Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
Lots of Americans are ignorant or misinformed about a lot of important things. Tom Nichols posted this bit of data on Bluesky. It's from a 2022 YouGov poll.
Nichols wrote the 2017 book The Death of Expertise (book review here). His key points include (i) there is a growing belief that everyone's opinions are equally valid, regardless of expertise or knowledge, (ii) many people are increasingly resistant to learning and hostile towards established knowledge, despite having unprecedented access to information, and (iii) metacognition, the ability to recognize one's own limitations and lack of knowledge in certain areas, is important to understand for democracy to survive in the face of toxic social media and dark free speech generally. He argues that rejection of expertise poses significant risks to society and democratic institutions.
I too, am dismayed, that Trump won so easily. So, spending the last couple of weeks reading what the pundits have had to say and listening to talk radio, everyone is an expert all of a sudden on HOW it happened and WHY it happened.
It's coming to Canada too. The talk has started. And when the ruling Liberals lose, and the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre win, the same experts and pundits will have their say.
Just for fun, after the Trump win, one radio program I listened to decided to simply gauge their audience and the results might surprise you.
Not much about the well-oiled Republican propaganda machine, not even much about Kamala not being a good choice. Every day Americans calling in and simply saying............. we aren't being listened to.
I hear it here too now. Here in Canada. Just every day people saying Trudeau has tuned them out. They are getting fed up with being ignored.
Now, before I go further - even if Poilievre wins, he is NO Trump. There will be no attacks against abortion rights, or gay marriage or any move to "replace" our universal health care. But the themes will be similar......
Americans "felt", whether we acknowledge the fact or not, that the left and Democrats were tuning them out. The fact that Trump will do worse didn't factor into their calculation. Or maybe it did factor in, and they decided, hey, you ain't listening to us so what do we have to lose?
Tent cities. Unchecked illegal immigration. Transgender males beating girls in sports. Being forced to use the correct pronouns. Unsafe streets. Rising food prices. Watching anti-Semitism rise on college campuses. Being told constantly that we are being bigots for being upset by the things that we see.
Now in Canada, the same dialogue.
In the town I lived for 30 years prior to moving back there was NEVER a tent city. Now tent cities everywhere. Rising crime as well. Complain, and be called intolerant, bigoted, small-minded.
People are angry. Not as angry as Americans, because, well because Canadians aren't quite as angry in general as Americans tend to get. Is it OK to say that?
Now the ads have come out, and you would swear they resemble the attacks made by the Right in the US, just watch........
Could the message be any more obvious? And how will the Liberals respond? Like this...............
A positive instead of a negative ad. As it should be................
Problem is, it dismisses grievances that Canadians are expressing. It simply says we are a great people and should all get along. But when you speak against issues the left support, you get put down. You don't "get it."
So, when you hear and read "how could Americans have voted for Trump, is something wrong with Americans? Were they hoodwinking? Were they taken in by rightwing media and Fox? Were we stupid?'............
THEN, you will know why Americans voted for Trump and likely,why Canadians will vote for Poilievre.
A recent Bill Maher show interviewed physicist Neil Tyson and former DNC chair Donna Brazile. Maher mentioned to Tyson a Dem argument that men and women are treated differently because of social structures, not because of biology. Maher said "that's nuts." After multiple attempts by Maher to explain the problem, Tyson refused to agree the Dem dogma-reality disconnect is real. Maher ended that bit by saying "OK, I'll put you down as part of the problem." I agree with Maher on this point.
When asked why the Dems lost the 2024 elections, Brazile was far worse than Tyson. Her answer (paraphrasing), "inflation was a beast we could not slay", was right for the wrong reason and it ignored the rest of the answer. The data I've seen so far indicates that inflation, illegal immigration at the border and aggressive wokeness, including like what Tyson was trying to assert, were the top three reasons the Dems got blown out.
Regarding inflation, the GOP effectively put all blame for inflation on Biden and Harris. The beast the Dems could not slay was the false narrative that inflation was all Biden's and Harris' fault. The data I am aware of indicates that the top three causes of recent inflation were mostly (i) serious supply chain problems due to COVID (that is the reason I wound up with a Tesla instead of something else), (ii) Russia's war on Ukraine, and (iii) corporate greed. Biden's spending bills (mainly COVID relief and infrastructure bills) came in a distant 4th, not a close 4th. In other words, Brazile let the false MAGA narrative stand unchallenged. Worse yet, she did not even mention illegal immigration. Even worse than that, when the Republican in the interview mentioned aggressive wokeness was one of the causes, she simply denied it was a relevant factor.
In my opinion, as long as Dem and liberal elites stay so shockingly wrong, clueless and rhetorically ineffective, they will remain out of power. They are not woke about themselves or American society generally.
In my opinion, there is a massive, ongoing attitude shift from staunch support for democracy to support for both authoritarianism and corruption in government. From what I can tell, a significant amount of rank and file support, probably most, comes from ignorance about what is really going on. The rank and file vigorously say they are pro-democracy and anti-corruption, but in my opinion, their votes say the opposite with equal vigor, but a lot more political impact.
But now for the first time, I've seen a defense of authoritarianism and kleptocracy openly asserted by a person who says they are pro-democracy and pro-reasonably helping people in real need (pro-service to the public interest, in my opinion). The reasoning goes about like this:
Authoritarianism or kleptocracy is not producing current excesses. Instead, the main culprits of widespread discontent and anger are a combination of American culture, skewed distribution of income and wealth, abuse of public and personal budgets (debt), and a poor alignment of education with available jobs. That situation in America produces a negative feedback loop leading us into deeper debt to keep people afloat while worsening the money gap (federal debt). That is an outcome of democracy, which isn't perfect, because people aren't.
How one can reconcile support for (or neutral acceptance of) authoritarianism and deep corruption (kleptocracy) with support for democracy and service to the public interest is beyond me. I do not know how to pound square pegs into smaller round holes. Is that the wrong way to see it?
Although people and democracy are not perfect, I also cannot understand why necessarily imperfect authoritarians and kleptocrats would not lead to worse income skewing and debt than our necessarily flawed democratic system. Again, I see square pegs and smaller round holes. Things can be a hell of a lot worse than they are now. In terms of fiscal policy, the Dems have been far less pro-debt than the Repubs at least since the 1990s. Compared to the Dems, the Repubs stand most solidly for federal and personal debt, authoritarianism and deep corruption.
What am I not understanding here, if anything? I really do believe there is a lot of ignorance and false beliefs going on here. I recently tried to make it clear that too many people do not know the difference between democracy and authoritarianism. I still stand by that belief and the facts and reasoning that support it.
The effort to get official party status for the Common Sense Party of California has more or less ended in failure. The group could not get the ~75,000 signatured needed to qualify for official party status. I ended my affiliation with the group. Lots of people bitch and whine about how horrific the two parties are, but they are either ignorant about politics and opposition, or they won't or can't lift a finger to even try to put up a fight. So, the status quo remains in serenely place unchallenged, fat, lazy and happy.
Double nuts
Summing up the nut harvest: In California, the Green Party is socialist. That's nuts. The Dems are clueless woke. Nuts. The Libertarian Party is enslaved to its sacred property and personal rights crackpottery. The LPs are completely unaware that there even is such a thing as the public interest. Double nuts. The California GOP is just as double nuts as it is in other states. The Peace and Freedom Party ("California's Feminist Socialist Political Party") is more aggressively and cluelessly woke than the Dems. Double nuts. The American Independent Party is hard core Christian nationalist theocrat, and it tries to hide that fact from the public. Triple nuts.
My goodness gracious, there a lot of nuts in the harvest this year. And last year. And next year. . . . . . .
This 1 page Nov. 22, 2024 order by judge Merchan indefinitely delays sentencing in DJT's massive fraud trial. He was convicted by a jury of 34 felonies for business fraud in New York state. One of the felonies was the Stormy Daniels hush money payoff.
The judge here, a state judge, not federal, gives DJT permission to file for complete dismissal of the case. No explanation is given.
That order to delay is the direct effect of the radical right authoritarian supreme court's decision to grant immunity to Trump for crimes committed while he was in office. Trump committed those felony crimes before he was elected as president in 2016.
So why the delay? The only answer that makes even a little sense to argue boils down to this: Legally, he is the president-elect. DJT will argue that a president-elect is immune from crimes committed as a regular citizen before being elected as president. Second, and if the 1st argument fails, that president-elect status extends to the existing grant of presidential immunity, even if DJT committed his crimes as a regular citizen.
Does that make one shred of sense? Not to me. It certainly does to DJT and all or nearly all of his supporters. And, I am coming to believe it probably makes sense to a lot of people who are not DJT supporters. Why? In my opinion it is mostly due to sympathy for authoritarianism among Americans who have been taught to distrust and even hate democracy, whether they know or believe it or not.
Does that make any sense? Absolutely not, in my staunchly pro-democracy opinion. By definition, authoritarians can be as corrupt and brutal as their power and circumstances allow. In a democracy, the rule of law is supposed to restrain at least some of the more egregious brutality and theft. Those restraints do not exist under authoritarianism.
In my firm opinion the American rule of law is crumbling in real time, right now.
Peanut 1: Can someone help me make this make sense? He was tried and convicted while not president of crimes he committed while not president. He still isn't president right now when the sentencing was pushed out to for some reason. He was then elected president
What does the one have to do with the other? I understand the doctrine of sovereign immunity. I get that. The president can't be sued or tried for illegalities committed in office as part of his regular duties. But that's not what ANY OF THIS IS. So what the hell is going on here? I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like I'm a pretty smart guy and I can't come up with a way that this makes any sense.
Peanut 2: The judge is a coward is what's happening. He doesn't want to be the judge to order Trump to appear for sentencing and then be expected to answer the "now what" question that must be asked when Trump says, "No." There's a term for this when analyzing the rise of authoritarianism as well as fascism. It's called "preemptive compliance," and it's one of the warning signs that shows that it's almost too late to stop it.
Peanut 3: Exactly. He should have sentenced Trump in September. It would have made no difference anyway as he would have appealed it. The judge is probably afraid of getting sent to Guantanamo bay. And he might be right.
Peanut 4: The darkly hilarious thing is that if he's doing this because he's afraid of the new emperor coming after him...this doesn't prevent that. It guarantees it.
In response to my question 3, Perplexity summarizes deeper complexity of the legal landscape in answer 3.
A3: The judge's decision to delay sentencing in Trump's hush money case, despite the crimes being committed before he was in office, is not directly related to presidential immunity. There are several factors at play.
1. Legal complexities: The case presents unprecedented legal questions about sentencing a president-elect for crimes committed before taking office.
2. Procedural considerations: Judge Merchan is allowing Trump's legal team to file a motion to dismiss the case, giving both sides time to present arguments.
3. Practical concerns: Prosecutors acknowledged that sentencing might not occur until after Trump's potential term ends, given the unique circumstances.
4. Separation of powers: The court is likely considering the balance between the judicial process and the executive branch, given Trump's status as president-elect.
5. Pending motions: The judge has also delayed ruling on whether the Supreme Court's recent presidential immunity decision applies to this case, which requires further review.
My response to those legal concerns are:
1 and 2 are bullshit -- all of this will either be decided by the US supreme court or New York state will figure a way to weasel out and let DJT off scot-free
3 is direct evidence of shocking weakness in the American rule of law for elites, i.e., waiting until DJT is out of office in 2028 (assuming he will ever be out of office again in his lifetime) is a complete failure of the rule of law -- America really does have a two-tiered system of law
4 separation of powers questions are for the supreme court to decide, not for a state trial judge who is obligated to follow the rule of law in New York as it exists right fracking now -- it does not matter what Merchan decides, because the case will go to the supreme court no matter what or, the law in New York will be chicken shit and unilaterally drop the prosecution and sentencing in some way
5 is also bullshit -- it clearly contradicts Perplexity's assertion that this is is not directly related to presidential immunity
Q: Is all of that way too hyperbolic, regular hyperbolic, almost hyperbolic, basically correct, spot on or an elephino*?
* Elephino: What you get when you cross an elephant with a rhino.
What is going to happen next is becoming pretty clear, pretty fast. It is going to be authoritarian, ugly and shockingly corrupt. What to do next isn't obvious. Most of my common sense-grounded predictions are well on their way to being more right than wrong. No surprise there. He's doing what he said he was gonna do and tried to do the last time.[1]
Reflecting on America's current political situation, its feels reasonable to think that my understanding of the war between deeply corrupt authoritarianism and less corrupt democracy was significantly off the mark about the democracy side of the war. It appears to be significantly more corrupt and authoritarian than I previously believed. That reassessment comes from factors like (i) blind Dem support for the corrupt authoritarians running Israel and their goal of making criticism of Israel by American citizens illegal, and (ii) the plutocratic neoliberal wing of the Dems, which is in control. In essence, the Dem party has its own internal deeply corrupt plutocratic authoritarian war going on against already unacceptably corrupt democracy.
I now think that internal war has made the Dems rather ineffective in dealing with at least ~20 years of constant Repub attacks on democracy and inconvenient facts and truths. The war seems to be better framed like this: Deeply corrupt radical right authoritarianism (autocratic, plutocratic, theocratic) against too corrupt democratic-plutocratic impulses. That doesn't look very good for democracy.
Worse, the MSM seems to be buckling under the open threat of radical right authoritarianism and the pressures of corporate ownership and demands for profit. Since Bezos bent his knee to protect his wealth in the face of DJT's very credible public threats, the tone of the WaPo has begun to change for the worse. I won't renew my subscription when it ends next April. The NYT is already under a massive threat that could put it out of business, i.e., a $10 billion defamation lawsuit. All or most of the rest of the non-MAGA mainstream media is in disarray and under intense economic pressure to simply survive.
There is a hint that some in the non-MAGA MSM are starting to sense a deadly threat to democracy. What will lead to, if anything at all, is unclear. A WaPo opinionologist (not paywalled) put it this way, democracy needs a different model for journalism. Well, duh. One could reframe that as journalism needs a different economic model. The opinionologist suggested a non-profit model based on what ProPublica is doing.[2]
I support ProPublica and recommend it to anyone who can afford to donate. It may wind up being among the last survivors standing in defense of democracy. Capitalism is implacably hostile to professional journalism, so the money for operations has to come from a different economic model. MSNBC and CNBC are up for sale and they could, probably will, wind up under the control of a MAGA billionaire or consortium. Again, all forms of authoritarianism are incompatible with professional journalism. Bye, bye Rachael Maddow, hello morally rotted, lying, slandering, crackpot MAGA propagandist.
Q: Is American democracy and honest governance on a bumpy road, in a rough patch, on the way to being great again, and/or something else?
Footnotes:
1. The one important prediction that might be going off the rails is about DJT handing Ukraine to Putin by a mutual agreement, presumably in secret, followed by mass slaughter of Ukrainians. It may be the case that Putin is going to be openly contemptuous of DJT and his blither about ending the war in one day. A lot of Russians are dead. Putin is probably implacably furious and out for bloody revenge, regardless of DJT's nonsense.
Complicating the analysis is Biden's unexpected decision to allow the Ukraine to shoot long-range US missiles into Russia. In response, Putin issued a warning that aggressive move gives Russia the right to use nuclear weapons and to attack countries that supply the missiles. We just inched closer to nuclear war, in Ukraine, NATO and/or the US. Regardless, one probably can still reasonably expect the start of mass slaughter of Ukrainians in the next 2 years. NATO seems to be a steaming pile of uselessness.
What's the range, ~100 mi or ~180 mi?
2. The opinion comments:
The plight of the news business has gotten steadily worse over the past decade. Cable TV networks are shedding audience share at an alarming rate. Increasingly, they seemed to have forgotten who their audience even is. The hosts of “Morning Joe” visiting Mar-a-Lago was the sort of move, judging from the backlash, that is likely to increase its progressive audience’s flight from MSNBC. CNN, in its effort to be all things to all people, is also hemorrhaging viewers. Many national newspapers are losing subscribers (and hollowing out their coverage), and local media has been shriveling for years. (The Post’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate unleashed an exodus of hundreds of thousands of readers who had expected a clarion voice in defense of democracy.)
It is not merely this shrinkage in conventional news consumption that should be alarming. The preponderance of voters who get no news whatsoever suggests the very notion of an “informed electorate” might become a thing of the past.
ProPublica has pioneered an inventive partnership with local papers all over the country. ProPublica provides an enterprising investigative reporter with salary for a year plus the infrastructure necessary to report the story, including editors, research assistance and lawyers.
Was the notion of an “informed electorate” ever more real than illusion? I doubt it, but that depends on how one defines the concept of “informed” in this context.
Key arguments that Trump and MAGA made and still make against basically the entire left are that (i) the left is radical and authoritarian, and by implication (ii) this alleged authoritarianism by the left justifies it by Trump and MAGA. False beliefs of allegedly radical left authoritarianism are deeply embedded in the authoritarian MAGA movement and also many or most conservatives outside of MAGA. At present, very few of those MAGA minds can be changed. Maybe that will change somewhat after radical right authoritarianism starts to take hold and bite.
A hypothetical example
Claim 1:Progressives need to remember that conservatives and especially social conservatives view the progressives as the authoritarians. When the employer or education establishment was forcing them to bend the knee to black lives matters, and same sex marriage, conservatives were viewing it as the heavy hand of the government.
Response 1: One can argue that most MAGA people do not really understand what authoritarianism is or what democracy is. One can argue that a major factor is that decades of divisive, polarizing radical right authoritarian propaganda has deceived and manipulated tens of millions of Americans. Take this for example:
Q: Compare the seriousness and depth of authoritarianism in Trump, Project 2025 and the MAGA movement to the authoritarianism of progressives alleged by conservatives and other critics.
A: The comparison of authoritarianism between Trump/Project 2025/MAGA and progressives reveals significant differences in scope, intent, and potential impact.
Trump/Project 2025/MAGA Authoritarianism
Project 2025 and associated MAGA policies propose sweeping changes that would significantly expand executive power and reshape American governance. Consolidating presidential control over federal agencies, including independent ones like the DOJ and FBI. Reclassifying tens of thousands of civil servants as political appointees to replace them with loyalists. .... Imposing conservative Christian values in government and society. .... Weaponizing government agencies against political opponents. These proposals would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the U.S. government, potentially undermining democratic norms, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
Progressive Policies Criticized as Authoritarian
Conservative critics often label certain progressive policies as authoritarian, including: Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, expanded social welfare programs, environmental regulations, gun control measures, and COVID-19 public health mandates.
However, these policies generally work within existing democratic and constitutional frameworks, rather than seeking to fundamentally restructure government power. They aim to address social issues through legislation and established governmental processes, not by concentrating power in the executive branch or dismantling core democratic institutions. (emphasis added)
Scope: Project 2025 proposes a comprehensive overhaul of government structure and function, while progressive policies typically focus on specific social or economic issues.
Institutional Impact: MAGA proposals seek to fundamentally alter the balance of power between branches of government, while progressive policies generally work within existing institutional structures.
Democratic Norms: Project 2025 explicitly challenges many longstanding democratic norms and institutions, whereas progressive policies, even when controversial, typically operate within established democratic processes.
Individual Rights: MAGA proposals include rolling back certain civil liberties and protections, particularly for marginalized groups, while progressive policies often aim to expand protections for these groups.
While both sides accuse each other of authoritarianism, the scale and nature of the changes proposed by Project 2025 and associated MAGA policies represent a more significant departure from traditional American governance and democratic norms than typical progressive policy proposals. (emphasis added)
Q2: Did the black lives matter movement hurt or kill conservatives?
A2: Based on the search results provided, there is no evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement directly hurt or killed conservatives. The search results do not contain any information about Black Lives Matter protesters physically harming or killing conservative individuals.
In other words, progressives are not significantly authoritarian. But the politics that most Trump supporters have embraced, at least by voting for him, are authoritarian.
Claim 2: The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.
Q: Are the following comments mostly true? The homicide rate in the U.S. jumped 35% starting soon after the George Floyd video hit the media. There are estimates that there were more than 1,000 additional homicides of blacks due to the push to de-police and end incarceration. Also, traffic fatalities also jumped in that time due to ending of enforcement of traffic laws in many areas. Progressives increased crime while trying to hunt down the thought criminals on the rights.
A: The comments contain some accurate points but also include exaggerations and unsupported claims.
The claim of a 35% jump in homicide rates soon after the George Floyd incident is not supported by the provided search results. While there was an increase in homicides during this period, the exact percentage and direct causation are not verified.
There is evidence supporting an increase in traffic fatalities coinciding with reduced traffic enforcement. Experts attribute this to bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement.
The search results do not support claims about: 1. Specific numbers of additional homicides among Black individuals. 2. Direct causation between progressive policies and increased crime rates. 3. Motivations related to "hunting down thought criminals on the right."
These assertions appear to be opinions or speculations not backed by the provided information.
Q2: Did the bad driving habits that developed during the pandemic and reduced traffic enforcement occur only in areas that liberals or progressives controlled, or was the phenomenon more widespread and included rural areas and conservative-controlled areas?
A2: The phenomenon of bad driving habits and reduced traffic enforcement during the pandemic was widespread and not limited to areas controlled by liberals or progressives. .... In summary, the increase in bad driving habits and the decline in traffic enforcement were widespread issues affecting both urban and rural areas across the political spectrum, rather than being confined to liberal or progressive jurisdictions.
Note the serious asymmetry in dealing with false information and false beliefs. False allegations and implications are usually short and easy to assert. It is rarely backed up with links to data sources. Claim 1 = 48 words, but Response 1 = 484 words, with a link to the information sources. Claim 2 = 73 words, but Response 2 = 342 words, with a link to the information sources.
In short, falsehoods, deceit via opacity and DFS (dark free speech) generally have a sedrious advantage in their power of persuasion compared to honest speech. They are short, emotion-provoking and almost completely devoid of cognitive dissonance due to inconvenient facts or reasoning. In short DFS is a lot more fun and easy than honest speech.
In my firm opinion, DFS is the most potent and effective weapon that American radical right authoritarianism brings to bear against secular democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, transparency in government and inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning.
