getting them out will be a bloody story,” the Republican presidential nominee told a campaign rally in Wisconsin while talking about his mass deportation plan should he beat Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Possible evidence of a new internal wokeness and backlash?: Kimberly Guilfoyle eventually had to ask her audience at the Florida Republican Party annual dinner to clap for her as her awkward speech fell flat in front of an audience of allies. .... “And we are ready, we are willing, and we are able to spark a new era of American exceptionalism,” she added. She paused as a few people clapped and an awkward silence ensued. “You can clap for that!” she said, prompting a few others to join in with the applause.

Rule of the thug: Trump warms up for debate by threatening to jail election officials. .... Trump warned he will jail election officials he considers cheats; is complaining Pennsylvania’s voting is a fraud; vowed to pardon January 6 rioters; railed against women who accused him of sexual misconduct; and spent hours in recent days on sometimes incoherent rants that raised questions about his state of mind.

Authoritarian radical right pro-corruption legal games: Recognizing that the First Amendment does not give elected officials the right to accept bribes is at the core of almost any understanding of illegal public corruption. Yet Larry Householder, former speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, is trying to convince a federal court that bribery is constitutionally protected.** This argument, which Householder raised in a bid to overturn his conviction for taking bribes from a public utility company in exchange for a $1 billion bailout, is likely to lose. But the fact that he raised it at all reflects how deeply the Supreme Court has chipped away at anticorruption protections in favor of a cynical view that corruption is an unavoidable part of politics. 

** That argument reflects a sentiment close to what Clarence Thomas has publicly stated about money in politics. Thomas has said that there is an absolute constitutional right to spend unlimited money in politics and that spending has an absolute right to be spent in absolute secrecy. I don't know how may of the other pro-corruption Republican judges are on board with that idea.

About the plutocrat wing of the MAGA wealth and power movement: The Grayshirts

Plutocracy

A long article The New Republic published last April discusses the authoritarian plutocrat aspect of MAGA, something that is poorly reported. Parts of that article:

Balaji Srinivasan

The Tech Baron Seeking to Purge San Francisco of “Blues”

If Balaji Srinivasan is any guide, then the Silicon Valley plutocrats are definitely not OK

To fully grasp the current situation in San Francisco, where venture capitalists are trying to take control of City Hall, you must listen to Balaji Srinivasan. Before you do, steel yourself for what’s to come: A normal person could easily mistake his rambling train wrecks of thought for a crackpot’s ravings, but influential Silicon Valley billionaires regard him as a genius.

“Balaji has the highest rate of output per minute of good new ideas of anybody I’ve ever met,” wrote Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the V.C. firm Andreessen-Horowitz, in a blurb for Balaji’s 2022 book, The Network State: How to Start a New Country. The book outlines a plan for tech plutocrats to exit democracy and establish new sovereign territories. I mentioned Balaji’s ideas in two previous stories about Network State–related efforts in California—a proposed tech colony called California Forever and the tech-funded campaign to capture San Francisco’s government.

In 2013, a New York Times story headlined “Silicon Valley Roused by Secession Call” described a speech in which he “told a group of young entrepreneurs that the United States had become ‘the Microsoft of nations’: outdated and obsolescent.”

“The speech won roars from the audience at Y Combinator, a leading start-up incubator,” reported the Times. Balaji paints a bleak picture of a dystopian future in a U.S. in chaos and decline, but his prophecies sometimes fall short. Last year, he lost $1 million in a public bet after wrongly predicting a massive surge in the price of Bitcoin.

Still, his appetite for autocracy is bottomless. Last October, Balaji hosted the first-ever Network State Conference. Garry Tan—the current Y Combinator CEO who’s attempting to spearhead a political takeover of San Francisco—participated in an interview with Balaji and cast the effort as part of the Network State movement. Tan, who made headlines in January after tweeting “die slow motherfuckers” at local progressive politicians, frames his campaign as an experiment in “moderate” politics. But in a podcast interview one month before the conference, Balaji laid out a more disturbing and extreme vision.

“What I’m really calling for is something like tech Zionism,” he said, after comparing his movement to those started by the biblical Abraham, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), Theodor Herzl (“spiritual father” of the state of Israel), and Lee Kuan Yew (former authoritarian ruler of Singapore). Balaji then revealed his shocking ideas for a tech-governed city where citizens loyal to tech companies would form a new political tribe clad in gray t-shirts. “And if you see another Gray on the street … you do the nod,” he said, during a four-hour talk on the Moment of Zen podcast. “You’re a fellow Gray.”

The Grays’ shirts would feature “Bitcoin or Elon or other kinds of logos … Y Combinator is a good one for the city of San Francisco in particular.” Grays would also receive special ID cards providing access to exclusive, Gray-controlled sectors of the city. In addition, the Grays would make an alliance with the police department, funding weekly “policeman’s banquets” to win them over.

“Grays should embrace the police, okay? All-in on the police,” said Srinivasan. “What does that mean? That’s, as I said, banquets. That means every policeman’s son, daughter, wife, cousin, you know, sibling, whatever, should get a job at a tech company in security.”

In exchange for extra food and jobs, cops would pledge loyalty to the Grays. Srinivasan recommends asking officers a series of questions to ascertain their political leanings. For example: “Did you want to take the sign off of Elon’s building?”

This refers to the August 2023 incident in which Elon Musk illegally installed a large flashing X logo atop Twitter headquarters, in violation of building safety codes. City inspectors forced him to remove it. This was the second time Musk had run afoul of the city in his desire to refurbish his headquarters: In July, police briefly halted his attempt to pry the “Twitter” signage from the building’s exterior. But in Balaji’s dystopia, he implies that officers loyal to the Grays would let Musk do as he pleases (democratically inclined officers, he suggests, can be paid to retire).

Simply put, there is a ton of fascist-chic cosplay involved. Once an officer joins the Grays, they get a special uniform designed by their tech overlords. The Grays will also donate heavily to police charities and “merge the Gray and police social networks.” Then, in a show of force, they’ll march through the city together.

Everyone would be welcome at the Gray Pride march—everyone, that is, except the Blues [Democrats and liberals]. Srinivasan defines the Blue political tribe as the liberal voters he implies are responsible for the city’s problems. Blues will be banned from the Gray-controlled zones, said Balaji, unlike Republicans (“Reds”).

The Gray Pride march?

Old-fashioned vision of plutocracy in

the days of huge monopolies

Not much reporting has been on-point about the hostility of some arrogant, aggressive billionaires toward democracy, the rule of law as it applies to them (not us) and business regulations. Some billionaires really hate democracy and want it dead and gone. MAGA plutocrats damn well want the rule of law to apply to us so they and their wealth are protected.

Hm. Does any of this remind anyone of something extremely evil and brutal? Hm . . . . . 

Mussolini had his Blackshirts. First organized in 1919, they were groups of thugs marching through Italian city streets and suppressing and disciplining people (especially socialists) they targeted and deemed deserving of punishment.

Mussolini (center, with menacing scowl) 

and his Blackshirt thugs

Hitler had his Brownshirts and Storm Troopers to intimidate and punish those deserving of vigorous suppression or punishment. 

Hitler with his Brownshirt thugs

Now, America has some authoritarian MAGA plutocrats itching to set up the Grayshirts, organized groups of thugs and their paramilitary police who will suppress and brutalize those deserving of proper billionaire-sanctioned discipline. 

Grayshirt thug uniform?

Q: Is significant concern about thug plutocracy unwarranted or moderately exaggerated, fairly close to the mark, or reasonable?

About an interesting tactic to combat authoritarianism & irrational blither

The San Fran Chronicle published a very interesting idea about how to report about the usual blithering nonsense that essentially all radical right authoritarians are forced to spew because facts, true truths, sound reasoning and majority public opinion are usually all against them:

Analysis: Trump’s incomprehensible child care 

comments appear to have broken a dam

In a “30 Rock” episode called “Governor Dunston,” the writing staff of the fictional sketch comedy show is confronted with a conundrum: The newly tapped Republican vice presidential candidate looks exactly like one of the show’s actors, and happens to also be prone to mortifying gaffes. They’ve been handed a comedic golden ticket, but there’s one problem.

The network’s boss insists they shouldn’t write any jokes making fun of the candidate. So the head writer, played by Tina Fey, finds a loophole. Instead of writing jokes, she simply enlists an actor to quote the candidate verbatim.

It is a not-so-subtle sendup of how Fey actually handled a real vice presidential candidate — then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — on “Saturday Night Live” in the run-up to the 2008 election.

Fey understood a valuable truth: In the end, nothing was funnier — or provided a clearer window into her fitness for the job — than Palin’s own words.

It’s a lesson many mainstream journalists are beginning to endorse when it comes to covering former President Donald Trump.

Longtime Boston Globe columnist Mike Barnicle called out major newspapers’ coverage of Trump on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday, suggesting they’re sanitizing Trump’s comments by simply describing them instead of allowing readers to see his actual words in their entirety.

“There’s a false equivalency going on in the coverage of this race, in that Donald Trump can say whatever crazy things he wants to say about submarines and sharks and electric batteries, whatever he wants to say, and it’s not really covered in the sense that it’s covered describing who said it, why he said it and who the man is. … And always in that story, in the false equivalency by too many reporters and too many American newspapers, is ‘By the way, Kamala Harris changed her mind on fracking.’”

Charges that Trump benefits from the media cleaning up his speeches are not new. And plenty of journalists do, of course, scrutinize and fact-check Trump’s bizarre claims. (See, for example, Joe Garofoli’s account of Trump’s speech to the California Republican Party last year, in which he promises to address the state’s wildfire crisis by wetting forest floors.)

But just a day after Barnicle’s criticisms aired, Trump’s comments at an economic forum in New York appeared to break the dam.

When asked what specific policies he would advance to make child care more affordable, here is Trump’s response, in full:

“Well, I would do that and we’re sitting down, you know, I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that because the child care is, child care is you couldn’t, you know there’s something you have to have it in this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to — but they’ll get used to it very quickly. .... [long stretch of blither] .... We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first, it’s about ‘Make America Great Again,’ we have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it.”

The New York Times characterized Trump’s remarks as “an extended discourse on the glories of William McKinley and the power of tariffs to cure all that ails what Mr. Trump called a nation nearing economic collapse.” Not a glowing review, by any means, but it certainly does not paint a full picture of the incoherence of Trump’s musings on a monumentally important policy issue that impacts millions of families.

The Washington Post did not quote Trump’s response in full, but did include substantial portions of it. The story called it a “confusing answer.”

“Here’s my challenge to journalists over the next two months: quote Trump in full,” Max Kennerly, a lawyer and legal commentator, wrote on X on Thursday, alongside a video posted by the Harris campaign of Trump’s comments. “Don’t clean him up, don’t reinterpret what he says in a more sensible way, don’t secretly editorialize. Just quote him. Let the voters see how this man’s mind doesn’t work.”

Journalist Parker Malloy posted the same clip, and wrote: “It really is jarring to read Trump’s comments as he actually delivers them vs. how they’re eventually cleaned up in mainstream news outlets.”

Still, liberal columnist Greg Sargent argued, there’s a difference between highlighting individual speeches or wild comments and taking them seriously as a collective whole.

“What’s really at issue here is whether the media — as an institution, and in a comprehensive sense — is treating Trump’s mental state as an overarching and critically important factor in determining whether he is fit to be president,” Sargent wrote in the New Republic.

But the media appears to be coming far closer to embracing Sargent’s vision for an effective way to cover Trump after this week.

On Friday, an NBC News headline on Trump’s child care answer declared: “ ‘Incoherent word salad’: Trump stumbles when asked how he’d tackle child care.”

The proposal here is simple. Take journalists significantly out of it and let the news source just speak for himself or herself. That's an interesting idea.

For open-minded people who can tolerate reading long stretches of blither, this tactic maybe could change a few minds. If so I'm all for it, even if it is just a few minds. This election still looks to be very close. So, maybe just ~60,000 minds and votes spread across 6 or 7 swing states could be enough to get the job done. Don't sanitize what DJT and the rest of America's authoritarian radical right is saying, just quote it. Let people decide for themselves.

False equivalence vs false balancing

Musing about Germaine's MSM darts

This is a companion post to my other post today, About an interesting tactic to combat authoritarianism & irrational blither. With this included, that post would have been TL/DR.

Over the last few months I've been tossing darts (emails) at reporters, columnists and editors of news sources, including the big ones. Recently, I started applying the term false balancing to situations were news sources refer to DJT and the MAGA wealth and power movement as conservative. I argue that calling radical right authoritarians amounts to false balancing, or bothsidesism. This article raises the issue of false equivalence, a similar concept.

False equivalence (FE) is when a person or organization (not an MSM journalist, columnist or news source) says that two or more things or concepts are the same, when they actually are significantly different. Examples are “politicians are all the same” and “global warming denial is as valid as global warming belief”. Both assertions are false. 

False balance (FB) is similar to FE, but (i) it applies to news reporters or commentators, or generally the MSM, and (ii) usually applies to covering opposing opinions where one opinion has significantly more expert or empirical evidence support than the other. An example is interviewing a person who claims that global warming denial is true and/or equally valid as global warming belief and/or evidence. 

FE and FB are both frequently used to deliberately mislead people in disinformation and deceit campaigns generally. FB applies just to professional journalism, such as it is with its warts and whatnot. The mental leap from the narrower FB to the broader FE concept is small. 

So, could some of my FB darts have maybe nudged a few MSM minds to think more deeply about these two FE/FB deceit tactics? Probably not, but it's fun to speculate. 🤪

Q: Is crackpot or false Faux News opinion content that engages in bad comparisons a matter of FB or FE?

A: FE because the bloviating crackpot opinionologists and liars at Faux are not part of the MSM. They are part of an authoritarian propaganda organization dedicated to deceiving people and killing democracy. Faux does have a real MSM news group, but that reporting is different from what the professional liar-propagandists like Hannity spew on us.