Donald Trump and The Ku Klux Klan

Ever since Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the president of these United States, I have been researching the obvious question of why in the hell anyone would support him. And then this happened:

David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage'

Regardless of the timeline of events, first he didn't then he did disavow the KKK and white supremacists. And the minor dust-up about credentialing a white nationalist radio show host for one of his mass rallies. And the fawning, gushing love for the Donald over at new-nazi website the daily stormer (I'm not linking to it but if you're brave, go have a look). We have the this blast from the past. As JAMES PONIEWOZIK put it in the New York Times, "until this week, the K.K.K.’s loathsomeness had seemed to be a settled issue." 

Hopefully it will be nothing else, but Trump's campaign has certainly proved that this supposed tyranny of political correctness is a toothless tiger. If, on election day Trump secures a paltry minority of votes and his Republican Party is utterly crushed in down-ticket races all over the country, the short-fingered vulgarian and his hate-filled mouth-breathing followers will have shown us all that racism is alive and well, and that the tyranny of political correctness has no idea how to adequately deal with it. And that we are really just one rigged election away from reinstating segregation, white supremacy, and possibly even a return to slavery. Political correctness, at least in the way social conservatives yap endlessly about it, really seems more and more to be a meaningless buzzword that signifies nothing more than "why can't we dominate those non-white people the way we used to?"

Just as the plutocracy and unregulated capitalism were marginalized for a time by the Great Depression, open racism and white supremacy were marginalized by herculean efforts of the Civil Rights Movement and the intervention of the Federal Government. But the will to power and domination represented by these forces are an idea, and just as many commentators pointed out during the "war on terror," you cannot destroy an idea. Thomas Frank discussed this concept in The Wrecking Crew, in regards to the methods and tactics that "conservatives" use to try and destroy liberalism once and for all. Just as plutocracy and "free market" (basically unregulated) capitalism clawed their way back into power by displacing the labor movement and New Deal institutions inch by inch, capitalizing on every crisis to expand and legitimize corporate power, racism and white supremacy has clawed its way back into the discussion by using every shock of modernity to discredit and delegitimize multiculturalism, diversity, equal rights, and tolerance of difference.

By playing footsie with very dangerous people, Trump legitimizes for his followers a belief structure that should have died out a long time ago. The only saving grace is that the majority of authoritarian followers still do not like the label of "racist" and do not want to be associated with words like "KKK" or "Neo-Nazi" however much they hold racial resentments. The next post will describe the KKK of the 1920s and explore similarities with Trump supporters.

Stupidity and the Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich

Thomas Jefferson once stated that democracy and a republican form of government will not survive without an informed and thinking citizenry to support it. The United States has thrived and approached this ideal when education and critical thinking among Americans is high, and as suffered when these qualities wane. A very good example of the correlation can be found in Esquire columnist Charles P. Pierce's book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. On the other side are the cranks exemplified by Ignatius Donnelly, who spent a lifetime trying to prove Atlantis once existed, and the con artists like P.T. Barnum, whose career of spectacle had the goal of simply separating fools from their money. Pierce then described the phenomenon of Rush Limbaugh, who lies somewhere in between but also dangerously apart from these two examples and is described by Pierce as simply a charlatan. Donnelly had fantastically silly ideas but they existed as a harmless curiosity. Barnum sold his audience a spectacle and profited handsomely from it but was not trying to build a movement out of it. Limbaugh and his countless clones on radio, in print, and on TV however, have harmful ideas that they sell to their gullible audiences for profit and to change society in ways that destroy freedom and impoverish the masses.

What does this have to do with PB & J? This story has popped up in many people's social media news feeds, claiming with little evidence that a school principle in Oregon deemed the sandwich racist. This automatically activates frames in the minds of gullible readers. Before the internet and social media these things traveled more slowly and usually started "I heard that..." followed by some outrageous claim. It took effort to repeat, and the audience was right there to roll their eyes or challenge the claim. But in today's world of "going viral" a stupid story about what may or may not have happened far away can be presented without context and manipulated by con artists and demagogues at will; then it can be repeated nearly infinitely and almost without effort to the feeds and inboxes of idiot america. This urban legend about racist sandwiches provides an interesting insight to Twain's adage:

The invention of the telegraph in Twain's day sped up the exchange of information in a way second only to the internet. Even if access to this revolutionary medium was limited to actual journalists, one need only shout "Remember The Maine" to know how the hare of lies can do incredible damage while the tortoise of truth tries in vain to put out the fires of sensationalism and yellow journalism. Although the US is unlikely to declare war on Spain over a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich, claims such as the ones made in this story play into an established narrative drummed up by unscrupulous conservative culture warriors going back at least to William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale. This is the contest of tradition stubbornly resisting change that picked up a great deal of speed and followers during the Great Backlash against desegregation, social justice, and other values of the 1960s.

The only link provided in the conservative post article is to another, exact replica of the story on Mr. Conservative.com. This one provides no links or source material whatsoever, but it does feature a gawdy proliferation of ads. So, while a google search for "peanut butter and jelly banned" produced a plethora of hits from right wing sources including fox news and the daily caller that are slightly more informative that the two wannabes first cited, they proceed from the same mistaken assumption that political correctness and racial tolerance has gone too far and an out-of-touch bureaucrat took arbitrary and unnecessary action that will slippery slope it's way into and across the entire nation. The actual story is from 2012, but seems to have flared up again in the wake of actual outrage over the official presence of the confederate flag on statehouse property in Charleston after Dylan Roof shot 9 people in a church there. "What next?" is the usual refrain, what next will you out of control liberals that have so much power to disrupt tradition do to wreck schools and things?

Politifact first debunked the story in 2012 because right wingers were clutching their pearls over that other great sin of liberals, spending tax money on frivolous projects. It was rated "pants on fire" then, it is still a ridiculous lie, but that does not matter. Two of the first comments on the undated mr conservative story debunk the misrepresentation but are ignored by the other commenters. Snopes rates the story completely false and fabricated out of deliberate manipulation of the principal's comments.

I wish it were as easy to say "use common sense" when exposed to the propaganda of charlatans but even the idea of "common" sense is gone when a significant number of the gullible simply make up their own facts and reject anything that does not conform to their existing prejudices. The worst part is that on line, the gullible idiots who fall for it every time just do not suffer the shame that once afflicted people in public. On the internet you can be insulated from any point of view you don't like, and experience no consequences for being fooled. On that note, it is perhaps best to quote Twain again; for he was the Great American Jester, telling the foolish uncomfortable truths during our last "Gilded Age." 

*Fingers comfortably but firmly inserted in ears* Nah, nah, can't hear you.

The Hamburger Revolution: Crossroads

From the Department of the Painfully Obvious: Cliven Bundy is a racist, along with being a deadbeat millionaire, and lately a domestic terrorist.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

 

The only part of this passage that was remotely surprising was about abortion. Perhaps the rural bigots out West are a little different from the Midwestern variety, but having spent an inordinate and painful amount of time around the latter at various jobs I can say it is the lack of abortions and contraception that most sticks in their craw. Perhaps it has to do with population density?

"Freedom" Mr. Bundy keeps using that word, but one gets the feeling it means something very different to him than the way Merriam-Webster defines it. The idea of "having something to do" as freedom is about the only possible connection Bundy's rant on race could even tangentially have with his "war" on the Federal Government. You know, the one he refuses to recognize and whines is illegitimate.

It is truly delicious, reading the authoritarian right walk back their support for this "patriot" and Chez at Banter has been cataloguing all the ways these rats are abandoning their paunchy hero now that he touched the third rail. Left unsaid, of course, is why openly expressing the ignorant belief that all African-Americans should be lumped in with the problems that some individuals face is a bad thing, beyond common decency and all that silliness about "liberty and justice for all." Generalizations about an entire group of people are very tricky to make, educated professionals can sometimes draw conclusions about tendencies by running statistical analyses. But even in those cases the data can only find evidence of those tendencies. Why liberals and other rational, humane people shrink from generalizing about race, or sexual orientation, etc. is that the constant in the equation is inherent, people are born with dark skin or light skin, blue eyes or brown; they do not choose to do so. It is easier to generalize about beliefs and ideas, therefore you can get stronger correlations with ideology. Unfortunately, even with ideology you can get crossed wires. Take what Rachel Maddow presented last night:


We must first examine what Fox News is; at its core Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party. It's job is to elect republican candidates, defend them once in office, and undermine the Democratic party and liberalism by character assassination or guilt by association. Fox will therefore grab at any shiny object that fulfills this function, or appears to. Dr. Maddow exposed the lie that all right-wingers are in absolute lockstep, that there are people out there more disgusting than Sean Hannity. I was worried I would have to go all the way back to Bacon's Rebellion and the foundation of slavery in America to get where Dr. Maddow brought us. Phew!

So why is open racism, as espoused by Cliven Bundy, bad for Fox and the Republicans? Simple economics. The vestige of middle class America, safe from the world in their tucked away suburbistans and hanging on by their fingernails, forms at least a plurality of conservative voters. They like to believe they are above vulgar racism and shy away from open declarations such as Bundy's. Suburban conservatives and their even more remote cousins in exurban McMansions are the beloved demographic of advertisers, the Americans who have slightly more income than required for subsistence. I'll admit it looked like this bulwark of polite society seemed to have been overrun with the emergence of the tea party and its myriad racist appeals, but Fox did manage to gloss that over and pretend did not happen to reassure the skittish suburbanites who do not want to support an openly racist party. However, it keeps popping up.

Therefore, despite what Sean Hannity et al. may or may not believe personally they must take pains not to offend this group. Because billionaires and white trash do not an electoral coalition make. Also, it is hard to sell gold, cars, or "erectile dysfunction" pills to Walmart shoppers.

The Hamburger Revolution

This story just keeps on giving.

History is the study of, chronicling of, analysis of, and appreciation of; change. History only exists because change occurs and humans are able to record those changes. It may be a fallacy to think of "timeless" cultures, hunter-gatherers or peasant societies, as having no history because nothing changes but this is something all human societies face from time to time. The small-minded occasionally fall into a trap of thinking tradition is good for no other reason that it is tradition, we have always done it this way therefore it is the best way. Never challenging why the tradition exists, questioning where it came from, or whether there are better ways of doing things. This is almost a textbook definition of conservatism, do not ask questions, do not assume you know better than those who came before you. What is occurring in Nevada on Cliven Bundy's "ranch" however, is nothing short of revolutionary and as far from conservatism as you can get.

I really need to throw some links up because this story and the media circus around it, specifically the right-wing authoritarian infotainment complex (thank you Bob Cesca), is by now so vast that it is difficult to know where the cattle end and the hamburger begins. NBC has a pretty decent running collection of facts on the story here that also contains quite a few facts helpful for getting your head around the weirdness. This site will also connect you to the hard news report from Reuters for the basics. Media Matters for America has been trying to keep a collection of fox news spin, though this is admittedly a herculean task. I was trying to keep up with the discussion at the Daily Banter on Cesca's excellent analysis. And Thom Hartmann's show pointed out some of the less-than-polite realities glossed over by most media coverage, putting a slightly different emphasis on what's at stake by always referring to "millionaire" Cliven Bundy.

But Steve Benen at Rachel Maddow's show put it pretty well when he wrote: "it’s unsustainable to think a group of well-armed extremists can simply block the enforcement of American laws in the United States... that’s not how the American system works. Indeed, that’s not how any system of government can ever work."

Might makes right is the law of the jungle. When the Federal Government, which theoretically has a monopoly on violence in society, decides to back down in the face of an armed mob for whatever reason the government then abdicates its place as the law and becomes just another actor in American power relations. And while Hartmann is absolutely correct in noting the class and wealth angle, money is secondary to power here. Though it is way above my pay grade to make a serious argument on that note. Money is power and power is money, one begets the other and vice-versa. Power to use others, to disregard and hold in contempt anything laws or will that conflicts with self-interest. These are the issues that all other distractions like race, immigration, the proper role of government, etc. attempt to deflect from.

Hamburgers. Is there a more potent symbol of Americana? I love them, so do you probably. But I, like anyone with even a basic understanding of economics, the environment, or biology, know that beef is a very inefficient and wasteful source of protein. Beef cattle are high-input, high-waste, poor conversion rate animals requiring a huge amount of space to raise without a correspondingly high investment of capital. Cheap hamburgers and all of the market distortions necessary to put them in Americans' stomachs is a self-evident example of why so-called "conservative" economics are complete BULLSHIT if you'll pardon my French. The artificially low grazing fees on public land are one instance of the perverse agricultural policies America has evolved since FDR and the New Dealers first tried to regulate the chaotic way food gets to your table many moons ago.

I have an acquaintance here in Wisconsin who's family owns and operates a dairy farm. The difference between a Midwestern dairy farm and a Western cattle ranch is so great that it is hard to believe they are raising almost the same kinds of animals. Bundy and other ranchers out there ought to be thanking fate, the government, and the machinations of history for putting them in such a fortunate position. Instead of being grateful for his incredibly low operating costs relative to farmers in the civilized portion of the United States, we get to witness the petulant arrogance that only a true Child of Darkness can display.

I realize this is getting rather long but there are two great American thinkers whose ideas reflect quite well on this story. When Reinhold Niebuhr first introduced the idea of Children of Darkness he was referring mainly to ambitious people seeking power within a state or government structure. These individuals recognize no law or restriction that conflicts with their own self-interest. The Children of Darkness do what they please unless restrained by some more powerful force. Cliven Bundy likes to portray himself on his many television appearances as a humble man seeking only to be left alone but the length and duration of his refusal to play nice puts the lie to this image. He is a selfish bastard who refuses to recognize any interests other than his own, and does not care how his actions affect others.

The other is University of Wisconsin historian Frederick Jackson Turner. Turner's Frontier Thesis has been the fount of so much cowboy folklore ever since he first introduced it in 1893. All of our American ideals about democracy, liberty, egalitarianism, and rugged individualism sprang from frontier society in Turner's thinking. As long as there was a frontier in America, virtuous pioneers would boldly move there and build society on their own according to the resources, climate, and temperament of the area. By this process the American frontier steadily moved west and then inland from the West Coast. Of course this process also brought along another, seedier, American ideal; speculation and the first claim mentality. Unscrupulous parasites have been ripping off productive Americans since veterans of the Revolution were compensated in bonds. Nearly worthless at issuance, those bonds gained value when bought up by speculators who then lobbied the government to redeem them at face value. But pioneers could grab the best land and pass it on to their heirs, leaving the less valuable land for late coming settlers, and garbage to remain public.

Turner believed the frontier had closed in 1890 and became concerned that innovation and democracy would suffer. What it could have meant was that we were going to have to start getting along and leave the cowboy crap behind. Unfortunately there are still these relics around like Bundy who act as though they are not only beyond the reach of civilization but above the law as well. A century ago, people living at the margins could pretend they are not part of a larger society but not anymore.

So, we have a private army of heavily armed vigilantes ready to fire on government officials and possibly die, for a deadbeat cowboy who thinks he is still living in the Nineteenth Century. Why did tradition freeze at the point of maximum selfishness for Cliven Bundy? History and most of America left this cowboy business behind a long time ago. Clinging to it in defiance of the law does not make Bundy a hero, it makes him a leech. Perfectly happy to keep the goods of raising his moos in a modern society, but claiming he still has the "perfect liberty" of a pioneer. Heads I win, tails I still win.

And we are letting him get away with it.

The Great Trucker Blockade Hoax?

 This was going to be the biggest thing since idiots in tri-corner hats held temper tantrums all over the country at town hall meetings with Democratic members of Congress. "Thousands, millions of truckers from all over North America" were going to descend on Washington, D.C. and block the beltway. Four actually did show up yesterday and tried driving around abreast at fifteen miles per hour, but they did not last long.

Foolish trogs. now the supposed "organizer" of the so-called "event" says it was all a sham.

From the Washington Post:

 [T]ruckers from across the country (and possibly Canada) planned to come to the nation’s capital Friday and bring traffic to a standstill on the inner loop of the Capital Beltway zinged across the Web and were picked up by outlets ranging from Fox News to the Huffington Post. The rally was dubbed “Truckers for the Constitution.”

But it is a hoax. 

“The comments to U.S. News were designed to do one thing and one thing only: stir the feather of the mainstream media,” said [Earl] Conlon [to U.S. News and World Report]

Riiiiiiiight.

Within the epistemic fishbowl of authoritarianism, the huge following tea party types have in their own little world led this little band of dittoheads to think they could pull something massive off.

It is nice to see continued evidence that the energy right wing authoritarian followers put into all their anti-democratic demonstrations is really drying up. I first noticed things were changing at the Fourth of July celebrations in my little red corner of Wisconsin. In a town that shall remain unnamed but previously crawling with signs and bumper stickers displaying the unbridled ignorance and bullying only the lame, over-the-hill baby boomer assclowns would proudly decorate their gas guzzlers with, this past Independence Day festivities saw nary a divisive image or gesture. It was a good day, almost felt like an American again.

Seems the only teabaggers with any fight left are unfortunately the ones elected to Congress. Maybe we will get lucky and some of them will be put to pasture soon as well.

UPDATE:

WaPo reported that the desperate 'wingers are now circulating a picture supposedly showing all the trucks bottling up DC traffic, but as usual the evidence is fake.

The photo was actually taken in May at a Make-a-Wish Foundation fundraiser in Lancaster, Penn.

SAVE THE LIE!!!!! Who cares that it was raining during the supposed blockade? The same loudmouths that make family gatherings such a pain will undoubtedly haul this PROOF of how mad real 'murika is with the "democrat shutdown" and the existence of a black president.

What is real and what is pretend? It all depends on how loud you can shout.

The Long Road

Is the United States experiencing an inexorable decline? Is there nothing to do but sit back and watch? Since 2000, the answer seems to be an undeniable yes. Where to even begin? First, the problems we face are the result of choices made by Americans, from the supreme court edict allowing gwb to take the presidency, to stock market and housing market crashes. Even 9/11 was the result of a choice, in this case the choice of our "leaders" to ignore warnings and take appropriate measures. All the problems in America today resulted from bad decisions, at least, "bad" from the point of view of the majority of Americans. The point being, American decline is largely man-made and not the result of acts of God or even foreign malice. The disaster following Hurricane Katrina could have been minimized by competent leaders acting in the public interest, the same goes for the BP oil spill and the numerous mine accidents. American decline, therefore, is not inexorable, it is the result of decisions made by bad people looking out for their own interest and not the public's.

Does it follow that many problems facing our nation and our people could be solved by replacing the bad people with good leaders who would work in the public's interest? It really remains to be seen. We first need to believe there are good people out there. Then, that they can defeat the bad. Finally, that good leaders can reverse the previous decisions of bad ones. While the problems we face, from corruption and exploitation, to insecurity in all its forms, and the host of environmental issues, were man made and the result of decisions, once made they become part of the real world. It is easy to look the other way while business pollutes, exploits, and steals; it is much harder to punish, rebalance, and clean up the results. As Yoda said, the dark side is not stronger but it is easier, quicker, and more seductive than the light. And as the American Yoda, Ben Franklin, said "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." The hole dug by decades of malice by greedy Americans will take much more work to fill in as it was to dig. But what is the alternative?

All the manifestations of decline are symptoms of a larger problem, lack of trust. This is not some grand revelation entrusted to the GH's of the world, it is apparent everywhere. But lack of trust is the cause of everything else that follows. Why can't good people get elected? People do not trust them. Why don't people believe in the Enlightenment principle that all people are basically good? Lack of trust. This is the age of the anti-hero, the great con, the belief that no one can possibly have any motive other than self-interest. Why do people mistrust unions? Because business has spent countless years and countless dollars implanting the idea that "union bosses" are by definition corrupt, leaders cannot possibly have anyone's interest at heart apart from their own. By contrast, why do people not recognize how badly they are being screwed by rich, greedy businessmen? Because, subconsciously at least, they understand that business may lie about everything else but at its heart they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, make money by any means necessary. That a salesman or a boss or the smiling actor in a commercial is deceiving you is as natural as the lion stalking the gazelle, and for the same reason.

Capitalism in the American sense simply is not possible without dishonesty, and the backstabbing ways of the capitalist trickles down to every other aspect of life. Why do so many possibly otherwise decent people get so insanely bent out of shape over abortion? Because anti-abortion people mistrust the motives of women, the values of self-interest have been so internalized that they are projected onto others without any reasoned articulation or oftentimes even evidence. The only reason a woman would want an abortion is she is selfish and incapable of loving another life, the immorality of speculators screwing each other over transplanted into "the other." Evidence to the contrary just bounces off the frame. All others must by definition be as selfish as we are, shallow and superficial as the dingbats on Jersey Shore or other "reality" show. This is just one example but apply the projection of immorality and lack of trust frame to almost any contentious issue and the process comes out almost the same way.

The Long Road back to a decent society starts with rebuilding some sense of trust in others. Not everyone is out to screw you over. Many are for certain, and those are the bad people at all levels that got us into this mess in the first place. We, the good people, have to figure out some way to reach out to those who have been screwed over, who have been victimized and build bridges of trust. No, certainly not all people can overcome their programming, and far too many are the con artists and selfish, immoral monsters who are parts of the underlying problem. The latter are the true enemy, the behavior that must be stigmatized, the source of the decline and must be fought tooth and nail if there is any hope. We the good people have allowed the immoral speculators and businessmen to poison society too long. Building a durable trust between well-meaning people with different ideas and different experiences in the spirit of tolerance, respect, and pluralism is the only way to get on that Long Road back.