Fascist Republican Party power advances

Fascism: a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy; a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

A Washington Post editorial lays out the argument I have been making for a while now that the Republican Party has become fascist. Paul Waldman writes:

On the surface, the GOP is a party in disarray. Party leaders in Congress struggle to deal with elected nutballs such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). Far-right extremists try to take over state parties. A member of the House leadership is ousted for refusing to pander to the lie that President Biden stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump.

But underneath, there is a striking — and frightening — degree of unity. For all the disagreement about the 2020 election, Republicans are in lockstep on the question of power — namely, that by rights it belongs exclusively to Republicans and steps must be taken to ensure that Democrats not be allowed to wield it, no matter what the voters might want.

Let me direct your attention to Arizona — but not to the bonkers “audit” of 2020 ballots the state Senate there has ordered.

Instead, let’s focus on a new effort by Arizona Republicans to strip the Democratic secretary of state, Katie Hobbs, of her authority to defend against lawsuits regarding elections.

Using [their] control, Republicans have put their effort to roll back Hobbs’s authority into budget bills now moving toward approval. They are trying to transfer all authority to defend the state against election lawsuits to the state attorney general, Mark Brnovich, a Republican.

Why? Because the Democrat might take the “wrong” position, say by fighting against a future effort to reverse a Democratic win.

But what if in the next election, a Democrat becomes attorney general and a Republican becomes secretary of state? Not a problem: The provision taking power away from Hobbs sunsets after the 2022 election. If Republicans still control the legislature, at that point they can revisit the question and just put power in the hands of whichever office is held by one of their own.

No national-level Republican I know of has condemned either the power-grabbing or the voter suppression laws. Even Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), fresh from her defenestration, defends the Republican voter suppression campaign.

Even Republicans who would like to be rid of Trump and want to stop arguing about the past election are on board with the party’s turn away from democracy itself.

Arguments about 2020 are for the rubes, a way to keep their deluded base angry and energized. Mainstream Republicans will encourage them and support them with the assertion that people have “doubts” and “concerns” that can be addressed only by feeding the conspiracy theories, but the real action is on what’s being put in place for future elections.

That’s why when we look at the GOP voter suppression campaign, we have to distinguish between voting restrictions focused on voters themselves and those focused on power — who has it and how it can be wielded.

But putting up hurdles in front of Democratic voters is very different from the second category of changes to election law, which is about putting the power over elections firmly in Republican hands.

As a recent report from a nonpartisan group put it, state legislatures across the country “are moving to muscle their way into election administration, as they attempt to dislodge or unsettle the executive branch and/or local election officials who, traditionally, have run our voting systems.”

In some cases, they’ve moved to strip power from individual officials such as Hobbs or Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. In other cases, they’ve imposed restrictions on the ability of local officials to make their own decisions about how to conduct elections, and have even tried to intimidate them by creating criminal penalties for those officials who run afoul of the GOP-controlled legislature.

Republicans have also introduced bills in more than two dozen states that directly attack the independence of the courts. In many cases, they specifically seek to limit the ability of courts to rule on election cases.

Where are the Republicans who object to this wide-ranging assault on democracy? There aren’t any.

The stage is being set for future elections to be stolen — not by a whiny president who tries to reverse an election he lost, but by systems put in place well before ballots are cast to make sure that the rules are crafted to Republicans’ benefit and Republicans will be in charge of resolving any disputes. And on that, there is no dissent within their party.

Republicans clearly have figured out that to win elections, they now have to cheat. Demographics are against them. They are moving red states into coerced singly party rule. 

Questions: Is the Republican threat real and urgent, or as most Republicans and conservatives see it, merely defending democracy by insuring election integrity? Has the Republican Party leadership, including Liz Cheney, become fascist?

Afghanistan update: Surrendering without a fight accelerates

“The Taliban come here at night and shoot at us,” said Najibullah, a policeman at the outpost in Mehtarlam. “I can’t shoot back. My rifle magazine only has a few bullets. I brought a slingshot and a rock just in case. One of my friends got hit when a mortar landed where we sleep. His blood is still on the wall.”

The New York Times writes:

A Wave of Afghan Surrenders to the Taliban Picks Up Speed

Dozens of besieged outposts or bases, and four district centers, have given up to the insurgents this month, in an accelerating rural collapse as American troops leave.

MEHTARLAM, Afghanistan — Ammunition was depleted inside the bedraggled outposts in Laghman Province. Food was scarce. Some police officers hadn’t been paid in five months.

Then, just as American troops began leaving the country in early May, Taliban fighters besieged seven rural Afghan military outposts across the wheat fields and onion patches of the province, in eastern Afghanistan.

The insurgents enlisted village elders to visit the outposts bearing a message: Surrender or die.

By mid-month, security forces had surrendered all seven outposts after extended negotiations, according to village elders. At least 120 soldiers and police were given safe passage to the government-held provincial center in return for handing over weapons and equipment.

“We told them, ‘Look, your situation is bad — reinforcements aren’t coming,’” said Nabi Sarwar Khadim, 53, one of several elders who negotiated the surrenders.

Since May 1, at least 26 outposts and bases in just four provinces — Laghman, Baghlan, Wardak and Ghazni — have surrendered after such negotiations, according to village elders and government officials. With morale diving as American troops leave, and the Taliban seizing on each surrender as a propaganda victory, each collapse feeds the next in the Afghan countryside.  

Among the negotiated surrenders were four district centers, which house local governors, police and intelligence chiefs — effectively handing the government facilities to Taliban control and scattering the officials there, at least temporarily.  

The Taliban have negotiated Afghan troop surrenders in the past, but never at the scale and pace of the base collapses this month in the four provinces extending east, north and west of Kabul. The tactic has removed hundreds of government forces from the battlefield, secured strategic territory and reaped weapons, ammunition and vehicles for the Taliban — often without firing a shot. 

In several cases, the committees have given surrendering troops money — typically around $130 — and civilian clothes and sent them home unharmed. But first they videotape the men as they promise not to rejoin the security forces. They log their phone numbers and the names of family members — and vow to kill the men if they rejoin the military. 

“The Taliban commander and the Invitation and Guidance Committee called me more than 10 times and asked me to surrender,” said Maj. Imam Shah Zafari, 34, a district police chief in Wardak Province who surrendered his command center and weapons on May 11 after negotiations mediated by local elders.

After the Taliban provided a car ride home to Kabul, he said, a committee member phoned to assure him that the government would not imprison him for surrendering. “He said, ‘We have so much power in the government and we can release you,’” Major Zafari said.  

“We have been sold out — we make calls for reinforcements, but officials don’t help,” the recorded voice said. “The Taliban sent us tribal elders who said, ‘Surrender, you are sold out, no one will help you.’”

That speaks for itself. Open questions include how widespread this will be and if it is widespread, how soon the Taliban will take control of the entire country and government. The Afghan government the US installed and supports is so deeply corrupt, callous and incompetent that its front line defenders do not even have bullets or are being paid. US officials continue to assert that Afghan government forces will be able to repel the Taliban. Maybe they have no choice but to say the unbelievable things they continue to say. Other reports indicate that the US withdrawal will be complete by the middle of July, about 7 weeks before Biden's announced Sept. 11 final withdrawal date.

Question: What basis is there for belief that the Taliban will not take control of Afghanistan within about 6 months (or less) after the US withdrawal?[1]

Footnote: 

1. "The Air Force Magazine wrote in 2000: After 21 years of struggle against the Communist forces, the South Vietnamese army collapsed in just weeks into a disorganized mass, unable to slow, much less halt, forces from the North. In nearly 30 years of war, Hanoi had defeated France and South Vietnam on the battlefield and the US at the negotiating table."

Climate change update: Something important may be happening with Wall Street

Humans put about 12 gigatons more carbon into the environment

than it can naturally recycle each year

How can we get that 12 gigatons under control?

The New York Times reports on what might be the beginning of a major shift in mindset and corporate power regarding climate change. So far, huge corporations in the energy and chemical sectors have opposed laws to combat climate change. For decades, their campaign contributions and smooth, quiet lobbyists have successfully blocked as much regulation and legislation as they could. In view of their vast power and wealth, they blocked a hell of a lot of regulation and legislation. They also deployed decades of sophisticated propaganda and successfully deceived and polarized a significant minority of the American people about the reality and urgency of anthropogenic climate change. 

For wealthy people and corporate climate change opponents, it was just capitalist business as usual. Money talks and everything else, including the environment, climate and inconvenient truth, walks.

But maybe those days are staring to wind down. Maybe. The NYT writes:

Climate Activists Defeat Exxon in Push for Clean Energy

Shareholders elected at least two of the four directors nominated by a coalition of investors that said the oil giant was not investing enough in cleaner energy.

HOUSTON — Big Oil was dealt a stunning defeat on Wednesday when shareholders of Exxon Mobil elected at least two board candidates nominated by activist investors who pledged to steer the company toward cleaner energy and away from oil and gas.

The success of the campaign, led by a tiny hedge fund against the nation’s largest oil company, could force the energy industry to confront climate change and embolden Wall Street investment firms that are prioritizing the issue. Analysts could not recall another time that Exxon management had lost a vote against company-picked directors.

“This is a landmark moment for Exxon and for the industry,” said Andrew Logan, a senior director at Ceres, a nonprofit investor network that pushes corporations to take climate change seriously. “How the industry chooses to respond to this clear signal will determine which companies thrive through the coming transition and which wither.”  

In another sign of change, shareholders of Chevron, the second-largest U.S. oil company, on Wednesday voted for a proposal to reduce emissions from the use of the fuel the company makes and sells to drivers and other customers. And in the Netherlands, a court required Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its emissions of planet-warming gases by 45 percent by the end of 2030 compared with 2019; the ruling applies only in Shell’s home country.

Exxon and other major American oil companies have strongly resisted taking the same approach as European oil companies, viewing renewable energy as a money loser that they have little expertise in. Exxon has invested heavily in recent years in deep water exploration off the coast of Guyana and in shale drilling in the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico.  

“This moment is not just about Exxon Mobil,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “It is about major asset managers and other influential investors stepping up, making their voices heard and walking the walk, connecting the dots between their climate rhetoric and their actions.”

And, the bad news: What we really need ☹️

Although it is encouraging that significant external pressure is starting to come to bear on major polluters, the conversation always goes to wind and solar as replacements for carbon energy. Wind and solar alone are not enough. The only viable low-pollution alternative to carbon we have is nuclear power. But it is rarely mentioned. 

There are new nuclear power designs that are far safer than the current generation of plants that are aging out of service. But no one is championing nuclear power. That is a catastrophic mistake.

By now it is clear that rich countries don't want to suffer significant lifestyle changes that depend on a lot of power. Poor countries don't want to forego development and the power they need to do that. The only feasible option we have is nuclear power. If we build enough nuclear power capacity, we can continue to drive gas hogs like Hummers and F150s. Americans can live their high energy demand lifestyles with no adverse impact on climate, if and only if there is enough power available to offset our carbon emissions.

Two controlling facts are at play here. One is that nuclear power is the only technical option for sufficient power that is available right now. The other is that too many of the American people will not accept or tolerate significant impositions on their high energy lifestyles. Given those two facts, nuclear power is the only possible alternative we have now and for the foreseeable future. The longer we pretend otherwise, the worse and less amenable to fixes our situation becomes.[1]

Questions: Can we rely on the private sector to move into an environmentally protective mindset in the short run, or will it continue to resist environmental protections as long as it can in the belief that protecting the environment decreases profits? Are Americans too wedded to the convenience of single use plastics, e.g., plastic water bottles, plastic food packaging, etc., to be willing to go back to less convenient recyclable or biodegradable metal, glass and paper packaging? Is nuclear power really safe enough for widespread use, or is it just too dangerous and/or scary?

Footnote: 

1. Nuclear power might be able to significantly solve more problems that are apparent on first glance. For example, we have polluted the oceans with hundreds of millions of tons of non-biodegradable plastic. The reason America and now most other nations transitioned from recyclable containers and packages, mainly metal (aluminum, tin, etc.), glass and paper was cost and efficacy. Plastic was cheaper and often better. Plastic was falsely sold to the public as recyclable than thus environmentally benign. That was a lie right from the get go. Only about 9% of single use plastics are recycled. The other 91% winds up in the oceans, on the land and in our bodies as particles of various sizes.*** If there is a lot of nuclear power available, the cost of displacing some or most single-use plastic containers would make biodegradables and recyclables economically competitive. That ought to significantly decrease the vast amounts of plastics that are used once and then tossed away into the environment.

Another use for cheap nuclear power would be to make fuels such as hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) from water. It takes a lot of energy to split water (H2O) into H2 and O2 gasses. Burning H2 with O2 in hydrogen fuel cells recreates the water the two gasses came from. Nuclear power could also be used to make methane from electricity. Methane or natural gas (CH4) can be made from carbon dioxide (CO2) and H2. The methane can be distributed cost-effectively in the current natural gas network. Or, it can be stored. All of that is mostly carbon neutral. 

The profit problem, again: For course, the phrase cheap nuclear power raises the question of how that can be possible. Companies charge as much as they can to make as much profit as they can as fast as they can. That tells me that nuclear power will never live up to its environment protective potential if it is left to the private sector. The government must build and operate nuclear power plants for the public good, not for corporate profit. Given our situation, it is fair to believe that when it comes to providing clean power the private sector has failed to serve the public interest. It is time for the government to take over the job of providing energy to protect the environment and the public interest.

*** We are just beginning to do research on the biological effects of plastic particles that humans ingest or breath in from air. A 2020 research paper comments: 

Plastic macroparticles, microparticles, and nanoparticles have the potential to affect marine ecosystems and human health. It is generally accepted that microplastic particles are not harmful or at best minimal to human health. However direct contact with microplastic particles may have possible adverse effect in cellular level. Primary polystyrene (PS) particles were the focus of this study, and we investigated the potential impacts of these microplastics on human health at the cellular level. We determined that PS particles were potential immune stimulants that induced cytokine and chemokine production in a size-dependent and concentration-dependent manner.

Comparing Radical Christians to Radical Muslims

 Came across an interesting meme, but is the meme too simplistic, or are the comparisons apt?

You decide:

Book Review: Rules for Radicals

“WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. .... A major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man’s illusion that his own welfare can be separated from that of all others.”

Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, presents rationales and tactics in the struggle for power between the Haves (rich people and powerful special interests) and their nominal allies, the Have-a-Little, Want Mores (~middle class), against the Have Nots (~poor people, discriminated against minorities). Some of what Alinsky discusses appears to remain viable today, but some seems dated and co-opted by how politics and the two-party system has changed since 1971. 

Alinsky's book has inspired a slew of books by conservatives that claim to counteract what Alinsky outlined, e.g., Rules for Conservatives: A Response to Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky and Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at Its Own Game to Take Back America. The conservative response seems largely oblivious to the fact that much of what Alinsky is fighting for is what most Republicans at least claim to be fighting for. 

Republicans hate his guts

That includes concern for the public interest, more power and freedom for middle class and poor people and means to make them more self-reliant. Alinsky himself seems to be more pragmatic than radical liberal, commenting that “Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the extreme right. .... When there are people [radical leftists who espouse assassinations, murders and bombings] .... we are dealing with people who are merely hiding psychosis behind a political mask.”

 

Regarding freedom, the public interest and self-reliance, Alinsky wrote, “People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all people. .... We are not here concerned with people who profess democratic faith but yearn for the dark security of dependency where they can be spared the burden of decisions. .... Those who can, should be encouraged to grow; for the others, the fault lies not in the system, but in themselves.”

Those comments on freedom and self-reliance sound like Republican talking points. What Republicans probably hate is Alinsky’s concern for the public interest or general welfare. That concept implies there is a role for government, taxes, spending and democracy, which are evil, theft, tyranny and distributed power. That seems to be what terrifies and angers Republicans the most.

On the Haves, Alinsky wrote: “The Haves want to keep things as they are and are opposed to change. Thermopolitocally they are cold and determined to freeze the status quo.”

Ideology, propaganda, revolution & other stuff

Alinsky commented on dogma or ideology: “This book will not contain any panacea or dogma: I detest dogma. .... Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. .... no ideology should be more specific than that of America's Founding Fathers: ‘For the general welfare.’” Unfortunately, it is the case that ‘the general welfare’ is an essentially contested concept. Most elite Republicans hate it, but pay cynical lip service to it, just to keep the faithful deceived and betrayed by a false belief tat GOP elites are actually on the side of their rank & file.

Alinsky commented on propaganda in defense of the status quo: “From the Haves, on the other hand, there has come an unceasing flood of literature justifying the status quo. Religious, economic, social, political and legal tracts endlessly attack all revolutionary ideas and action for change as immoral, fallacious, and against God, country and mother.” IMO, that is still the case today, except the situation is much worse.

Regarding the colossal mistake the Have-Nots made in letting the Haves frame them as communists: “The Have-Nots of the world ..... desperately seeking revolutionary writings can find such literature only from the communists, both red and yellow. Since in this literature all ideas are embedded in the language of communism, revolution appears synonymous with communism. .... Today revolution has become synonymous with communism while capitalism is synonymous with status quo.” The Haves are desperately fighting for their vision of America, which is basically (i) brutal laissez-faire capitalism and its accompanying power and wealth inequality, or (ii) something as close to it as they can buy from government. The more corrupt the government, the closer ruthless rich people can get.

I've written on the awesome but mostly unconscious power of framing here.

Alinsky argues that some or most of the Have-a-Little, Want Mores (the middle class) are stalemated by their own conflict in wanting more but also protecting what they have. He calls this group the Do-Nothings. A doing nothing mindset is a powerful that favors the Haves, and the Haves know it. “These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice.” 

Of interest, the Haves, often aided by some or most of the Do-Nothings deploy the tried and true delay tactic, “now is not the time to talk or think about X,” where X is something current the Haves oppose and want to make go away. For them, there never will be a time to talk about it and public attention inevitably moves on to other things. 

Alinsky also cites a pile of rules with some commentary. Here are some.

The first rule of the ethics of means and ends is that “one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. We all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others.”

“The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment. To the British [the Declaration of Independence] was a statement notorious for its deceit by omission. .... the Bill of Particulars attesting to the reasons for the revolution cited all of the injustices which the colonists felt that England had been guilty of, but listed none of the benefits. [The Founders] knew that a list of the many constructive benefits of the British Empire to the colonists would have so diluted the urgency of the call to arms as to have been self-defeating.” 

If that assertion is true, and it probably is, one can believe that right off the bat, Americans came out of the gate in a state of delusion induced by the standard propaganda tactic of being completely one-sided about the framing and truth of an issue. For context, Americans did not want to engage in WWI. A massive government propaganda campaign was necessary to coax them into changing their minds. That propaganda campaign was loaded to the gills with lies, slanders, tricks, smoke and mirrors, e.g., war was necessary to make the world safe for democracy. And, we all remember the deceit and propaganda that was used to coax America into the Vietnam war disaster.

US government pro-WWI propaganda poster

“The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concerns with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa. .... if one lacks the luxury of a choice and is possessed of only one means the ethical question will never arise; automatically the lone means becomes endowed with a moral spirit. .... To me ethics is doing what is best for the most.”

There seems to be some internal conflict in how Alinsky views the morality of politics and power. Everyone claims that what they want does the best for the most. And when there is only one mean to an end, that alone imbues it with morality and justification. Maybe pragmatism requires that belief and maybe it is justifiable because what is best for the most is usually (almost always?) almost purely subjective. 

Alinsky’s views on morality raise the question of propaganda, deceit, lies, dehumanizing slanders, motivated reasoning, etc. The American people arguably were tricked into the Revolutionary War. They definitely were tricked into WWI and Vietnam. No one can know how history would have played out if the colonists and Americans later had not been tricked into those wars. It is possible that America, the environment, civilization and mankind generally would be better off. 

Another point Alinsky makes that is worth mention relates to compromise and democracy. He wrote: “A society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be ‘compromise.’” 

Alinsky also lays out rules of power tactics that indicate how the Have-Nots can take power from the Haves by means of doing what is possible and acceptable to those fighting for power.[1]

Questions: When there is no choice and deceit, lies and dehumanization of political opposition is necessary to move people to action (or inaction), is it justified? Does pragmatism really mandate that all means are acceptable in view of inherently moral ends? Pragmatic rationalism as I envision it holds core, semi-universal moral values in fidelity to actual facts, true truths and sound reasoning (as opposed to lies, false truths and motivated reasoning), so does that make it not pragmatic in Alinsky’s moral universe, e.g., is it just semi-pragmatic rationalism at most, or is it neither pragmatic nor rational?

Footnote: 

1. “The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings. .... From the moment the tactician engages in conflict, his enemy is time.

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks. It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target. .... The forces for change much keep this in mind and pin that target down securely.”

The Mental Defective League, in formation

Getting to be a U.S. Senator or Representative is really a “big ‘Biden’ deal” (she said euphemistically). (Further explanation available upon request.) 😉  Anyway, I think we’d all agree on what kind of accomplishment that is.

As a senator or representative, one has influence and decision-making power, fame/notoriety, somewhat of a fortune (that’s usually, but not always, a prerequisite for even getting that far up in the pecking-order), a top-notch education (Harvard/Yale/Oxford/etc.), … in other words, not only does one enjoy all these rare “luxuries,” one is also held to a higher standard, in the eyes of the masses, based on such.  In a normal world, said persons are expected to act commensurate with those kinds of lofty accomplishments.

These days, the way I see it, barring a few congresspeople, D.C. is loaded up with (yes, I’ll say it) “clowns.”  Like so many unruly contrary children or patients in an insane asylum (The Mental Defective League, in formation a la Jack Nicholson in Cuckoo’s Nest), they can’t all even agree that water is wet.  For crying out loud. 😲

Question(s): Is this blatant dysfunction what American politics has come to?  Am I just blowing off some steam here (yes, I am) and need to get it off my chest?  Are you just as disappointed in our law-makers as I am?  Shouldn’t we expect more from such powerful, influential, supposedly mature people?  WTF’s going on??

Go ahead, get it off your chest too.  Tell me how you feel about the state of affairs in D.C.

Thanks for posting and recommending.