I ran a search on "War on Democracy" expecting to encounter many hits on articles about our current situation in America. After all, this blog has described something of a "War on Democracy" all year, but without calling it that. But no, there were few hits other than the 2007 book about the U.S. waging a "war on democracy" in other countries.
Is there any doubt we have been witnessing a war on democracy? If you wanted to destroy democracy in America, would you go about it by stating your mission? No, you would make other claims time after time after time. And other players with the same mission would join you in the effort, but all of these bad actors (pun intended) would claim untrue reasons for their actions.
So the public record would be riddled with false justifications. The false justification is a red flag that tells us that the broad strategy of deny, deflect, distract, accuse is being applied in order to sow confusion about reality. Remember, we are only in a post-truth universe if we do not call out the tactic of false justification.
-Ignore the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. War on democracy. But call it the "Biden rule."
-Ignore the president's annual budget proposal in Congress for the first time in living memory. Therefore, no one will discuss that and the Republicans do not have to compare and contrast their proposals with the president's. No problem with this one. No need to concoct a false justification. People will hardly notice.
-While running for president, behave in all ways like an ally of the Russian autocrat, but deny you are working together for the same goal. Does it matter? Does a conspiracy require working together secretly if you are both public figures working together in plain sight?
-As president-elect, deny that Russia was behind the Wikileaks emails or that they were calculated to help you win the election, despite the clear advantage to Russia for that outcome.
The FBI intervention in the election in multiple ways is a clear example, making them appear to be more the secret police of the new regime than an independent agency.
The North Carolina coup this past week to strip the newly elected Democratic governor of the ordinary powers of the office is the latest and most dramatic example of the success of this war on democracy in a state with severe gerrymandering in place and election laws designed to impede voting by democrats.
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Monday, December 19, 2016
Real News
We are hearing a lot now about fake news from multiple sources. But many of our most reliable news stories now come from nontraditional sources. Comedy Central does not see themselves as a straight news source, but their adherence to real life as a source of comedy makes them just that.
At the NYT, a cautious organization that can not speak the truth to lies for fear of appearing biased, the opinion page cohort is mostly a stale group who have all been there for too many years (Dowd, Brooks, Douthat, Kristoff, Bruni, Friedman) saying too little of value.
But Krugman is in a different category. Hired for writing about economics, he writes plainly in most articles about politics instead, most recently today in How Republics End. When Frank Rich was at the Times, he wrote for years about politics, more perceptibly than most of the NYT stable, though he was hired as an Arts and Entertainment guy. So it is, for some reason, that the so-called writers on politics often can not see the forest for the trees. The gap the political writers leave is filled by others.
Springing up to take their place is, you guessed it, BuzzFeed and, more recently, Teen Vogue.
Huh? Teen Vogue? Really? Yes, it has come to this. And not just their GasLighting story.
The current issue of Teen Vogue (and, yes, it is difficult to even write that...) has a great article entitled Russian Hacking Poses a Threat to American Security and the Presidency which gets right to the point and is not tldr.
The Teen Vogue article centers the story in the actual context - what is really happening, not the he/said she said Trumpworld of denial. Unlike the prestigious New York Times, Teen Vogue refuses to tie one hand behind their back. They just report the truth. And so Teen Vogue, who you would think worry too much about appearances, does not, at least in this situation, while the New York Times, whose editorial policy claims they only worry about reporting "without fear or favor", does worry too much about appearances. That approach to journalism leaves us with a worrisome reality. Today.
At the NYT, a cautious organization that can not speak the truth to lies for fear of appearing biased, the opinion page cohort is mostly a stale group who have all been there for too many years (Dowd, Brooks, Douthat, Kristoff, Bruni, Friedman) saying too little of value.
But Krugman is in a different category. Hired for writing about economics, he writes plainly in most articles about politics instead, most recently today in How Republics End. When Frank Rich was at the Times, he wrote for years about politics, more perceptibly than most of the NYT stable, though he was hired as an Arts and Entertainment guy. So it is, for some reason, that the so-called writers on politics often can not see the forest for the trees. The gap the political writers leave is filled by others.
Springing up to take their place is, you guessed it, BuzzFeed and, more recently, Teen Vogue.
Huh? Teen Vogue? Really? Yes, it has come to this. And not just their GasLighting story.
The current issue of Teen Vogue (and, yes, it is difficult to even write that...) has a great article entitled Russian Hacking Poses a Threat to American Security and the Presidency which gets right to the point and is not tldr.
The Teen Vogue article centers the story in the actual context - what is really happening, not the he/said she said Trumpworld of denial. Unlike the prestigious New York Times, Teen Vogue refuses to tie one hand behind their back. They just report the truth. And so Teen Vogue, who you would think worry too much about appearances, does not, at least in this situation, while the New York Times, whose editorial policy claims they only worry about reporting "without fear or favor", does worry too much about appearances. That approach to journalism leaves us with a worrisome reality. Today.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Civil War Too
Imagine life in 1930. In America, reeling from the impact of the 1929 stock market crash, a citizen would look backward to get some bearings. Stopping to think of major historical conflicts, you had "The Great War" of 1914-1918 and the "Civil War" of 1861-1865. Such names. War is not great. It's horrible. But it was "great" in the sense of "incredibly massive". One nickname was "The War to End All Wars". Makes sense. Following such massive casualties, all of humanity lost in a big way. Especially the tens of millions who died, a statistic beyond comprehension. Surely the world would not be so foolish again. Surely the world would find a way to avoid even the possibility of large scale war.
The "Civil War" in America was anything but civil. "Civil" usually refers to the opposite of warlike, but the name has stuck so far. The names of wars change for different reasons. So "The Great War" gave way to another great war. Somehow "Another Great War" or "New Great War" are not a great names, so we have "World War I" and "World War II".
The "Civil War", despite its staying power, may not last. Usually, when angry people win elections, the anger subsides, but we are seeing anger increase in some segments of the population with not so random violence -- attacks on people who "look different" or are "different" in some way. In response, I suggest we come together as a people now and name the next war before it begins in earnest. No, not "Civil War II" or "Civil War Too". Let's go with the "Incivil War". That term captures the incivility of a segment of the population whose candidate won, but still feels so angry because, well, just because.
The "Civil War" in America was anything but civil. "Civil" usually refers to the opposite of warlike, but the name has stuck so far. The names of wars change for different reasons. So "The Great War" gave way to another great war. Somehow "Another Great War" or "New Great War" are not a great names, so we have "World War I" and "World War II".
The "Civil War", despite its staying power, may not last. Usually, when angry people win elections, the anger subsides, but we are seeing anger increase in some segments of the population with not so random violence -- attacks on people who "look different" or are "different" in some way. In response, I suggest we come together as a people now and name the next war before it begins in earnest. No, not "Civil War II" or "Civil War Too". Let's go with the "Incivil War". That term captures the incivility of a segment of the population whose candidate won, but still feels so angry because, well, just because.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)