From Reagan to Trump

Another day in the crisis of American democracy. Where are we in this drama so far? Robert Reich posted this video today and does a good job summarizing at least part of the problem. How many hoops do we have to jump through to finally nail the trump/Russia treason down? Will it ever happen? Will it be sudden and unexpected or long and drawn out? Will the con man simply resign after pardoning everyone he can or will he have to be arrested and dragged out? At this point no one knows for sure but real damage is done every day. Let's be honest, despite some bright shining moments, mainstream corporate media has been absolutely atrocious in dealing with republican sedition for a long time. And today they seem to feel as though they cannot comment on each new day's atrocities without lamenting how pure and patriotic past republican presidents were. It is expected on cable or broadcast news to always try to balance and treat liars as though they have something worth our time to say. At every step the constitutionally-enshrined protectors of our republic pull punches, treat lightly, fail to challenge the lies, reach for something, anything that the Democrats have done to claim a false equivalence, and give an undeserved deference to some of the greatest villains our society has produced.

Democrats then bring butter knives to fight against the mechanized armor division that the republicans have spent so many years building. One of their worst offenses is appealing to the center and for unity, George Lakoff has spent years trying to convince Democrats and Progressives to stop playing into authoritarian hands in this fruitless endeavor. There is no "Center" where the left and the right meet and people could agree to rational solutions to real problems. There isn't even a spectrum or sliding scale of left to right according to Lakoff, but that one is kind of tough to get our heads around after so many years of hearing about that spectrum. So the piece I want to look at today is Vice President Joe Biden's call for the rest of us to reject doughfacedonny's crap and be the good nation we aspire to be. It is good, he hits all the right notes of keeping and building on the moral conscience that elected he and President Obama, and rejecting the hate and racism that donny has dredged up. The only problem is that he doesn't call out donny by name, a small one for sure as I can't even use his name nor put the title of "president" in front of it. Brother Charlie Pierce put it well, "say his name when you denounce his bigotry", though he was addressing the crocodile tear-shedding republicans who mouthed words to the effect of "this will not do donny." But it is the same product.

As evidenced by the naming of neo-nazi marchers in Charlottesville and their subsequent firing, it is effective. It is personal, the so-called alt right and their fellow republican base voters WANT US DEAD, so shaming and shining a spotlight on individuals is the right thing to do. It has to be made so toxic to even be associated with nazis that republicans can't get away with ambiguous statements like what Lyin' Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from the state of Wisconsin made after donny tried to falsely equate "many sides" for violence by broadly generalizing about all hate and all bigotry is bad. No, we're talking about what actually happened, real people with real names who gathered together to support monuments to confederate traitors, the neo-nazis whose antecedents nearly succeeded in exterminating all of the Jews in Europe. It was a big step for Vice President Biden to actually refer to the current president, not some generalization, even if he didn't say the name. Unlike the Democratic Party's latest slogan of "a better deal" that doesn't even acknowledge the existence of an opposition party that made it this bad for regular Americans and constantly try to make it worse. Of course the better deal platform was a response to the fact that the Democrats really don't stand for anything, even if Progressives want to believe and continue to work in the direction of equality, social and economic justice etc., as polls reported in July.

Really, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. If you act as though current conditions are something that just happened, like a bolt of lightning hitting your home, instead of something that was done deliberately as in a burglar stealing everything before burning it down, then yes people are going to believe that you don't stand for anything. It makes the current state of the union to be fate, instead of something that was consciously made over decades. Which brings me to the response to Biden's article from Ben Cohen of The Daily Banter. Now I don't mean to single Ben out or come down on him too hard, his heart is in the right place and I generally support his positions. And I hear the same sort of thing from his colleague at the banter, Bob Cesca, and from the Stephanie Miller show to name two examples. The problem is letting past republicans off the hook because they weren't the unbelievable shit show that doughfacedonny has been.

Ben starts his analysis like this:

 Whatever you might think of Joe Biden and his politics, he never sought to divide Americans or appeal to their hate. Biden didn’t use minorities as scapegoats, insult women or deride allies, and while he wasn’t perfect, Biden was a man of dignity who always appealed to our better nature.

Why the weasel words? Who do you think this kind of appeal will win over? People aren't perfect, there's no reason to state this. And even the comparison of donny's antics to what Biden stood for in office is ridiculous, that's not the bar of statesmanship. Lakoff would point out that there's no reason to qualify Biden or his politics, that simply gives the right ammunition. And it deactivates the frame of what he's talking about, nothing that is happening today has anything to do with Joe Biden.

Then the gut punch that sucks all the wind out of any Progressive impact Ben Cohen could have with this article:

I’m not a fan of Ronald Reagan and completely disagree with his politics, but he did not appeal to hate while in office. He did not vilify immigrants, demean women, or equate Neo-Nazis with anti-fascist protesters. This is why many conservatives and almost all liberals recognize the danger in Donald Trump. This isn’t so much about policy, it’s about politics and the devastating effect divisive language and demagoguery has on the psyche of a nation.

First, what the hell does any of this have to do with Reagan? Why bring him up? That just activates the frame of divinity surrounding Reagan that obviously liberals give some credence to as well. Trying to negate a frame by invoking a supposed "good conservative" only reinforces it. And you might want to check with an actual Reagan scholar like Rick Perlstein before making these claims. Reagan began his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi by talking "states' rights" clearly dog whistling his continuation of Nixon's southern strategy. Then as president he visited the nazi cemetery at Bitburg despite strong opposition from Jewish groups. What about the lying stories about "welfare queens", did those not demean women? Reagan was really hot to "reduce labor costs" (i.e. Your Pay) by breaking unions and deregulating everything, the undocumented immigrant amnesty was a big part of that and contributed to the anti-immigrant backlash today.

So why commit an unforced error like this? To achieve some sort of artificial balance? Appeal to the brain dead reprogrammable meat sacks that still support donny? Please stop doing this, anyone on the left. I have seen enough sentiments to "George W. Bush is so happy he's not the worst president in history" that I want to tear my own tentacles off. This accomplishes nothing positive and only legitimizes past republican crimes against the American people. I know so many activists and writers are desperately trying to break the cycle of "normalizing" Trump, but letting everyone from Nixon to Bill Kristol off the hook for the harm they did to discourse and society isn't the way to go.

It really has been an almost straight line of crimes from Reagan to Trump, each successive republican raised the bar of awfulness to where we are actually seeing democracy fade away and racism become just another political opinion. They are different only by degrees, not in kind. There is no set goal, Reagan most likely never thought he was pointing us in the direction of a fascist dictatorship, but his actions and the words and deeds of subsequent republicans have led us to this point. Stop falling for it!

RIP Chez Pazienza

The Resistance lost a powerful voice yesterday. I woke up to read Bob Cesca's post that his partner in podcasting, and my friend, Chez Pazienza passed away last night. No one has said how so far and he was only 47. This is the definition of not fair, and where lots of people will throw around phrases like "no justice, too soon, unbelievable," and so on. As internet social circles go though, I considered him a real friend. I could send him messages and he would reply as though I was a real person and not some anonymous collection of 1s and 0s in the Aether. I miss him already.

Far more eloquent and passionate writers than I have already weighed in on Facebook about Chez' passing. I simply want to be part of the chorus. How can a nobody like me expect to add something original or moving? I was just honored to be a tiny junior fanboy of both Bob and Chez, Listening to them always felt like I was the freshman sort of on the periphery of the cool seniors' table. But instead of making fun of or belittling me when I asked a question or had something I wanted to share Chez listened and thoughtfully responded. That was the kind of guy he was, though he would overgeneralize about how stupid other (republican) people were, one on one respect and common courtesy were the rule for Chez.

Too soon, for sure. I listened and read each of Chez' laments for all the recent passing of artists who made such an impact on and enriched our lives. I never thought for a second that he would be joining them. No justice, oh man oh man. If Chez divided the world into the good guys and the bad guys, as I suspect he really did in a way reminiscent of the great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr whom I once compared him to, then our team is down so many starters and quality backups while the bad guys are all still sitting pretty and sucking the life out of everyone.

Hearing the news this morning made me immediately think of Hunter S. Thompson, not that I have any reason to believe it was suicide or that Chez really had much in common with the Gonzo legend. But Thompson fought the good fight against Richard Milhous Nixon, he lived through Reagan and watched the wave of enlightenment crest in the '60s and steadily recede. Finally, in the wake of the reelection (ho ho) of George W. Bush he had finally had enough and exercised the option of cashing in his chips. Chez experienced 9/11 at a deeply personal level and dedicated a good portion of his life fighting back at those who exploited the tragedy of that day. It would not surprise me in the least to find out that the triumph of cartoon fascism broke his heart.

I re-titled this blog a while back because gloominess just wasn't appropriate, besides I felt Chez had the market on gloominess kind of cornered. What I thought at the time was how much justice and fairness really are human constructs, the universe could give less than a warm squirt of piss what happens to any of us. Tentacles of course are popularly associated with the cosmic horror of H.P. Lovecraft. And the only way to make sense of Chez' passing without delving into conspiracy, which he would have absolutely hated, is to accept that the universe is utterly indifferent. We care that he is gone; but the stars don't.

Not to be sentimental pseudo-religious because I know he'd hate that too, but I hope that Chez is up in a heaven of his liking, hanging out with Bowie and Prince, and all the others he respected and admired who preceded him there. Your battle is over Deux Ex Malcontent, the rest of us will carry on. The good fight was worth fighting when Chez was on Earth and he fought it well; it remains the good fight today and everyday hereafter it will be worth it.

David Brooks and the Jumping of Sharks.

It is not every day that a genuine social problem enters the American political discourse. In the 1930s the public and the government discovered that unregulated capitalism and wild financial speculation with depositor's money was a bad thing, and took great steps to rein in excesses. In the 1960s the public similarly decided it was time for the South to grow up and start treating African Americans like human beings. In the 1970s popular pressure encouraged Richard Nixon of all people to work with other Republicans, and Democrats to form the Environmental Protection Agency and other laws to curb pollution. Sometimes the stars align, critical mass forms and what was once simply discussion among intellectuals turns into actual policy with strong popular support. Occasionally we get it really wrong, drugs and terrorism come to mind, but there are real world examples when democracy functions and good policies emerge to combat social problems.

We may be approaching this point on income inequality. Slowly, belatedly, and against incredible opposition it is finally reaching the broad public mind that maybe having 85 people with the same wealth as the bottom half of the human race is not conducive to a good situation. Oxfam's executive director put it rather bluntly:

Without a concerted effort to tackle inequality, the cascade of privilege and of disadvantage will continue down the generations. We will soon live in a world where equality of opportunity is just a dream. In too many countries economic growth already amounts to little more than a ‘winner takes all’ windfall for the richest.

If you are reading this post I probably do not need to spend more time making the case that inequality of wealth and income are bad for most people, or society in general. But briefly, when too much wealth is concentrated at the top, the rich can bid the price of necessities up and out of reach for the rest of us. They can also corrupt the political process with money and when all else fails hire strong men with guns to intimidate, beat up, or kill anyone who disagrees.

Leaders shape opinion to some degree in any situation. During the American Revolution pamphlets written by very smart men were passed around and discussed at taverns all over the colonies. Some ideas were accepted, others rejected, and still more changed through debate and compromise. While you may be hard-pressed to find serious political discussion in American watering holes today, this process still exists. And here is where David Brooks enters, finally. I know I'm a little tardy in writing about a column from January 16th and I apologize but this is a debate long overdue in America and is an ongoing discussion that will likely last longer than a few news cycles. In short, this New York Times Op-Ed writer who makes an ungainly number of appearances on Sunday talk shows to represent the "respectable" conservative position is not the opinion leader we need right now.

In The Inequality Problem Brooks leverages every ounce of his mainstream respectability to misdirect and mislead his readers on the title subject. From the first line: "Suddenly the whole world is talking about income inequality." Brooks turns reality on it's head. No Davey, this did not happen "suddenly," nor is inequality "lump[ing] together different issues that are not especially related." You may recall the champion of private equity and GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney stating that inequality is something people should discuss only in private, and in dimly-lit rooms. Or that a few protestors made a little noise in Seattle during the WTO's 1999 meeting in that city to voice their concerns that a few unelected corporations should not be able to reorder society along plutocratic lines. Thank goodness George W. Bush came along to put inequality on the back burner by making war, torture, wire-tapping, and general tyrannical behavior the prime concerns of activists, but that does not mean inequality somehow disappeared from 2001 to today.

As the blogger Driftglass succinctly put it:

For the record, without too much effort, any competent citizen from Paul Krugman to my sainted mother can incinerate Mr. Brooks' increasingly frantic and transparent attempt to decouple 30 years of aggressively pro-plutocrat, anti-labor, anti-equality policies of the Right from any discussion of income inequality...

 

...which is so much of out mainstream is devoted to keeping fragile Conservatives like Mr. Brooks as carefully protected and climate-controlled as any hothouse orchid, and the Hell away from competent citizens. [emphasis mine]

Driftglass further ridicules the pompous and insulated Brooks' argument as irrelevant misdirection by summarizing the rest of The Inequality Problem as " Look over here!  Look over here! -- please for God's sake lets get back to talking about unwed teenage mothers and stuff." Yup, that is pretty much all he has, roll out the usual "blame the victim" tripe that poor people are poor because they are lazy and spend too much time having unprotected, out of wedlock sex. Ben Cohen at The Daily Banter also summarized Brooks' position as "divid[ing] the world into responsible rich people and irresponsible poor people, and postulates that inequality has nothing to do with the wealthy rigging the economy to maintain their wealth, but more to do with failed policies towards poor people, who just breed and won’t work." Since it is poor peoples' own fault, raising the minimum wage or other policies will not help and the responsible aristocrats like Brooks can wave it away without evidence. David Brooks represents the respectable mainstream arm of the conservative media complex, like his fellow shills for the rich on fox news or talk radio he is well paid to muddy the waters and present reasonable doubt against common sense. Leave no stone unturned, no rhetorical device unused, and no logical fallacy unfoisted to protect profit margins.

Cohen cites a further analysis and refutation of the "respectable" position by Robert Reich, an intellectual who combines empathy, erudition, education, with the empirically obvious plight of the increasingly poor working class of America. After reciting well-established facts about inequality, Professor Reich hits on the biggest of the gaping holes in Brooks' argument. In a display of stunning ignorance, Brooks states without irony that we cannot allow class-consciousness enter the debate on income inequality, because: "America has always done better, liberals have always done better, when we are all focused on opportunity and mobility, not inequality, on individual and family aspiration, not class-consciousness." In other words, yes the poor are a problem but talking about inequality "needlessly polarizes the debate [emphasis in original]" Not to put too fine a point on it, but has Brooks ever left his comfy little bubble? America is utterly, and intractably, polarized. For crying out loud, there are people freaking out that Coke ran an ad where America the beautiful was sung in languages other than English. Influential conservatives regularly call for impeachment and armed rebellion against a twice elected president. Everything from chicken sandwiches to Duck Dynasty has been thoroughly politicized. If ever Noam Chomsky's thesis that only one side is waging the class war was made apparent, this is it.

Ben Cohen followed up his analysis of David Brooks and whether conservatives really hate the poor by presenting, with referencing links and context, five examples of Brooks' unending class-consciousness and polarizing language in the defense of the rich. In this debate, we have great examples of confusing correlation and causation, lies of omission, framing devices, and wealth apologia. The debate on income inequality also shows how the discussions which used to be held in taverns have migrated to cyberspace. Not a moment too soon has the internet allowed the commoners to challenge the lords and their heralds. This might be our last chance to have this debate too, as well as our last chance to preserve some small space for popular participation in the business of state.

"Jumping the shark" has become a euphemism for television programs that have run out of ideas. It refers to an episode of Happy Days when Fonzie proved once again to be the coolest guy around by water skiing and jumping over shark infested waters, or something to that effect. It was too much for the audience and most people point to that moment of Fonzie in the air wearing his leather jacket and swim trunks as when Happy Days went over the edge of cool. One can only hope that David Brooks' breathless defense of wealth and concurrent condemnation of the poor has finally jumped the shark on our indefensible system of corporate personhood and human commodification.