Public sentiment on the status of the US political system

The NYT writes (not paywalled):

Support for Trump’s Policies Exceeds Support for Trump

A new poll found the public is sympathetic to the president-elect’s plans to deport migrants and reduce America’s presence overseas.

Many Americans who otherwise dislike President-elect Donald J. Trump share his bleak assessment of the country’s problems and support some of his most contentious prescriptions to fix them, according to a new poll from The New York Times and Ipsos.

A little more than half of the country expresses some desire to see Mr. Trump follow through with his harshest threat to deal with illegal immigration: deporting everyone living in the United States without authorization.

And a large majority is sympathetic to efforts to strictly limit how doctors can treat children struggling with their gender identity — an issue Mr. Trump and other Republicans made central to their campaigns for office. Seventy-one percent said that no one under 18 should be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs or hormones. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the matter later this year.

The poll tells the story of a country turning inward, where people are more aligned with Mr. Trump’s “America First” agenda than they were during his first term in office.

For a political figure so divisive — Americans view him more negatively than any other president about to take office in the last 70 years — the level of support for his ideas is striking. Most Americans say the United States has ignored serious problems at home while entangling itself in costly conflicts abroad, the poll found. A majority believe the government is sending too much money to Ukraine. And many are expressing less tolerance of immigrants overall.

Overall, 73 percent of Americans say they oppose the idea of Mr. Trump pursuing legal charges against his adversaries — with 49 percent saying they are strongly opposed.

The poll also revealed that Americans hold their government in exceedingly low esteem — far lower than during the Watergate era. Majorities across races, genders and partisan stripe say the political system is broken and that the economy works against them — a pessimism that tracks with some of Mr. Trump’s grimmer rhetoric.

There is a widespread belief, across parties, that Washington is corrupt, with two-thirds of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans saying the government serves itself and the powerful over ordinary people. Two-thirds of Americans say the economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.

It is ironic that so many Americans correctly think the system is corrupt and rigged, but in their anger, frustration and resentments, they voted for the most corrupt candidate by far. Apparently, most DJT voters don't realize that he wants to neuter or completely get rid of the CFPB (consumer finance protections) and the NLRB (labor protections). Either that, or they want to get rid of labor and consumer finance protections. Project 2025 and DJT are all about rigging the system against average people even more than it is now and giving the elites even more wealth and power. 

We live in such strange days.

What Will You Be Doing on Jan. 20?

 Indeed - what?

Not hard to guess, but................

Consider participating in Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service

What are your plans for Jan. 20? Will you spend the day watching inauguration festivities on TV?

Here's an alternate possibility and one that could lead, ultimately, to the following outcomes: an enriched sense of purpose in life, lower blood pressure, increased energy and self-esteem and decreased stress and loneliness. You may even live longer.

The cherry on top? A guaranteed warm, fuzzy feeling.

All of the above perks of volunteering — and more — can flow from participating in Martin Luther King Jr. National Day of Service on Jan. 20.

Martin Luther King Jr. Day (MLK Day) is observed each year on the third Monday in January. (King was actually born on Jan. 15.) This year that means MLK Day falls on Monday, Jan. 20, the same day as the presidential inauguration.

"Service strengthens communities, and transforms the lives of the individuals served, and the volunteers who serve."

https://www.nextavenue.org/what-will-you-be-doing-on-jan-20/

https://www.pointsoflight.org/blog/18-volunteer-opportunities-2024-mlk-day-of-service/

https://americorps.gov/serve/volunteer/mlk-day

Robert Reich on the rise of oligarchy, kleptocracy and wealth & power politics

At ~6:53-8:10, Robert Reich discusses the ongoing rise of kleptocratic oligarchy in America. At ~11:10-11:50 Reich argues that the oligarchs are fighting against democracy, both in the US and abroad.

If I recall right, I've raised warnings about the American and global rise of anti-democratic kleptocracy and/or plutocracy (oligarchy) probably about 600 times in blog posts or in my Disqus comments here. I've also warned hundreds of times about the rise of anti-democratic, kleptocratic dictatorship and kleptocratic Christian theocracy in American politics. In all cases, the main goals of the various kinds of authoritarianism in play are accumulating more wealth and power for the elites. That is also a point I made hundreds of times here. In essence, Reich makes all the same arguments himself.

Arguably, Reich sounds somewhat like me. Same concerns, remarkably similar language. Reich almost certainly came to his beliefs and opinions independently from me. If so, then his reality and my reality were arrived at via different pathways, based on different experiences. In science, arriving at the same understanding by different kinds of research is called consilience. I wonder is Reich and I are an example of consilience in politics.[1]

Q: In your opinion, if Reich does sound somewhat like me, does that help, hurt or do nothing to my credibility in warning about the rise of kleptocratic, radical right American authoritarian wealth & power politics?

Thanks to milo for mentioning this video.

Footnote:

1. Q: Is there a known phenomenon of consilience in politics, meaning different people independently of each other arrive at the same or quite similar perceptions of political reality and political belief?

 

A: Yes, there is a known phenomenon in politics that aligns with the concept of consilience, where different individuals or groups independently arrive at similar perceptions of political reality and political beliefs. This convergence of political beliefs can be observed through several lenses: 

1. In politics, this can manifest when various groups or individuals, despite their different backgrounds, come to similar conclusions about political events, policies, or ideologies due to the convergence of evidence from multiple sources. (evidence- and reason-based politics = pragmatic rationalism)

4. There is evidence suggesting that cognitive reflection (analytical thinking) can lead to more skepticism towards political statements, but it can also amplify partisan biases. This interaction can result in a convergence of beliefs among those with similar levels of cognitive reflection and political alignment. (hence the need for anti-biasing -- pragmatic rationalism = an anti-biasing, anti-ideology meta-ideology)

6. The rise of broadcast media and interest-group advertising has changed how political information is disseminated, potentially leading to a convergence of political beliefs among viewers or readers who are exposed to similar narratives.

 

Tax gap update

One of the things I try to check on periodically is the amount of the tax gap (TG). The TG is the amount of taxes owed to the federal government that are not paid. I use the TG as an indicator of (1) the level of corruption in society, and (2) the degree of dysfunction in congress. 

A few years ago, I estimated the TG at about $1.3 trillion per year, but official IRS estimates were always lower by several hundred billon. I attributed the difference to IRS fear of Republicans in congress who hate the IRS. They want to shrink it a lot. A few want to get rid of it entirely, seeing taxes as theft, unconstitutional, or whatever other excuse they can dream up. Reporting a lower TG helps the IRS avoid the mindless wrath of Repubs. 

An Oct. 2024 post by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reported the IRS TG estimate for 2022:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently published its projections of the “tax gap” – the difference between taxes owed to and collected by the federal government annually – for tax year 2022, as well as updated projections for tax years 2017-2019, 2020, and 2021. The report finds that the net tax gap after enforcement actions fell from $617 billion in 2021 to $606 billion in 2022.

While the IRS projects that taxpayers owed $4.6 trillion in total tax liability in 2022, only about $3.9 trillion of that was paid on time and without penalty. Enforcement actions and late payments led to an additional $90 billion being collected. 

A large portion of the tax gap comes from income subject to little or no information reporting requirements, such as business income from sole proprietorships. Of the $381 billion projected individual income tax underreporting gap in 2022, $179 billion – or 47 percent – comes from this category, including $117 billion from “non-farm proprietor income.” Other forms of income that are subject to more reporting requirements contribute much less to the tax gap.

What congressional Republicans really hate and actively work to eliminate is IRS enforcement actions. They do that by cutting as much funding for IRS enforcement as they possibly can. Each dollar the IRS spends in enforcement actions is estimated by the IRS to return about $5-7, a 500-700% ROI. For example, in FY 2023, the IRS collected $86 billion through enforcement programs, which equates to an ROI of about $7 to $1 compared to the IRS's discretionary budget. In FY 2022, the IRS collected $72.4 billion through enforcement programs, yielding an ROI of about $6 to $1 or 600%. The Congressional Budget Office has historically estimated that an additional dollar of enforcement spending would yield between $5 and $9 in additional revenue, focusing on the highest-return activities.

See how useful the TG is in evaluating corruption and government dysfunction? What a fun little tool.

I expect that once DJT is settled in and gets his Project 2025 wrecking ball running full tilt 24/7/365, inconvenient data like this about the TG will suddenly either disappear entirely or the estimates will drastically decrease to the point of making the TG a non-issue. Ways to make the TG decrease is to legalize tax cheating, e.g., by creating more loopholes, or to reduce taxes. The GOP is diligently working both angles. 

Savor the data while it lasts. Its days are probably coming to an end fairly soon. We will soon be engulfed in massive thick clouds of opacity about inconvenient government operations and corruption.

Regarding the Gaza ceasefire

Reporting about the tentative Israel-Hamas ceasefire makes it clear that politics is just plain nuts to at least some people. There is way too much lying, demagoguery, crackpot reasoning and opacity to make sense of a lot of it, or to trust whatever the players are saying. Some commentators give most credit to Israel, some credit to Biden and a little credit to DJT. Biden claims all the credit. DJT claims all the credit. I don't know what Israel is claiming, but it probably isn't true. It is not clear if a ceasefire will last for the initial six weeks the deal proposes. 

The reporting indicates that this deal is basically the same one that Biden claims to have proposed last May, about 8 months ago. Israel's agreement to the ceasefire now apparently was driven by a combination of humanitarian, political, military advances, and strategic considerations. The deal plans to get some hostages released, addresses the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and navigate the complex political landscape both domestically and internationally. As of January 15, 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry reported that at least 46,707 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. This includes about 18,000 children. The deal proposes entry of about 600 humanitarian aid trucks daily, which is a substantial increase from previous ghastly restrictions. Last October, one source reported that the United Nations says Israel has blocked the entry of 83 percent of food aid into the Strip since the war began. It said about 50,000 children below the age of five would need urgent treatment for malnutrition by the end of 2024.

No one is going to fix this 

and we all know it

Repair cost estimates range from

$40 billion to $1 trillion 

$50 billion as of May 2024

$80 billion, Aug. 2024

$1 trillion, Jan. 2025

From a realist-rationalist point of view, claiming "credit" for the ceasefire arguably is nonsense. "Blame" is a more accurate label. How can seeing blame possibly be realist or rational? 

Well, if one looks at the decades of "peace talks" and what they have yielded, including the current war with its mass slaughter and vast infrastructure damage, the concept of a meaningful Israel-Palestine peace deal arguably is dead and gone, assuming there ever was one, which I now doubt. Some people have argued this point and many local people have the same opinion. 

The entire situation can be reasonably seen as a failure by just about everyone significantly involved, if not everyone, including Iran, Russia and the US. One can blame Israel for not accepting the ceasefire 8 months ago and for not having arrived at a comprehensive peace many years ago. One can also blame the US for not forcing and maintaining a peace many years ago. US foreign policy was and still is a big, fat failure. Of course, one has to blame Hamas for starting the current horror by slaughtering about 1,200 Israeli civilians. And, one can rationally blame Israel for genocide and the US for complicity in it. So exactly what is there to take credit for in this bloody catastrophe? The 18,000 dead children? No one wants credit for that, so that inconvenient fact gets conveniently ignored or cynically downplayed.

Of course, lots of people vehemently reject the accusation of genocide by Israel, some claiming that they personally have seen genocide and Gaza isn't it. The reasoning there is that Israel has the right to self-defense and dead civilians are regrettable collateral damage. Tell that to the dead 18,000 collateral damage children. When one reads international law on genocide, Israel literally fits the description of bad acts needed for genocide. The International Court of Justice said so. But as we all know, the genocide argument will never be settled. The bickering will be endless. There probably will never be significant repercussions for anyone responsible. 

So, when one hears Biden claiming credit, one has to wonder how far his senility has progressed. Or, is this ceasefire something worth fighting for credit over? Who gets credit or blame for what? 

International genocide law defines genocide as the deliberate and systematic extermination of a group. It includes acts such as: 

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting conditions of life that bring about the group's physical destruction
• Imposing measures to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Elements of genocide 

• The perpetrator intended to destroy the group
• The perpetrator inflicted conditions of life that were calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction
• The perpetrator's conduct was part of a pattern of similar conduct against the group

Compare and contrast: Democratic conservatism vs MAGA authoritarianism

In my opinion, a crucial question in American politics is what is the difference between pro-democracy, pro-truth conservatism and authoritarianism, e.g., as exemplified by MAGA. The future of democracy might depend on the answer, assuming there is a reasonably authoritative answer. At present, most Americans do not appear to believe that MAGA is significantly or mostly authoritarian. MAGA relies heavily on creating a belief that it is merely conservative, while liberals and Democrats generally are authoritarian. 

I see MAGA as mostly authoritarian. In my opinion, MAGA is about 70% authoritarian if one could put an estimated number on the question of how much authoritarian is it? I asked Perplexity this question: What are the main similarities and differences between democratic conservatism and authoritarianism such as MAGA, including consideration of important factors such as attitudes toward civil liberties including elections, the distribution of wealth and power, and respect for an impartial rule of law? It responded:

Democratic conservatism and authoritarianism, such as the MAGA wealth and power movement, are two distinct political ideologies. They have significant differences in their approach to governance, civil liberties, elections, wealth distribution, and the rule of law.

Both democratic conservatism and authoritarianism often advocate for lower taxes on wealth and limited government regulation of the economy. This reflects a shared belief in the efficacy of free-market principles to drive economic growth. There can be overlap in social policies, particularly concerning issues like immigration restrictions and, in some cases, limited access to abortion, although the motivations and methods tend to differ. Both often emphasize the importance of traditional values, though the interpretation and application of these values can vary widely.

Democratic conservatism typically supports civil liberties and rights, including freedom of expression, press, thought, religion, association, and equality before the law. However, there can be nuances, with some conservative groups showing less support for certain civil liberties compared to liberals. Democratic conservatism advocates for competitive elections where multiple parties can participate, ensuring a democratic process where power alternates through free and fair elections.

Authoritarianism (MAGA):Often exhibits tendencies to limit civil liberties and human rights, with a focus on maintaining order and control over dissent. This includes a higher willingness to defect from democratic norms and support for anti-democratic candidates. MAGA may not support competitive elections in the same manner, with tendencies towards controlled or noncompetitive elections to maintain legitimacy. The MAGA movement, for instance, has been associated with questioning the integrity of elections and supporting candidates who challenge democratic norms.

Distribution of wealth and power: 

Democratic conservatism advocates lower taxes and less regulation, but it still operates within a framework that respects the rule of law and democratic principles. There is an acknowledgment of the need for some government intervention to ensure a level playing field, albeit with a preference for market-driven solutions. The distribution of power is intended to be balanced through checks and balances, with an emphasis on individual liberties and property rights.

Authoritarianism (MAGA) tends to favor a more centralized control of power, often with less regard for checks and balances. This can lead to a concentration of power in the executive, potentially undermining the separation of powers. Economic policies might favor the elite or specific groups, with less emphasis on equitable distribution of wealth. The focus can be on economic growth and stability as a means to maintain regime legitimacy, sometimes at the expense of broader societal benefits.

Respect for an Impartial Rule of Law:

Democratic Conservatism generally supports the rule of law, where laws are applied equally to all citizens, and the judiciary remains independent. This is seen as crucial for maintaining order and protecting individual rights. There is an expectation that government officials are accountable to the law, and the legal system should be transparent and fair.

Authoritarianism (MAGA) often employs rule by law rather than rule of law, where laws are used as tools to maintain power rather than to ensure justice or equality. This can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability. There is a tendency to politicize the judiciary and other institutions, potentially undermining their independence and impartiality.

Conclusion:

While democratic conservatism and authoritarianism share some economic and social policy preferences, their approaches to governance, civil liberties, elections, and the rule of law diverge significantly. Democratic conservatism operates within a framework that values democratic principles, individual liberties, and the rule of law, albeit with a conservative interpretation. In contrast, authoritarianism, as exemplified by movements like MAGA, often prioritizes control, order, and the maintenance of power, sometimes at the expense of democratic norms and civil liberties. These differences highlight the fundamental tension between democratic governance and authoritarian tendencies, with implications for the health and stability of democratic institutions.

I generally agree with the answer Perplexity generated. 

The point I wanted to make here is that there are valid reasons to see MAGA as more authoritarian than pro-democracy. From what I can tell lots of Americans, probably most (~60% ?), disagree with that. MAGA supporters firmly argue that MAGA is solidly pro-democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. But that is something I simply cannot see or agree with. 

The more informed MAGA supporters and non-MAGA conservatives who deny that MAGA authoritarianism is significant point to various exceptions as proof of MAGA's non-authoritarian mindset or ideology. As I engage with those exceptions and arguments, it seems more and more like engaging with climate science deniers who assert various exceptions or arguments contrary to existing climate science data and its interpretation by overwhelming expert consensus. For the most part, those minds cannot be persuaded by contrary facts or sound reasoning. They have their reality and reasoning, but I have mine. The two tend to be incompatible and irreconcilable.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

For the wonks who want to go deeper:

Q2: How does the comparison change when moral factors are included in democratic conservatism vs MAGA authoritarianism, e.g., (i) reliance on demagoguery vs honest speech, (ii) reliance on reasonable intellectual rationality, and (iii) reliance on transparent intellectual consistency vs double standards, opacity, and deceit.

A2: When examining the moral dimensions of democratic conservatism and MAGA authoritarianism, several key differences emerge, particularly in the following areas:

Reliance on Demagoguery vs. Honest Speech:

Democratic Conservatism: This ideology traditionally values honest speech and the integrity of political discourse. While there can be instances of exaggeration or spin, the overarching principle is to engage in policy debates with a foundation of truth and respect for facts. The emphasis is on presenting arguments that can withstand scrutiny and are based on evidence, even if the interpretation of that evidence might differ from liberal viewpoints.

MAGA Authoritarianism: MAGA, as exemplified by Trumpism, often relies on demagoguery, characterized by emotional manipulation, exaggeration, and sometimes outright deceit. Trump's speeches and public statements frequently employ pathos to incite fear, anger, and a sense of righteous indignation among his supporters. This approach is designed to bypass rational analysis and appeal directly to the emotions of the audience, often at the expense of factual accuracy or logical consistency.

Reliance on Reasonable Intellectual Rationality:

Democratic Conservatism: There is a strong emphasis on intellectual rationality within democratic conservatism. Policy positions are often justified through reasoned arguments, economic theories, and historical precedents. While there might be disagreements on the interpretation of data or the efficacy of certain policies, the process of debate is expected to be grounded in rational discourse.

MAGA Authoritarianism: MAGA's approach to rationality is often overshadowed by its reliance on emotional appeals and a rejection of established facts or expert consensus when they conflict with its narrative. This can lead to a dismissal of intellectual rigor in favor of a more visceral, gut-level reaction to political issues. The movement's skepticism of institutions, including academia and the media, further undermines the value placed on intellectual rationality.

Reliance on Transparent Intellectual Consistency vs. Double Standards, Opacity, and Deceit:

Democratic Conservatism: Intellectual consistency is a hallmark of democratic conservatism. While there can be shifts in policy or ideological evolution, these changes are typically justified through a framework of principles and values that are transparently communicated. The expectation is that political leaders will adhere to these principles, even when it's politically inconvenient.

MAGA Authoritarianism: MAGA often exhibits a lack of transparency and intellectual consistency. There is a tendency to employ double standards, where rules and norms are applied selectively to favor the movement's goals or to protect its leaders. This can manifest in the form of opacity regarding policy details, shifting positions without clear justification, and a willingness to engage in deceit or misrepresentation when it serves the political agenda.

Conclusion:

The moral comparison between democratic conservatism and MAGA authoritarianism reveals stark contrasts. Democratic conservatism, while not immune to political maneuvering, generally operates within a framework that values honesty, intellectual rigor, and consistency. In contrast, MAGA authoritarianism, as embodied by Trumpism, often prioritizes emotional manipulation, rejects established facts when inconvenient, and employs tactics that can be seen as deceitful or opaque. These differences highlight a fundamental divergence in how each ideology approaches governance, public discourse, and the moral foundations of political leadership. The ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of future generations, as noted by Millman, underscores the significance of these moral distinctions in shaping the future of American democracy.

And that is why I keep harping on the moral aspect of dishonest speech and politics. Lies, deceit and crackpot reasoning take power and freedom from deceived people to freely decide and act on the basis of facts, true truths and sound reasoning. MAGA required dark free speech or demagoguery to rise to power. It will continue to require dishonesty and deceit to stay in power unless it can subvert elections before the 2026 mid-terms.