Pointless Man

The same men who say global warming is a hoax, Obamacare has been failing for eight years, and abstinence-only sex-ed works are also convinced even basic gun control is an impossible and useless approach which would only make us less safe. These are also the dudes most likely to tell you black and brown folk have it too good, Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya, and Sharia law is being forced on American legal systems. I wonder if there's some sort of overarching thread or theme to all this.

Between the regular elections in 2008 and 2010, Democrats won 7 of 10 special elections for positions in the US Congress. You may recall the 2010 midterms, in which Republicans won 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate, showed that those earlier special elections did not set any sort of trend. There is a special election in Georgia today for a single seat in the US House of Representatives. It is being hailed (by, for example, the BBC) as "important" and potentially "a major blow to Donald Trump's presidency". I don't want to downplay the impact congresspersons can have on their constituents. Every election to a position of power and visibility is important. But this doesn't have major national implications outside of messaging and mood--and those are outsized and largely irrational. If Jon Ossoff wins, it won't tip the balance of power in Congress. If he loses, Republicans won't be more powerful than they already are. And in less than t...

I'm not always right. I don't think I'm always right. I am a fallibilist. Anyone could be wrong about anything. These things happen, after all. Specifically, though, I may be wrong about Jeremy Corbyn and the (polling) direction he's taking Labour in . Though they still favor the Conservatives, the polls are tightening. No one knows which way it might go. Nate Silver has written a fascinating piece about trying to guess what the numbers mean . I could live with a Labour victory, slim as the chance may be. 

I am not against Corbyn's ideas or his bent, but he is hopelessly ineffectual as a national politician and party leader. His ideas aren't all that bad, but his brand is, because he sucks at messaging, and is no better at corralling or convincing his partymates. He and his leadership have a dull a sense of political strategy and tactics. Arguably being right or more compassionate doesn't win you anything outside of school debates. Supporters say Jeremy Corbin cares. Well, he can care all he likes, deeply and to his very core, but he won't be able to realize any of his ideals without a capable coalition which must be taken seriously, and not laughed out of the room. Corbyn has faced strong opposition from some of his own party members, the Tories (previously--they are largely unconcerned with him now), and various entrenched interests. I do not suggest he has an easy road. Politics is a rough, dirty business, after all. People are going to be unfair to politicians....

One hand distracts, while the other does the work, right? Perhaps. Lines of thought that run roughly, 'X is just a distraction from Y', are interesting. The person making the claim presumably has followed both X and Y without losing focus, without which it would be harder to convincingly dismiss X. Y is often a complex series of roughly related items, which itself presumes one can keep track of multiple threads without being distracted. And, while this is perhaps a fair criticism of cable news (which does tend to obsess over one story per 'cycle'), actual newspapers, news-sites, and TV and radio programs typically cover more than one story in any given iteration. Yet this odd meme persists. Every day, I see different people saying this, that, or the other thing is merely a distraction from some set of other stuff. Pretty regularly, one person's distraction is another person's story-They-are-trying-to-distract-You-from. If we're not all magicians, fo...

The idea of getting rid of Trump might make you salivate. It might terrify you, if you're worried about the unpopular, and all-but-unelected theocrat who's next in line. If you are a mainline conservative, maybe the hope helps you sleep at night. How you feel about the prospect probably won't matter too much. Republicans will almost certainly never vote for it. Even if Democrats (and assorted caucus-member independents) ride a wave election in 2018, they'll still need some Republicans to reach 67 votes in the Senate. You have to get 2/3s of the upper house of Congress to convict the president, even after the House impeaches him with a simple-majority. This is why Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton weren't removed from office, despite both being impeached by the House. And, if it were to go through, if Trump were impeached, convicted, and removed from office, Pence wouldn't ease up on the environment, the poor, or religious minorities. He'd be better in some ...

Focusing on Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, or Kellyanne Conway is a mistake. Who hired these people? At least eighty percent of the time, that guy is going to replace his awful advisors and surrogates with another Jeff Sessions, Paul Manafort, or Betsy Devos.

We're going to build a wall, and you, the American people, will pay for it. Many of you twice, due to lost services. Some of you will also lose land, so that's three times. But let's pretend Mexico will pay us all back, ok? '" I'd like to hear the details. What is this wall?" asked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz .'

For a while, with all the talk of 'post-truth', I had been wondering if we hadn't stumbled into a dumbed-down post-modernism. Pidgeon Post Modernity, if you will. But that didn't feel right. Something simpler, and thus harder to grasp, was driving all the denialism and dissembling of American conservatives and so-called populists. Here it is, crystalline in clarity: " This is as clear a distillation of Trump’s epistemology as you could hope for. Simply put: Might makes right ."

Nationally, there is no motivation for Dems to work with Republicans here. One might claim to be saving one's ammunition for another, hypothetical fight, but the threat of removing filibusters on SCOTUS nominees will remain. Republicans will use it again and again, with impunity, unless and until they actually invoke the rule change or lose their majority. Acquiescing to their bullying now will simply confirm their tactic. But, as I have said before, politics are local. Senator Joe Manchin of conservative West Virginia, for example, may not have a lot of room to stand with his fellow Democrats in filibustering a well qualified ( though creepily dispassionate, and thus not at all compassionate ) conservative judge. Local politics, with tough reelection battles looming, is what will keep Democrats from having a strongly united front here. But Democrats can lose 7 votes on cloture and still continue a filibuster unless and until Republicans in the Senate change the rules. All th...

Perhaps driven by character and feeling, I have always considered effect to be at least as important as intent--and almost always more so. When it matters, intent tends to augment, mitigate, or determine the degree of fault or laudability, rather than rendering an act moral or immoral. If no one is actually harmed (or is at some point likely to be) by an act, we don't generally worry too much about it. If you accidentally push somebody in a crowd, or push them to get past while being chased by murderous mobsters, that's not so bad as pushing the same person simply because you can, and it may be excused, but you probably still owe them an apology. If they stumble and fall after you shove them, you are responsible for whatever injury may occur. If you push them into traffic, and they are run over, your possible sentence and likely charge may be less than if your actions had been malicious, but there's a good chance you'll need legal representation. Broadly, if no one...

I often see people argue Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America (which is roughly true), so Democrats should just adopt his policies and they will become popular like him (which is not at all obvious, and probably wrong). Trevor Timm wrote a piece for the Guardian entitled, " Everyone loves Bernie Sanders. Except, it seems, the Democratic party ". This headline is unfair, misleading, and untrue. When you intentionally mislead people, you are lying to them. Lying to people is not journalism. It is unethical, and a poor basis for discussion. Looking at polling from late last October until earlier this week, Bernie is consistently popular . His worst poll placed him at 52% favorable and 39% unfavorable, while his best (and most recent) numbers were a sterling 61% positive to 32% negative. Despite the author's claims, this was actually an outlier, and significantly better than most other polls conducted in the last six months (and roughly 5 points hig...

I hear from people to my left, 'We just need to be stronger in our values, and push harder (perhaps violently) for economic justice and progressive values. You are ignoring us, and that is why we are not Democrats. You were too friendly with businesses and the establishment. You make too many compromises. You didn't fight for the working class. That is why you lost in 2016. You will continue to lose until you listen." But I vote for people who want to regulate Wall Street, curb polution, and raise standards of living. I want to do this without running into the problems they have today in France or Venezuela. We can strengthen our safety nets without sawing away at the tightropes we walk upon. I hear from people to my right, "We just need to be stronger in our values, and push harder (perhaps violently) for economic justice and traditionalist values. You are ignoring us, and that is why we are not Democrats. You were too friendly with people who aren't white, str...

Proud American bigots will not own their bigotry. Even most KKK groups deny they are racist (though they clearly are). 'Racism' is a fighting word in the US. Try telling some Trumpeteers their approach to Latinos is racist, and see what happens. The US is full of active and systemic discrimination,  including very strong racism, but we don't want to acknowledge it. We don't want to talk about it. We don't want to change it, unless and until it is seen as directly harming rich, white people. Then, maybe we'll consider halting the war on drugs, or at least pot. Many of us don't want to admit historical tidbits like slavery, Japanese internment, the terrorist civil war that lasted 30 years after the Civil War (which the south won), race riots, Indian wars, or imperialism. Calling racist policies and acts what they so clearly are is perceived as an insult to those who craft them and carry them out. We definitely do not want to think about how redlining was st...

To replace the ACA, Republicans in Congress have proposed a bad plan with little of the preparation usually devoted to legislation. A going theory is, perhaps they did this on purpose, so they can lose the battle without having to actually fix anything or take on new problems, blame Democrats in the Senate, and move on briskly to 'tax reform' and other issues. Ezra Klein writes,  "So do I think the GOP plan is built to fail? I don’t. Washington is always more Veep than House of Cards. But I do think Republicans went into this process believing that failure was likely.... They decided that if they were going to fail at this, they were going to fail fast, over the course of a month or two, not waste a year on the project." Which is sensible, if you think government is essentially doomed to failure, anyway. The free market, small government crowd hasn't had a vision of a functioning, workable system since Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. If oversi...

I have come to the conclusion that Republican pols today are not, by and large, descended from the public faces of the Bush family or Reagan, but from the backroom dealings in the school of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Richard Nixon, and Dick Cheney. They want to win. That's it. It doesn't really matter how. For all their Christian trappings, if asked, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" they might readily respond with the words of Vince Lombardi: Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing.

Racists want a war. They have always wanted one. As soon as the Civil War ended, Klansmen were engaged in domestic terrorism and uprisings, and calling for more battles. Now, in America, they have their guy in office, and a compliant Congress, with 28 states run almost entirely by reactionary Republicans. They would very much like an excuse to crack down on opposition. Notice the bills in various state legislatures to outlaw protest or make it ok to run down protesters in the streets. Chaos and violence will only hasten their calls for 'law and order'. Peaceful protest, letter writing campaigns, and direct action hand them no such excuses. They hate that stuff. But they revel in every punch and brick thrown. Most recent protests have been nonviolent. Even those featuring clashes have been 'mostly peaceful'. Nor is all violence surrounding these events the fault of anti-fascist, anti-Trump, or anti-hate protesters. There were apparently clashes not just between poli...

Dear journalists, pundits, and especially cable TV news producers, if you want to teach the POTUS a lesson for taking you on or excluding some of you from a briefing, try something new and innovative. Take a day off from Donald. Don't show him, mention him, tweet at him, or report on his statements. Don't use his name, nicknames, title, or pronouns. No 'POTUS', '45', 'Cheeto Jesus', or 'Agent Orange'. Don't play clips of Spicer mentioning the prez. Just drop him out of the picture for a cycle. You can still talk about what the government is doing, current events, the acts of various cabinet members or generals, and what governors, Congress, and mayors are up to. You can even mention the White House and 'the administration', but leave the big guy with the smallish hands alone. You'll be able to gracefully do your jobs, serve the public, and generate buzz without doing anything unprofessional or unseemly. Imagine yourselves being...

America's foreign policy currently resembles the stumbling incoherence of a drunk well in his cups. A well oiled machine, indeed. Domestically, little has been accomplished since January 20th, beyond putting the courts to work. Republicans in Congress have partnered with the Trump Organization to make it far easier for coal companies to pollute and fill streams, and for schizophrenics to buy guns. Some things to crow about. The Donald keeps saying he inherited a mess, without explanation. I'm beginning to think what he means is, before he became POTUS, there was this inexperienced, dangerous guy set to take the position, and Obama didn't stop it from happening. It must be rough. At home and abroad, I think we can discern the beginnings of a Trump Doctrine in its fairly explicit, thorough-going rejection of the Obama Doctrine, "Don't do stupid shit." 'Do do stupid shit,' about sums it up, so far, don't you think?

I have five suggestions for liberals, progressives, and others on the left: 1) When talking about a Republican in Congress, specifically mention and tie that person to 'Republicans in Congress'. National approval ratings for the Republican party are nagative. The numbers for Congress are dire. Republicans in Congress are in charge of it, across the board. They own it, for now. They should be tied to it, and given the recognition they deserve. Most people do not know who Representative Jason Chaffetz is. A lot of people don't know who Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are. But they know 'Republicans in Congress'. Locally, folks are more likely to know (and support) their representatives or senators, but they don't really see those politicians as part of the general problem. Hence, 'Republicans in Congress'. 2) Similarly, when talking about something a member of the Trump administration has done, make sure to tie it to the Trump administration, right off t...