We hear a lot these days about our political polarization in the U.S., often as if just calling our society "polarized" expresses a self-evident, simple truth, not so much due to the actions of individuals as it was the result of various forces including the changes in the ways news reporting is generated and distributed as technology has advanced over recent decades.
But that so-called "polarization" is taken as accepted wisdom and used as the starting point for many an essay on politics. Like false balance and false equivalence, belief in "polarization" does not violate traditional norms of journalism when used as the premise for a political article (despite defying simple logic).
The traditional norm in the U.S is. to refer to Republicans and Democrats as two equal and opposite sides. Both parties have political agendas with respect to political issues. Politicians in both parties have strengths and weaknesses. Both parties have proposals for laws to advance their agendas.
This standard view of the political world means that if a group of viewers likes to watch Fox News for information, then the opposite of Fox News would have to be an opposing cable channel , MSNBC. Any claims that MSNBC and Fox News are qualitatively different with starkly divergent professional standards would violate the tradition of forced balance.
And so we see how an idealistic, but outdated standard that equates fairness and objectivity with balance translates into attempts at balance that are forced. False statements are given weight equal to true statements. Purveyors of falsehoods do not deserve to be treated with credibility. Credibility granted to habitual liars makes them stronger than the truthful because honest reporters waste valuable time and energy fact-checking the lies of habitual liars. When a liar makes a baseless claim without a shred of evidence because his followers believe in a fundamental "truth" regardless of lack of supporting facts, the honest reporter may not have the evidence to disprove the lie or even to prove that no such evidence exists. Thus does mendacity trump truthfulness.
As an example, take "Smearing Robert Mueller - Sean Hannity and others are blaming the special counsel for one of the F.B.I.’s worst scandals. But there is no evidence to back up their charges."
Surprise, surprise.
As the judge who presided over the relevant trial, Nancy Gertner rebuts the allegations by Dershowitz, Hannity, and others to implicate Robert Mueller in the imprisonment of four men wrongfully convicted of murder. This pattern keeps being repeated. Hannity or some other "conservative" levels an accusation without regard to the truth. Someone who cares more about the truth (which makes that person a suspected "liberal" or, just as bad, a suspected "Democrat"), writes a detailed essay to rebut the reckless claims. After which, Dershowitz or Hannity doubles down on the discredited accusation - in this case, Dershowitz's states that "absence of evidence is not conclusive evidence of absence". In other words, Dershowitz is happy to make serious accusations of wrongdoing whether or not the evidence exists, primarily because the accusations support a strongly held belief he maintains.
The accusation against Mueller falls into a repeated pattern that conservatives find works well for them. Level a single serious accusation against a person who stands in your way, like Robert Mueller. Whether or not the accusation is true, supported by facts, or even relevant to the current issue (the integrity of the Mueller investigation), use that single accusation (which is really a distraction) to claim that the Mueller investigation is therefore discredited.
So, Mueller's exemplary professional career means nothing, but a single smear supports a cherished belief and that becomes enough evidence. Meanwhile, Trump, a man who constantly lies to gain advantage, is given credence by Team Trump.
Ultimately, the polarization in the U.S. is not between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats. The polarization is between those who constantly prevaricate (along with their ardent supporters) and those who respect the truth.
Showing posts with label Party Structure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Party Structure. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2018
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Nuclear Option
Today we are seeing the ability to filibuster Supreme Court justices in the Senate disappear, the so-called "nuclear option". That was easy. Actually, the decision by Mitch McConnell last February not to allow the Senate to consider any nominee of President Obama, no matter how moderate, was the real nuclear option, in terms of momentousness, but the name was already taken.
Given the continued erosion of the comity of the Senate over recent decades, we are better off dispensing with the supermajority requirement and possibly other Senate prerogatives (judicial holds) which only function well within a spirit of cooperation. The sooner the system falls under its own weight, the sooner we may be able to achieve comprehensive reform of the federal government, including electoral reform. That can only happen if Democrats gain substantial power at the national level, which only happens if there is strong negative reaction to Trump and the Republicans because for Republicans, the current system is working just fine, thank you.
Given the continued erosion of the comity of the Senate over recent decades, we are better off dispensing with the supermajority requirement and possibly other Senate prerogatives (judicial holds) which only function well within a spirit of cooperation. The sooner the system falls under its own weight, the sooner we may be able to achieve comprehensive reform of the federal government, including electoral reform. That can only happen if Democrats gain substantial power at the national level, which only happens if there is strong negative reaction to Trump and the Republicans because for Republicans, the current system is working just fine, thank you.
It's Not Me, It's You
With the ascendance of Donald Trump and Republicans in power in Congress, we are nevertheless experiencing a rash of tactics denying personal responsibility, which is fascinating given the party's emphasis of personal responsibility as a talking point on government policy.
Trump famously denies responsibility and deflects attention with a lie. A lie can more powerfully distract from reasonable discourse than a true statement. True statements lead to meaningful discussion, which is a place Trump shuns. Blaming Obama is his favorite sport.
McConnell blames Democrats for the his failure to permit the Senate to consider any Obama Supreme Court appointee in 2016, saying, to paraphrase - "Does anyone believe he Democrats would have done anything differently if the roles had been reversed?". Actually, yes, I believe they would have held hearings on the appointee of a Republican president, but there is no way to prove what would have happened in that alternate universe. McConnell's tactic distracts from meaningful discussion. No one in the press seems to ask him whether he is concerned about the destructive effect of his actions. His claim amounts to - "The Democrats are bad and I am just as bad.". Seems to merit more discussion of where that leads for a society. And for some reason, what the Democrats would have done in the imaginary world is ripe for discussion, but just before the November 8th election which HRC was expected to win, Republican leaders -Cruz and McCain - were talking about maintaining a Supreme Court of eight justices, or even fewer, if Hillary Clinton became president.
Finally we have Devin Nunes recusing himself from the House Intelligence Committee investigation following a series of shenanigans, but is he responsible for his own bizarre and compromising actions? No, he bears no accountability and blames anyone but himself:
“Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power."
Nunes scores a double, or maybe a triple or quadruple there - (1) blaming 'leftwing activist groups', not his own suspicious activities AND (2) deflecting attention to the "unmasking" issue, which (3) is itself a concocted distraction from the Trump tweet on 'wiretapping' which (4) is itself a distraction from the Trump team's extensive ties to the country formerly known as the Soviet Union.
Trump famously denies responsibility and deflects attention with a lie. A lie can more powerfully distract from reasonable discourse than a true statement. True statements lead to meaningful discussion, which is a place Trump shuns. Blaming Obama is his favorite sport.
McConnell blames Democrats for the his failure to permit the Senate to consider any Obama Supreme Court appointee in 2016, saying, to paraphrase - "Does anyone believe he Democrats would have done anything differently if the roles had been reversed?". Actually, yes, I believe they would have held hearings on the appointee of a Republican president, but there is no way to prove what would have happened in that alternate universe. McConnell's tactic distracts from meaningful discussion. No one in the press seems to ask him whether he is concerned about the destructive effect of his actions. His claim amounts to - "The Democrats are bad and I am just as bad.". Seems to merit more discussion of where that leads for a society. And for some reason, what the Democrats would have done in the imaginary world is ripe for discussion, but just before the November 8th election which HRC was expected to win, Republican leaders -Cruz and McCain - were talking about maintaining a Supreme Court of eight justices, or even fewer, if Hillary Clinton became president.
Finally we have Devin Nunes recusing himself from the House Intelligence Committee investigation following a series of shenanigans, but is he responsible for his own bizarre and compromising actions? No, he bears no accountability and blames anyone but himself:
“Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power."
Nunes scores a double, or maybe a triple or quadruple there - (1) blaming 'leftwing activist groups', not his own suspicious activities AND (2) deflecting attention to the "unmasking" issue, which (3) is itself a concocted distraction from the Trump tweet on 'wiretapping' which (4) is itself a distraction from the Trump team's extensive ties to the country formerly known as the Soviet Union.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Coalition of the Willing
Winning is Everything. For Trump, the only way to assuage the emptiness of his soul is to win. But actual winning is not enough without the validation bestowed with the appearance of winning. Thus the importance of (i) his inaugural crowds being higher than Obama's and the Women's March and (ii) winning the popular vote total. No policy goals matter toTrump in any real sense, except that optics matter - he must always appear great and powerful.
Winning is Everything. For McConnell/Ryan, passing the legislation they want is all that matters. If the president signs their legislation, they are happy. Letting Trump maintain his business interests does not conflict with their goals. They just don't care. If the Trump family profits to the tune of, say, $50 billion over four years, why would that matter compared with $20,000 billion annual federal spending over four years.
So the ruling coalition is almost perfectly in sync. McConnell/Ryan and the Republican majority in Congress are poised to allow Trump to do anything and say anything he wants to avoid provoking him. Republican leaders are counting on Trump's handlers to control his impulses.
Dilemma for Democrats. Democrats like Obama and Clinton have maintained that "we are all on the same team". In game theory terms, Democrats see the structure of the federal government as a cooperative game. The functioning of Congress depends on compromise between and among factions who disagree on policy, but agree on the ultimate goal of a functioning national government. But Republicans are playing a different game. At the Inauguration Day luncheon at the Capitol, Ryan described the difference between the House and the Senate as "We play rugby. They play golf.", but he might as well have been describing the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats are now considering adjusting their tactics in Congress and elections. Simultaneously, traditional journalists are adjusting their strategy, showing a willingness to call a lie "a lie". But this may be too little too late. Both the Democrats and the journalists are late to understand the reality of the sandbox they are each playing in.
Democrats have been treating government as a cooperative game, seeking compromise. Republicans have long played a more aggressive non-cooperative game. If Democrats continue to play a cooperative game, they simply lose. If they recognize they are in a non-cooperative game, they will discover it is too late to adapt now that Republicans hold all the cards, at least in the near term. Democrats in the Senate took away the filibuster on judgeships out of frustration with the extreme recalcitrance of Republican Senators, but left the filibuster on Supreme Court justices. Republicans now hold those cards, able to eliminate the filibuster if Democrats obstruct the choice of Trump. All this in the context of the Republican shutdown of Supreme Court nominees in the last year of the Obama presidency, making this issue extremely bitter. So for democrats, they lose if they cooperate, but if they retaliate, they can not win either. If the system of federal government breaks down, Republicans score a 'W" for themselves. More background here.
The Problem for Journalists
Traditional journalists have rigid standards of reporting news that requires viewing politicians as "all the same". "Both sides do it" is taken as a given. "All politicians lie" is a given. The durability of the system of representative government is taken as a given during an election race. Statements by politicians that threaten to undermine democracy - whether or not the politician wins or loses - as Trump has done, are treated tentatively as bad, but not as an existential threat.
Just as the Republican strategy to up the ante in order to win has blindsided Democrats in government and pushed them into a no-win position, the existence of Fox News as an accepted source of "real" news by many citizens and driver of the narrative, has pushed traditional journalists into a no-win position when reporting on politics. Reporting the behavior of the president accurately and fairly could appear biased. Fact checking instead of reporting in context was always a weak response by journalists which has now led to alternative facts.
Road to Confederation
The goal for Republicans is a federal government that operates more like a confederation than a federation, while maintaining a common currency and, unlike Europe, common fiscal authority. Republican proposals to tear apart the structure of the Affordable Care Act that allow states to adopt different versions of the ACA do just that. If we can not have an explicit confederation, then the back-up plan is a virtual confederation. After all, the U.S. was originally a confederation. And the core of the modern Republican party, the Southern states, originally organized as the Confederate States of America. Despite their agreement on many issues, those states chose a confederation, not a federation.
We are seeing a shift in the balance of power in the world consistent with these trends. Trump's strong affinity to Putin which is based on a fellowship of autocrats actually plays well with the traditional Republican affinity to shift the U.S. to a confederation model.
2015 World
1. U.S. is federation. Global leader of progressive democracies. Globalization is progressing.
2. China is emerging economic power and modest, but growing military power. China is major trading partner with U.S. U.S. is leader in Asia, projecting great economic and military power as builder of alliances.
3. Russia is autocratic regime that functions as a kleptocracy. Russian economy is relatively small and relies heavily on oil, but Russian leadership has expansionary goals.
4. Europe is united as a trading zone and currency zone with minor exceptions. Europe is allied with U.S. for defense in NATO.
2017 World Outlook
1. U.S. is federation that may morph into confederation. Together with trade and military alliance posture, the America First position means that NATO weakens as an alliance across the Atlantic and will revert to those European countries that remain united with Germany as the leader. French elections will determine where France stands. U.S. role and influence as a progressive democracy will diminish. U.S. may break away from NATO.
2. U.S. and England post-Brexit, post-Trump, could become an English speaking alliance of trading partners and former great powers. The global influence of these partners will be diminished, but U.S. and Britain may realign as a military alliance.
3. Russia will remain an autocratic, repressive kleptocracy. New "friendship" with U.S., though entirely opportunistic for Putin, will dictate policy. Russia will test the waters of expansionism, possibly by "invading" Latvia using "volunteer freedom fighters". Russia will deny these are Russian soldiers using the Crimean adventure tactic. Fact checkers will find physical evidence these are actually Russian soldiers. Some will be captured and admit they are Russian soldiers. Putin will deny they are Russian soldiers. Trump will support Putin.
4. Europe will reconstitute NATO as an alliance of the Continental powers.
The 2017 elections in France and Germany will be pivotal to the continuing alignment of European powers. Electoral victories by the far right would undermine the European project and atomize Europe.
Dilemma for Republicans. Sorry, but there is no dilemma for Republicans. The extreme tactics worked. Tactically, a President Trump is better than a Cruz or Rubio and much better than a Romney or Kasich because Republicans in Congress only need to reach an agreement among themselves. Those other presidents would have had a political agenda. As it stands now, the U.S. is incapable of holding free and fair democratic elections for president where an informed citizenry chooses between candidates with understanding of the implications of either candidate winning. Republican tactics in electoral campaigns accompanied by the "stall" in Congress when out of power, have been validated as successful. In 2017, Republicans learned that they had not carried those tactics far enough in the past. The message is clear. Find the weakness in your opponent and attack early and often. Repeat phrases hypnotically. And when you win, continue to treat your Democratic opponents as the enemy.
Sunday, December 18, 2016
A Threat to Democracy?
Steve Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt ask "Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?"
Their answer is "Yes" and, in an otherwise on-the-money piece, they conclude,
American democracy is not in imminent danger of collapse. If ordinary circumstances prevail, our institutions will most likely muddle through a Trump presidency. It is less clear, however, how democracy would fare in a crisis. In the event of a war, a major terrorist attack or large-scale riots or protests — all of which are entirely possible — a president with authoritarian tendencies and institutions that have come unmoored could pose a serious threat to American democracy. We must be vigilant. The warning signs are real.
If you follow the train of thought in the piece, the conclusion reads as a nonsequitur, possibly the result of a watchful editor wanting to tone down the piece. Why? Well, that is what they do. Water down the conclusion because the reality is too alarming. Alarming, but not alarmist. This tone-it-down approach was used consistently throughout the primary and general election season as DT trampled the opposition with his no-holds-barred attacks on reality that were never met head on in the weak-kneed media.
The logical consequence of the arguments set forth in the editorial would have been this:
American democracy isnot in imminent danger of collapse. If oOrdinary circumstances no longer prevail. We can not just assume our institutions will most likely muddle through a Trump presidency. It is less clear, however, how democracy would fare struggle in a crisis. In the event of a war, a major terrorist attack or large-scale riots or protests — all of which are likely entirely possible — a president with authoritarian tendencies and institutions that have come unmoored cwould pose a serious threat to American democracy. We must be vigilant and be ready to act decisively as a people when the crisis comes. The warning signs are real.
Or, for easier reading:
American democracy is in collapse. Ordinary circumstances no longer prevail. We can not just assume our institutions will muddle through a Trump presidency. It is clear democracy would struggle in a crisis. In the event of a war, a major terrorist attack or large-scale riots or protests -- all of which are likely---a president with authoritarian tendencies and institutions that have come unmoored would pose a serious threat to American democracy. We must be vigilant and be ready to act decisively as a people when the crisis comes.
Their answer is "Yes" and, in an otherwise on-the-money piece, they conclude,
American democracy is not in imminent danger of collapse. If ordinary circumstances prevail, our institutions will most likely muddle through a Trump presidency. It is less clear, however, how democracy would fare in a crisis. In the event of a war, a major terrorist attack or large-scale riots or protests — all of which are entirely possible — a president with authoritarian tendencies and institutions that have come unmoored could pose a serious threat to American democracy. We must be vigilant. The warning signs are real.
If you follow the train of thought in the piece, the conclusion reads as a nonsequitur, possibly the result of a watchful editor wanting to tone down the piece. Why? Well, that is what they do. Water down the conclusion because the reality is too alarming. Alarming, but not alarmist. This tone-it-down approach was used consistently throughout the primary and general election season as DT trampled the opposition with his no-holds-barred attacks on reality that were never met head on in the weak-kneed media.
The logical consequence of the arguments set forth in the editorial would have been this:
American democracy is
Or, for easier reading:
American democracy is in collapse. Ordinary circumstances no longer prevail. We can not just assume our institutions will muddle through a Trump presidency. It is clear democracy would struggle in a crisis. In the event of a war, a major terrorist attack or large-scale riots or protests -- all of which are likely---a president with authoritarian tendencies and institutions that have come unmoored would pose a serious threat to American democracy. We must be vigilant and be ready to act decisively as a people when the crisis comes.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
BiPolar Disorder
The model for our politics has morphed over recent decades into a full-scale war footing, though leaders among Democrats and the mainstream media have been slow to recognize the evolution. For the leaders, pre-election we say President Obama saying, to paraphrase, "We are all on the same team.", but Republican leaders do not see it that way and have not for a long, long time. Republican leaders have regarded their political opponents not only as political enemies, but just plain enemies for many years.
Our democratic institutions have been reeling from the propensity of Republican leaders to stretch them to their limits without regard to the survival of those institutions and no apparent concern with the precipitous declines great powers have seen throughout history. Only recently did we hear the common refrain"Are We Greece?", which was ridiculous, when the better question was "Are We Rome?".
As we have been saying, T rump is nothing new, but is a more extreme case of Republican electoral strategy carried to its logical limit. The damage to the electoral process rendered by his success this year is almost beyond comprehension. If he had lost, the message may have differed. Instead, his success reinforces the clear message that a political leader how tries to be clear, direct and forthcoming makes a serious mistake. The formula for success is to be evasive and destructive, demeaning and crass, unknowledgeable and vague.
For the Senate majority leader, the calculus is clear. Having taken over the management of Supreme Court appointments, he now has his wife at cabinet meetings. The division of the spoils will allow McConnell to divide real political power with Paul Ryan, while they appease T rump by permitting him to amass as great a fortune as he desires without interference. This devil's bargain will continue until and unless Trump takes some action that they find unacceptable, which is unlikely. As president, he is likely to enrich himself in ways that could prompt Congressional action towards impeachment. But this run-up in his wealth will be the bargaining chip Ryan and McConnell need to keep in him line. They get the legislation they want and T rump gets the personal fortune he wants.
Before 2000, the Electoral College was long viewed as an odd institution that works just fine because... it doesn't do anything! The outcome generally agrees with the popular vote totals. Defined as functioning well by not functioning at all is a dangerous proposition. With all of the other institutions of democracy in the U.S. at risk or failing , the electoral outcome in 2016 is one more blow at democracy, leaving the government in the hands of an uncompromising ruling minority.
The Republican model for governance shows through in North Carolina today as a microcosm of the U.S. The Democratic candidate for governor won a close election over the incumbent who has called a special lame duck session of the Republican legislature to pass laws designed to limit the powers of the newly elected governor. The pretext for the special session - the pretense- was to pass legislation for hurricane relief. So again, the ends justify the means. Lying about the reason for the special session is just another expediency which can be denied. The legislators who resort to these tactics are putting short term political gain ahead of the survival of democratic institutions that are in jeopardy of failing if citizens lose faith in democracy as a result.
And so the battle lines are drawn across political institutions at the federal and state level with Democratic officeholders set to employ tactics that Republicans have made their standard operating procedure to grasp and maintain power.
This is all very sad as it dawns on Democrats that Republicans have been fighting an all-out war for years with Dems mostly saying "we need to work together". Though we often hear that the electorate is polarized now as never before, that overstates the case. The actual polarization is at the political level in the willingness to employ scorched earth tactics which the Republican strategists long ago understood would give them the power to craft policy, even as a minority than they would have if they were willing to compromise. By adopting this approach, they made substantive campaigns a distant memory, plowing a path for a Trump candidacy. They made Democrats the enemy rather than their political opponents. Put those two outcomes together and no wonder we have Putin, the kleptocrat, an enemy of America and progressive democracies worldwide, becomes a close ally of the president-elect. Doesn't this mean that our president-elect, who assails our democratic institutions, has set himself up to be our enemy?
Our democratic institutions have been reeling from the propensity of Republican leaders to stretch them to their limits without regard to the survival of those institutions and no apparent concern with the precipitous declines great powers have seen throughout history. Only recently did we hear the common refrain"Are We Greece?", which was ridiculous, when the better question was "Are We Rome?".
As we have been saying, T rump is nothing new, but is a more extreme case of Republican electoral strategy carried to its logical limit. The damage to the electoral process rendered by his success this year is almost beyond comprehension. If he had lost, the message may have differed. Instead, his success reinforces the clear message that a political leader how tries to be clear, direct and forthcoming makes a serious mistake. The formula for success is to be evasive and destructive, demeaning and crass, unknowledgeable and vague.
For the Senate majority leader, the calculus is clear. Having taken over the management of Supreme Court appointments, he now has his wife at cabinet meetings. The division of the spoils will allow McConnell to divide real political power with Paul Ryan, while they appease T rump by permitting him to amass as great a fortune as he desires without interference. This devil's bargain will continue until and unless Trump takes some action that they find unacceptable, which is unlikely. As president, he is likely to enrich himself in ways that could prompt Congressional action towards impeachment. But this run-up in his wealth will be the bargaining chip Ryan and McConnell need to keep in him line. They get the legislation they want and T rump gets the personal fortune he wants.
Before 2000, the Electoral College was long viewed as an odd institution that works just fine because... it doesn't do anything! The outcome generally agrees with the popular vote totals. Defined as functioning well by not functioning at all is a dangerous proposition. With all of the other institutions of democracy in the U.S. at risk or failing , the electoral outcome in 2016 is one more blow at democracy, leaving the government in the hands of an uncompromising ruling minority.
The Republican model for governance shows through in North Carolina today as a microcosm of the U.S. The Democratic candidate for governor won a close election over the incumbent who has called a special lame duck session of the Republican legislature to pass laws designed to limit the powers of the newly elected governor. The pretext for the special session - the pretense- was to pass legislation for hurricane relief. So again, the ends justify the means. Lying about the reason for the special session is just another expediency which can be denied. The legislators who resort to these tactics are putting short term political gain ahead of the survival of democratic institutions that are in jeopardy of failing if citizens lose faith in democracy as a result.
And so the battle lines are drawn across political institutions at the federal and state level with Democratic officeholders set to employ tactics that Republicans have made their standard operating procedure to grasp and maintain power.
This is all very sad as it dawns on Democrats that Republicans have been fighting an all-out war for years with Dems mostly saying "we need to work together". Though we often hear that the electorate is polarized now as never before, that overstates the case. The actual polarization is at the political level in the willingness to employ scorched earth tactics which the Republican strategists long ago understood would give them the power to craft policy, even as a minority than they would have if they were willing to compromise. By adopting this approach, they made substantive campaigns a distant memory, plowing a path for a Trump candidacy. They made Democrats the enemy rather than their political opponents. Put those two outcomes together and no wonder we have Putin, the kleptocrat, an enemy of America and progressive democracies worldwide, becomes a close ally of the president-elect. Doesn't this mean that our president-elect, who assails our democratic institutions, has set himself up to be our enemy?
Monday, December 12, 2016
What's All This About Gaslighting?
In a series of articles here and here and elsewhere, observers have been calling the Trump/Pence strategy "gaslighting" after the old Boyer/Bergman film "Gaslight".
But it's not gaslighting if you know the perpetrators are constantly lying as a strategy using false positive claims on their own behalf, while using a strategy of deny, deflect, distract, accuse when called out on the lies. That sends the fact checkers digging into reality, which the reporters dutifully report to little attention, while the perpetrator has already moved on to the next lie. Our elite media did not quite see this coming, labeling DT "not a normal candidate" much of this year and, falling into the false equivalence trap, the campaign between two presidential candidates was labeled "not normal".
So the normal candidate lost in the Electoral College which is the system we have.
Even as the accusations and counter accusations fly over the role of the FBI and Russia, some of the simple evidence is quickly forgotten, lost in the miasma.
Back to "gaslighting". We are talking about a populace divided between two types of nonbelievers - those who care about the lies and see this behavior of national leaders like DT and McConnell as destructive of national institutions of democracy and those who just do not care about the lying.
The willingness of conservative leaders to be mendacious in order to win elections and achieve policy goals without fear of retribution, without concern about the devastating impact on the political system is not unprecedented with DT, but the scale is unprecedented. DT beat them at their own game in the primaries and he had valuable assistance from the FBI and Russian agents to plow over the top. Had DT lost the election, he would not have been the leader of the Party. The Party leaders would have continued with the stonewalling of the Obama years, combined with a ratcheted-up opposition to Clinton - endless investigations culminating in impeachment hearings calculated to weaken her Presidency mercilessly ( "merciless" to us, the American people they say they care so much about.). The thinking on the best Republican strategy would have been, OK, Trump was a little over the top, we need to pull the strings of the primary system to make sure the non-establishment candidate does not win next time. Instead, Republican strategists have decided, OK, so this is what we need to do to win - not only elections, but in the court of public opinion as we govern. So lying about everything is the best tactic we have. Anyone who accuses us of lying is being "political", so we can swat down any accusation by labeling it biased. We can do whatever we want without fear of repercussions that we care about.
So it's not "gaslighting". The big mystery that requires a better explanation is - why do the supporters, the Republican base, just not care about the truth? About reality? Why do they not see that mendacity in leaders can destroy a political system, what was once the best political system in the world? Why do they not care about that? Well, for the same reason that they care more about the American flag - a symbol - than they care about America - a country, their country. More on that in a future post.
Meanwhile, easily forgotten in the focus on the Comey role as head of the FBI to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump is the other FBI push made in the final week of the campaign - the posting of documents about the Clinton presidential pardon of fugitive Marc Rich. These actions, together with Republican suggestions that they would limit the Supreme Court to eight justices, or fewer if Justices started to die off with Clinton as president, along with advertising the planned investigations of a president Clinton - all made emphatically during the final weeks of the campaign - were designed to let the American people know - "If you elect Clinton as your president, we will make your life hell!" That warning to American citizens was the shot across the bow which succeeded. If you are a business person who leans Republican, why would you vote against a party that is inclined to enact policies that favor you - lower income taxes on the wealthy, eliminating estate taxes on the wealthy, lower Social Security taxes on the wealthy, lower Medicare taxes on the wealthy, lower corporate income taxes making your stocks more valuable, and so on? Why would you go against all that only to have Republicans in Congress not only continue the scorched earth tactics of the Obama years, but intensify those efforts.
So it's not gaslighting. We all know what is happening. We just have trouble believing the extent of the cynicism about the political system. And the shortsightedness. Do they not see?
These destructive tactics have destructive ends.
 |
| source: wikipedia |
So the normal candidate lost in the Electoral College which is the system we have.
Even as the accusations and counter accusations fly over the role of the FBI and Russia, some of the simple evidence is quickly forgotten, lost in the miasma.
Back to "gaslighting". We are talking about a populace divided between two types of nonbelievers - those who care about the lies and see this behavior of national leaders like DT and McConnell as destructive of national institutions of democracy and those who just do not care about the lying.
The willingness of conservative leaders to be mendacious in order to win elections and achieve policy goals without fear of retribution, without concern about the devastating impact on the political system is not unprecedented with DT, but the scale is unprecedented. DT beat them at their own game in the primaries and he had valuable assistance from the FBI and Russian agents to plow over the top. Had DT lost the election, he would not have been the leader of the Party. The Party leaders would have continued with the stonewalling of the Obama years, combined with a ratcheted-up opposition to Clinton - endless investigations culminating in impeachment hearings calculated to weaken her Presidency mercilessly ( "merciless" to us, the American people they say they care so much about.). The thinking on the best Republican strategy would have been, OK, Trump was a little over the top, we need to pull the strings of the primary system to make sure the non-establishment candidate does not win next time. Instead, Republican strategists have decided, OK, so this is what we need to do to win - not only elections, but in the court of public opinion as we govern. So lying about everything is the best tactic we have. Anyone who accuses us of lying is being "political", so we can swat down any accusation by labeling it biased. We can do whatever we want without fear of repercussions that we care about.
So it's not "gaslighting". The big mystery that requires a better explanation is - why do the supporters, the Republican base, just not care about the truth? About reality? Why do they not see that mendacity in leaders can destroy a political system, what was once the best political system in the world? Why do they not care about that? Well, for the same reason that they care more about the American flag - a symbol - than they care about America - a country, their country. More on that in a future post.
Meanwhile, easily forgotten in the focus on the Comey role as head of the FBI to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump is the other FBI push made in the final week of the campaign - the posting of documents about the Clinton presidential pardon of fugitive Marc Rich. These actions, together with Republican suggestions that they would limit the Supreme Court to eight justices, or fewer if Justices started to die off with Clinton as president, along with advertising the planned investigations of a president Clinton - all made emphatically during the final weeks of the campaign - were designed to let the American people know - "If you elect Clinton as your president, we will make your life hell!" That warning to American citizens was the shot across the bow which succeeded. If you are a business person who leans Republican, why would you vote against a party that is inclined to enact policies that favor you - lower income taxes on the wealthy, eliminating estate taxes on the wealthy, lower Social Security taxes on the wealthy, lower Medicare taxes on the wealthy, lower corporate income taxes making your stocks more valuable, and so on? Why would you go against all that only to have Republicans in Congress not only continue the scorched earth tactics of the Obama years, but intensify those efforts.
So it's not gaslighting. We all know what is happening. We just have trouble believing the extent of the cynicism about the political system. And the shortsightedness. Do they not see?
These destructive tactics have destructive ends.
Monday, November 7, 2016
The Day After Tomorrow - Where Will You Be
Republican strategy began over twenty years ago to be a multi-pronged approach to
(1) preach smaller government, meaning minimal Federal government, while
(2) fomenting anger and resentment using right wing media to garner and maintain political support,
(3) avoiding serious consideration of legitimate political issues.
Today, with the logical result being Trumpism, the new strategy becomes trying to contain the caged animal they created, while fostering development of an effectively Confederation form of government within a nominally Federal republic, almost a shadow government. The Supreme Court will be diminished because no justices will be confirmed while Clinton is president, if the Senate is Republican. Congress will be tied up in meaningless investigations in the House and endless confirmation hearings with no intention to approve SC justices or other Federal judges. No federal laws. No treaties. The weakening of the Presidency and Supreme Court will make the Congress preeminent, with democracy weakened by voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the poisoning of political discourse with constant fact denial. The goal is de facto confederation, just as confederation in the form of the Confederacy was the goal in 1861. The difference being in 1861 the Union was not along for the ride.
Republican officeholders will predictably deny the obstructionist strategy, but the goal could not be clearer from their actions. They will accuse the president of acting illegally and, yes, they will search for excuses to impeach the president in the House. The biggest surprise would be no impeachment of Hillary Clinton. Most likely the next two years will be consumed by the building of a case against her (actual case yet to be determined), with the goal of impeachment and trial in the lame duck session following the 2018 midterm elections.
In theory, as the NYT editorializes "Senate Democrats would have an obligation to consider and vote on his [Trump's] nominees" sounds proper, but is that realistic? Republicans long ago reduced the functioning of the federal government to an exercise in game theory. McConnell's announcement that the Senate would never consider the president's Supreme Court nominee means in the iterative game, Democrats are expected to cooperate in the interest of preserving democracy, (because that is what dos Dems do) while Republicans continue to refuse to cooperate because that achieves the government they want. Watch for the Republican strategy to escalate as they seek "facts" to support disqualification of nominees - judges, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, in order to draw out the process indefinitely.
Suppose
(1) Clinton wins and is able to assume the presidency without obstruction January 20, 2017,
(2) the House is controlled by Republicans, and
(3) the Senate is 50-50 or so.
What to expect:
December 9, one month away, is a critical date for Congress to approve a budget to extend funding through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2017, or for a shorter period of time. The most likely outcome will be approval of a continuing resolution to fund the government for three months or so. Republicans will then have the opportunity to stall out the federal government early in Clinton's first months in office.
Merrick Garland will not be approved by the Senate in the current 2016 term, even though he is at least as moderate as any likely Clinton appointee and some Senate Republicans favor approving his nomination now because he is older than the typical nominee. However, due to the Republican need to effect policy on contentious social issues and voting strategy in the courts rather than through legislation, the Supreme Court nomination approval process will become more of a scorched earth strategy than ever. Stalling on nominations also ties up the Senate, taking positive energy away from legislating, thus achieving that goal.
Whether or not the House will continue to hold the purely symbolic votes repeal the Affordable Act is difficult to predict. House leaders may hold a small number of such votes, but may try to keep the total spanning multiple Congresses below 100 times (unless it is already over 100).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign from the Supreme Court, but will try to wait for completion of the approval process for the current open seat. If no justice is approved due to obstruction by Republicans in the Senate, she will face a tough choice, but may resign anyway at a critical moment in the approval process, hoping to apply political pressure on the Republicans. So she may resign effective with the end of the term on June 30, 2017. Alternatively, she or another justice may pass away unexpectedly.
The Republican Party will continue to be torn by internal dissension, but Republican leaders will do whatever it takes to hold together their coalition without compromising with Democrats except in the most extreme cases. If Ryan remains as Speaker, he is likely to suffer the same fate as Boehner, but that may take a year or two to play out.
Some analysts predict that House Democrats could reach a consensus with a small group of moderate Republicans to make the House a functioning body and offset the power of the most extreme Republican members. Unfortunately, the House will likely have a smaller, more conservative Republican majority, making accommodation with Democrats less likely.
If Trump loses, as expected, we may see severe resistance to the will of the people. No predictions on where that goes. Simultaneously, several Senate races could be so close that a recount is automatic or requested by the candidate with fewer votes. This scenario could leave the control of the Senate in doubt for weeks after the election.
We will hear concerns about "legitimacy" frequently over the next four years in discussions about the functioning of the presidency and the courts.
No predictions if Trump wins.
Why no predictions if Trump wins?
(1) Trump is so extreme. He might act consisten with the conduct of his campaign, but he may not.
(2) Based on accuracy in the past, we lean toward the Sam Wang forecast model:
As of November 7, 2:07PM EST:Snapshot (221 state polls): Clinton 313, Trump 225 Electoral Votes Meta-margin: Clinton +2.7%
Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift >99%, Bayesian >99%
Senate snapshot (48 polls): Dem+Ind: 50, GOP: 50, Meta-margin: D +0.7%, Nov. control probability: Dem. 79%
These result do not consider potential impact of voter suppression efforts in states like North Carolina and Arizona. We shall see...
(1) preach smaller government, meaning minimal Federal government, while
(2) fomenting anger and resentment using right wing media to garner and maintain political support,
(3) avoiding serious consideration of legitimate political issues.
Today, with the logical result being Trumpism, the new strategy becomes trying to contain the caged animal they created, while fostering development of an effectively Confederation form of government within a nominally Federal republic, almost a shadow government. The Supreme Court will be diminished because no justices will be confirmed while Clinton is president, if the Senate is Republican. Congress will be tied up in meaningless investigations in the House and endless confirmation hearings with no intention to approve SC justices or other Federal judges. No federal laws. No treaties. The weakening of the Presidency and Supreme Court will make the Congress preeminent, with democracy weakened by voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the poisoning of political discourse with constant fact denial. The goal is de facto confederation, just as confederation in the form of the Confederacy was the goal in 1861. The difference being in 1861 the Union was not along for the ride.
Republican officeholders will predictably deny the obstructionist strategy, but the goal could not be clearer from their actions. They will accuse the president of acting illegally and, yes, they will search for excuses to impeach the president in the House. The biggest surprise would be no impeachment of Hillary Clinton. Most likely the next two years will be consumed by the building of a case against her (actual case yet to be determined), with the goal of impeachment and trial in the lame duck session following the 2018 midterm elections.
In theory, as the NYT editorializes "Senate Democrats would have an obligation to consider and vote on his [Trump's] nominees" sounds proper, but is that realistic? Republicans long ago reduced the functioning of the federal government to an exercise in game theory. McConnell's announcement that the Senate would never consider the president's Supreme Court nominee means in the iterative game, Democrats are expected to cooperate in the interest of preserving democracy, (because that is what dos Dems do) while Republicans continue to refuse to cooperate because that achieves the government they want. Watch for the Republican strategy to escalate as they seek "facts" to support disqualification of nominees - judges, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, in order to draw out the process indefinitely.
Suppose
(1) Clinton wins and is able to assume the presidency without obstruction January 20, 2017,
(2) the House is controlled by Republicans, and
(3) the Senate is 50-50 or so.
What to expect:
December 9, one month away, is a critical date for Congress to approve a budget to extend funding through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2017, or for a shorter period of time. The most likely outcome will be approval of a continuing resolution to fund the government for three months or so. Republicans will then have the opportunity to stall out the federal government early in Clinton's first months in office.
Merrick Garland will not be approved by the Senate in the current 2016 term, even though he is at least as moderate as any likely Clinton appointee and some Senate Republicans favor approving his nomination now because he is older than the typical nominee. However, due to the Republican need to effect policy on contentious social issues and voting strategy in the courts rather than through legislation, the Supreme Court nomination approval process will become more of a scorched earth strategy than ever. Stalling on nominations also ties up the Senate, taking positive energy away from legislating, thus achieving that goal.
Whether or not the House will continue to hold the purely symbolic votes repeal the Affordable Act is difficult to predict. House leaders may hold a small number of such votes, but may try to keep the total spanning multiple Congresses below 100 times (unless it is already over 100).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign from the Supreme Court, but will try to wait for completion of the approval process for the current open seat. If no justice is approved due to obstruction by Republicans in the Senate, she will face a tough choice, but may resign anyway at a critical moment in the approval process, hoping to apply political pressure on the Republicans. So she may resign effective with the end of the term on June 30, 2017. Alternatively, she or another justice may pass away unexpectedly.
The Republican Party will continue to be torn by internal dissension, but Republican leaders will do whatever it takes to hold together their coalition without compromising with Democrats except in the most extreme cases. If Ryan remains as Speaker, he is likely to suffer the same fate as Boehner, but that may take a year or two to play out.
Some analysts predict that House Democrats could reach a consensus with a small group of moderate Republicans to make the House a functioning body and offset the power of the most extreme Republican members. Unfortunately, the House will likely have a smaller, more conservative Republican majority, making accommodation with Democrats less likely.
If Trump loses, as expected, we may see severe resistance to the will of the people. No predictions on where that goes. Simultaneously, several Senate races could be so close that a recount is automatic or requested by the candidate with fewer votes. This scenario could leave the control of the Senate in doubt for weeks after the election.
We will hear concerns about "legitimacy" frequently over the next four years in discussions about the functioning of the presidency and the courts.
No predictions if Trump wins.
Why no predictions if Trump wins?
(1) Trump is so extreme. He might act consisten with the conduct of his campaign, but he may not.
(2) Based on accuracy in the past, we lean toward the Sam Wang forecast model:
As of November 7, 2:07PM EST:Snapshot (221 state polls): Clinton 313, Trump 225 Electoral Votes Meta-margin: Clinton +2.7%
Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift >99%, Bayesian >99%
Senate snapshot (48 polls): Dem+Ind: 50, GOP: 50, Meta-margin: D +0.7%, Nov. control probability: Dem. 79%
These result do not consider potential impact of voter suppression efforts in states like North Carolina and Arizona. We shall see...
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Tactic of the Day - November 1, 2016
Surprise revelation - remembrance of things past. Someone at the FBI thought it was a good time to remind the public of a 15-year-old Clinton scandal. The document dump does not include the investigator's conclusion that the Clintons hadn't broken any laws. Lest we forget. Something to forget how the presidential debates went down perhaps? And forget all about "the issues", i.e. what a president actually does while in office.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Biased Much?
Yesterday's post The Power to Investigate sets forth the dangers to democracy of endless investigations of political figures. Today, Vox has posted on a related concept Clinton's critics know she's guilty, they're just trying to decide what she's guilty of. In this piece, Matthew Yglesias calls this the Prime Directive driving Clinton bad coverage, worthy of capitalization. Our reference to "double derivative" investigations is given more user-friendly terms by Vox - "The investigation pivots" and "Fishing into the next pond.". As Yglesias states in the final sentence, "What if Clinton has been getting away with it for all these years because she hasn't done anything wrong?"
Yglesias happens to be the author of American Democracy is Doomed from September 2015 which follows similar reasoning to the arguments in this blog, (The perils of presidential democracy, Constitutional hardball, raising the stakes), so his perspective on endless investigations is no surprise.
Two years ago, in the first days following the 60 minutes hit job by Lara Logan, but before the deeply biased flaws in the segment became public, I overheard a water cooler comment by a colleague at the office -- "I don't think we are ever going to know what really happened at Benghazi". My co-worker was in effect saying, "That Hillary Clinton is so evil, so obviously guilty of gross wrongdoing, if only we had the evidence to prove it, but we never will, because she is so slippery!" Biased much? Later that week, almost before you could shout "Lock Her Up!" three times, the incredible bias of the 60 minutes piece and the fraudulence of Logan's primary source were revealed. Now, in a healthy media environment, one might find calmer heads thinking - we better be more careful here, not just 60 minutes, but all investigative news outlets.
In a companion piece, Two experts say Donald Trump should be investigated for criminal tax evasion, Vox lays out reasons that Trump could be indicted for abuse of the rules that govern charities. The big difference between the Clinton and Trump situations is that the Clinton investigations always require a lot more digging and sifting to uncover new information, almost like panning for gold. The Vox article says "Trump should be investigated", but all of the salient facts are known about Trump, except that maybe he did not know what he was doing was illegal if he knew, but not necessarily illegal if he did not. Got that. It was wrong, which is why it was illegal, but white collar crime is difficult to prosecute because so much turns on intention.
The stories about Comey this week make the claim that FBI investigators have been pressuring Comey to prosecute Clinton. In some versions of the story, Comey was afraid the news would leak anyway and so decided to write the letter. We are not hearing about similar moves to prosecute Trump for the abuse of his charitable foundation. Nor have we heard about any investigations under way on Trump's relationship with the Russian leadership, despite his odd denial that the Russian government is behind the hacking of DNC emails.
Unfortunately the obsession with Clinton is only the latest instance of off-base FBI conclusions. The FBI was sure that Richard Jewell was the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber, but he was not. The FBI took years to figure out that Robert Hanssen was a mole in their operations. And the FBI was sure that Steven Hatfill committed the anthrax attacks in 2001 -- oh sorry, he was just a "person of interest" who necessitated agents in hazmat suits rifle through his home as news crews filmed. The FBI later settled on Bruce Ivins' guilt in the anthrax case. So in two of the cases, the FBI placed focus on an innocent person who was made to look guilty, and the press cooperated, as they often do. In the case of Hansen, the guilty party was their own guy -- the FBI took years to uncover Hanssen's role following many breaches and security lapses.
Investigations instigated from bias are an enormous problem. The Vox article correctly asks - what if she has done nothing wrong, but the problem goes well beyond the Vox question. If investigations are pursued primarily because they may turn up wrongdoing, or, if not, will result in a different investigation, that may turn up wrongdoing, or, if not will result in...and so on, forever, in an infinite loop, the result is limited to either (1) wrongdoing uncovered or (2) something that can pass as wrongdoing is found, all without regard to significance or proportionality. As a society, we need to recognize this is a serious threat to a democratic system of government.
Yglesias happens to be the author of American Democracy is Doomed from September 2015 which follows similar reasoning to the arguments in this blog, (The perils of presidential democracy, Constitutional hardball, raising the stakes), so his perspective on endless investigations is no surprise.
Two years ago, in the first days following the 60 minutes hit job by Lara Logan, but before the deeply biased flaws in the segment became public, I overheard a water cooler comment by a colleague at the office -- "I don't think we are ever going to know what really happened at Benghazi". My co-worker was in effect saying, "That Hillary Clinton is so evil, so obviously guilty of gross wrongdoing, if only we had the evidence to prove it, but we never will, because she is so slippery!" Biased much? Later that week, almost before you could shout "Lock Her Up!" three times, the incredible bias of the 60 minutes piece and the fraudulence of Logan's primary source were revealed. Now, in a healthy media environment, one might find calmer heads thinking - we better be more careful here, not just 60 minutes, but all investigative news outlets.
In a companion piece, Two experts say Donald Trump should be investigated for criminal tax evasion, Vox lays out reasons that Trump could be indicted for abuse of the rules that govern charities. The big difference between the Clinton and Trump situations is that the Clinton investigations always require a lot more digging and sifting to uncover new information, almost like panning for gold. The Vox article says "Trump should be investigated", but all of the salient facts are known about Trump, except that maybe he did not know what he was doing was illegal if he knew, but not necessarily illegal if he did not. Got that. It was wrong, which is why it was illegal, but white collar crime is difficult to prosecute because so much turns on intention.
The stories about Comey this week make the claim that FBI investigators have been pressuring Comey to prosecute Clinton. In some versions of the story, Comey was afraid the news would leak anyway and so decided to write the letter. We are not hearing about similar moves to prosecute Trump for the abuse of his charitable foundation. Nor have we heard about any investigations under way on Trump's relationship with the Russian leadership, despite his odd denial that the Russian government is behind the hacking of DNC emails.
Unfortunately the obsession with Clinton is only the latest instance of off-base FBI conclusions. The FBI was sure that Richard Jewell was the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber, but he was not. The FBI took years to figure out that Robert Hanssen was a mole in their operations. And the FBI was sure that Steven Hatfill committed the anthrax attacks in 2001 -- oh sorry, he was just a "person of interest" who necessitated agents in hazmat suits rifle through his home as news crews filmed. The FBI later settled on Bruce Ivins' guilt in the anthrax case. So in two of the cases, the FBI placed focus on an innocent person who was made to look guilty, and the press cooperated, as they often do. In the case of Hansen, the guilty party was their own guy -- the FBI took years to uncover Hanssen's role following many breaches and security lapses.
Investigations instigated from bias are an enormous problem. The Vox article correctly asks - what if she has done nothing wrong, but the problem goes well beyond the Vox question. If investigations are pursued primarily because they may turn up wrongdoing, or, if not, will result in a different investigation, that may turn up wrongdoing, or, if not will result in...and so on, forever, in an infinite loop, the result is limited to either (1) wrongdoing uncovered or (2) something that can pass as wrongdoing is found, all without regard to significance or proportionality. As a society, we need to recognize this is a serious threat to a democratic system of government.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
The Power to Investigate
The power to investigate is the power to destroy. We often hear that the U.S. president is the most powerful person in the world, but that has more to do with the nuclear codes and that power to destroy than the power for positive change in the world. The president's power is checked at every turn by other powerful entities like Congress.
The Watergate Committee understood their power to destroy and took great pains to reach consensus at each major step in their investigation. The investigation was an attempt to understand what just happened - who did what, when and why? At whose direction? Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous "What did the president know and when did he know" was spoken from the perspective -- we do not presume guilt and seek to find evidence to support the conclusion of guilt---we assume the possibility of innocence, but we try to understand what just happened and what is going on. The truly bipartisan consensus of seriousness of purpose and care with regard to the potential danger for democracy was paramount.
We find ourselves at a very different juncture. Investigation is used as a tool for political advocacy. The red flag is the double derivative:
1. Multiple Benghazi investigations. After the first investigation, all other investigations are instigated due to disappointment at the results of the first, or to search for new material for unrelated investigations.
2. Clinton private email server is discovered as a result of the Benghazi investigations. Otherwise, we would not know about the server. That puts us in the derivative mode. If you investigate enough and never close the investigation, you are sure to find something.
3. The latest batch of emails, about which we have no information, is also discovered as a result of an "unrelated investigation", said to be the Weiner investigation.
But here we go again - constant investigation mode. All that matters is the investigation in this world. Nothing else counts. Timing of revelations is ignored. Perspective on proportionality is ignored. The fact that the choice to investigate or not, every step of the way, matters a great deal is ignored.
So investigation (2) derives from (1). That is the derivative.
And investigation (3) derives from the Weiner investigation. But the interest in the treatment of the emails in (3) derives from (2) which derives from (1). So that puts us in second derivative mode, which is a big red flag that screams out - Is this any way to run a country?
Rep. Chaffetz of Utah threatens endless investigations. This stolid stance works as a tactic if the representative does not care about moving forward with legislation because there is never a need to work with colleagues who disagree on some issues, but can agree on others -- to compromise. His investigations do double duty -- they also succeed in distracting from policy objectives. Here we are in 2016, with the Republican strategy to stall out the Congress until 2018, 2020, or beyond -- whenever they finally hold power in Congress working with a Republican president, or, if that never happens, to stall forever.
The continuing endless investigations are just one component of the search for disqualifiers. As a society, we are the victims, subject to the discretion of the powers that be to pursue the search, or not, depending on their own objectives, without regard to the impact on confidence in our government. We have already seen where this does and does not lead.
Stay tuned for more about the role of the Director of the FBI - to report to the Attorney General or to report to the Congress.
The Watergate Committee understood their power to destroy and took great pains to reach consensus at each major step in their investigation. The investigation was an attempt to understand what just happened - who did what, when and why? At whose direction? Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous "What did the president know and when did he know" was spoken from the perspective -- we do not presume guilt and seek to find evidence to support the conclusion of guilt---we assume the possibility of innocence, but we try to understand what just happened and what is going on. The truly bipartisan consensus of seriousness of purpose and care with regard to the potential danger for democracy was paramount.
We find ourselves at a very different juncture. Investigation is used as a tool for political advocacy. The red flag is the double derivative:
1. Multiple Benghazi investigations. After the first investigation, all other investigations are instigated due to disappointment at the results of the first, or to search for new material for unrelated investigations.
2. Clinton private email server is discovered as a result of the Benghazi investigations. Otherwise, we would not know about the server. That puts us in the derivative mode. If you investigate enough and never close the investigation, you are sure to find something.
3. The latest batch of emails, about which we have no information, is also discovered as a result of an "unrelated investigation", said to be the Weiner investigation.
But here we go again - constant investigation mode. All that matters is the investigation in this world. Nothing else counts. Timing of revelations is ignored. Perspective on proportionality is ignored. The fact that the choice to investigate or not, every step of the way, matters a great deal is ignored.
So investigation (2) derives from (1). That is the derivative.
And investigation (3) derives from the Weiner investigation. But the interest in the treatment of the emails in (3) derives from (2) which derives from (1). So that puts us in second derivative mode, which is a big red flag that screams out - Is this any way to run a country?
Rep. Chaffetz of Utah threatens endless investigations. This stolid stance works as a tactic if the representative does not care about moving forward with legislation because there is never a need to work with colleagues who disagree on some issues, but can agree on others -- to compromise. His investigations do double duty -- they also succeed in distracting from policy objectives. Here we are in 2016, with the Republican strategy to stall out the Congress until 2018, 2020, or beyond -- whenever they finally hold power in Congress working with a Republican president, or, if that never happens, to stall forever.
The continuing endless investigations are just one component of the search for disqualifiers. As a society, we are the victims, subject to the discretion of the powers that be to pursue the search, or not, depending on their own objectives, without regard to the impact on confidence in our government. We have already seen where this does and does not lead.
Stay tuned for more about the role of the Director of the FBI - to report to the Attorney General or to report to the Congress.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Advice From A Hit Man
Three Days of the Condor (book and film) is a great example of the classic genre of the talented protagonist who is thrown into an impossible life and death situation and must survive by sheer wit against more powerful, ruthless experts in spycraft. Think Jason Bourne without the physique or training. In the 1975 film, Robert Redford plays the bookish Joe Turner, a low level CIA analyst who returns to the office mid-day to find all of his co-workers have been assassinated. At first Turner contacts headquarters for help, but in the rendezvous barely escapes alive. Realizing he has no place to hide and can not trust anyone, he kidnaps a total stranger, a woman returning to her apartment with groceries, to make her apartment a temporary safe haven for him as he lauches a one-man investigation.
The fascinating element that drives the plot of the film is the series of major adjustments that Turner realizes he must make in order to survive and attempt to bring the killers to justice.
One of the best lines of the film comes when Turner is confronted with the hired hit man Joubert played by Max Van Sydow, who had been after him, but did not have Turner on his hit list that particular day. Joubert tells Turner it is not safe for him to return to his life in New York City:
"It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift."
In the finale Turner announces to the CIA head of department that he has handed the New York Times the story, presuming they will print it, which will secure his safety and expose the rogue CIA operation. But will the NYT print it?
All through 2016 we have been receiving warnings about threats to democracy, threats to the republic, but we are not used to this. The American political system has been experiencing a slow motion crash for many years now, but the immediate effects have been accelerating this year with the Trump candidacy and the suspension of hearings on the Supreme Court nomination. Clueless pundits have described this as a "not normal" year of campaigning. Other pundits have been more perceptive, describing the Trump candidacy as a normal extension of GOP campaign strategy going back decades. But few if any pundits are describing the only two possible outcomes: Either the Republican Party splits into two parties, or the democratic underpinning of our system collapses.
"It will happen this way. A candidate who knows nothing about policy will focus the debate on attacking personalities and will make wild claims about his own capabilities. He will belittle opponents and offer simple solutions to complex problems as he appeals to hate, fear, and resentment. He may even call for his followers to take matters into their own hands if he does not win the election. Moderate people will wait for other moderate people to take necessary action, but no one will."
We are a nation with many Joe Turners. Each day feels like the day before, but one day you wake up and everything has changed. Only terrible choices remain. Republicans who stick to the party no matter what happens in the Congress or the campaigns or who, like Paul Ryan try to have it both ways, placing short term perceived gain above long term impact. Journalists who wake up every day trying to be objective, who define objectivity as maintaining balance, no matter what they observe. Eventually someday comes, and if you receive advice from a hit man, you need to take it.
The fascinating element that drives the plot of the film is the series of major adjustments that Turner realizes he must make in order to survive and attempt to bring the killers to justice.
One of the best lines of the film comes when Turner is confronted with the hired hit man Joubert played by Max Van Sydow, who had been after him, but did not have Turner on his hit list that particular day. Joubert tells Turner it is not safe for him to return to his life in New York City:
"It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift."
In the finale Turner announces to the CIA head of department that he has handed the New York Times the story, presuming they will print it, which will secure his safety and expose the rogue CIA operation. But will the NYT print it?
"It will happen this way. A candidate who knows nothing about policy will focus the debate on attacking personalities and will make wild claims about his own capabilities. He will belittle opponents and offer simple solutions to complex problems as he appeals to hate, fear, and resentment. He may even call for his followers to take matters into their own hands if he does not win the election. Moderate people will wait for other moderate people to take necessary action, but no one will."
We are a nation with many Joe Turners. Each day feels like the day before, but one day you wake up and everything has changed. Only terrible choices remain. Republicans who stick to the party no matter what happens in the Congress or the campaigns or who, like Paul Ryan try to have it both ways, placing short term perceived gain above long term impact. Journalists who wake up every day trying to be objective, who define objectivity as maintaining balance, no matter what they observe. Eventually someday comes, and if you receive advice from a hit man, you need to take it.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
Winning Is the only Thing
Paul Waldman has an insightful piece in WaPo today entitled Republicans are already treating Clinton's presidency as illegitimate, but that does not match the text and the real title should be more like "Republicans play by their own rules, and have for a long time." Kudos to Waldman for resurfacing the "Brooks Brothers" riot outside the year 2000 Florida recount which was staged by Republican operatives, but treated by the press as a protest by regular citizens. He points out that Republicans play by their own set of rules in the sense that they violate established political norms at will in order to gain political advantage, which is, of course, developed as a key feature of modern American politics in the Six Points and many posts on this blog. Waldman also mentions the willingness to do a "180 degree turn" if there is political advantage, which will apply to the Supreme Court nomination process if Clinton wins on Nov. 8th. If the Republicans hold the Senate majority, they will decide whether to approve the Garland nomination or stonewall Clinton appointee(s).
Unfortunately, he ends the piece with the suggestion that Democrats may change the rule on filibusters in response to a potential Republican filibuster of the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the suggested areas of reform by Mann/Ornstein, Dionne, and others is exactly to eliminate or reduce further the ability of the Senate minority to filibuster by rule precisely because the filibuster has been abused so much during Obama's presidency. Waldman's "Two Can Play This Game" is therefore unfortunately cynical and off-the-mark. "Both sides" don't do it, not the same way. The Republican strategy is to take advantage of gaps in the rules - how government is structured, as well as weaknesses in the system, including he said/she said political reporting.
Unfortunately, he ends the piece with the suggestion that Democrats may change the rule on filibusters in response to a potential Republican filibuster of the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the suggested areas of reform by Mann/Ornstein, Dionne, and others is exactly to eliminate or reduce further the ability of the Senate minority to filibuster by rule precisely because the filibuster has been abused so much during Obama's presidency. Waldman's "Two Can Play This Game" is therefore unfortunately cynical and off-the-mark. "Both sides" don't do it, not the same way. The Republican strategy is to take advantage of gaps in the rules - how government is structured, as well as weaknesses in the system, including he said/she said political reporting.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
The Rump Party
In a mostly spot-on piece in the NYT today It's Trump's Party, Paul Krugman asserts "Everyone who endorsed Mr. Trump in the past owns him now;" which is true, and predicts that Republicans in Congress can be expected to do everything they can to make America ungovernable. This prediction is consistent with the Six Points and the general theme of this blog. But he goes on to say "Some observers are already speculating about a regime in which the House is effectively run by Democrats in cooperation with a small rump of rational Republicans. Let's hope so - but it's no way to manage a great nation."
I disagree. What's wrong with that? A political party is an artificial construct - a group of people who share some common interests, generally most interests, but disagree on others. If the Republican Party is fitfully falling apart, as it has seemed to be since at least 2010, then there can be no greater stabilizing influence than a handful of moderate Republicans who finally realize that by voting in Congress with the Tea Party (or its successor), they are not full-fledged members of the Republican Party and can exert more influence by siding with Democrats when that works for them and their constituents, but voting with Republicans when warranted. In practical terms, both House and Senate members need to be willing to switch party affiliation if necessary to avoid government shutdowns, denial of hearings on judicial appointments, and other critical matters of governance. Sure, that is a tall order for a House member with only a two-year term, but there really is no alternative. Efforts at rump politics have fallen short in the past, mainly because the rump group's agreement to agree tends to fall apart. Basically, if you have already "betrayed" your larger party by joining a rump group, what keeps you faithful to the rump group?
The best hope for a rump style success lies in the margin of the Republican majority that holds after Nov. 8th in the Senate or House. The smaller the margin, the greater the power of the individual member to exert his or her own power to shift the balance of power on important issues in that chamber. Here in New England, independence is championed as a virtue with Bernie Sanders as the most visible example. But we have had Lowell Weicker (from Republican to Independent) , Joe Lieberman (from Democrat to "Independent Democrat" after his primary loss) and Angus King (from Democrat to Independent) among others. Lincoln Chaffee glided from Republican to Independent to Democrat.
If the ruling margin in the Senate is close, each Senator who is ideologically close to the middle can exert enormous power by being flexible about party loyalty. This happened after the year 2000 election. The Senate was 50-50 with the Vice President Cheney the tie-breaking vote for Republicans after the January 20, 2001 inauguration. But in June, 2001 Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from Republican to Independent to caucus with Democrats and hand them the majority. If Republicans are obstructionist as expected, moderate Republicans will be under pressure to do more than beg their colleagues to be reasonable - never an effective tactic with Ted Cruz, for example. Switching to the opposing party feels too much like being a turncoat, but calling yourself independent has a positive ring to it.
By way of contrast with the above examples, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, as a member for the Senate up for reelection, touted his "bipartisanship". But that was a smokescreen -- he made a show of voting with Democrats when the outcome was predetermined regardless of his vote while he voted with his Republican Party stalwarts when it mattered. Brown even made a show of standing to applaud President Obama at the State of the Union address at moments when Republicans remained sitting, which fooled no one about his independence. No surprise that his main selling point to be elected in opposition to Elizabeth Warren was to accuse her trumping up her Native American heritage.
So the independence must be real, not faked. More on this after November 8th.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Daddy, What's a Republican?
From Krugman in NYT today: "There is also, I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism that pervades the Republican elite. We're talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy."
And this from Zeynep Tufekci: " 'Jail her!' is the collective cry. It’s not an actual policy statement as much as an entertaining fiction. It’s in fact the logical outcome of a political strategy not based on policy differences but on delegitimizing President Obama, and now Hillary Clinton. The Republican establishment has used this strategy to cover over the fact that a substantial chunk of its base does not share its pro-big business, small government politics."
These two comments share a common theme - that the Republican Party at its core is an alliance of two dissimilar groups: (1) white working class and (2) wealthy business people.
Yet from Grossman and Hopkins in Asymmetric Politics, we have: "While the Democratic Party is fundamentally a group coalition, the Republican Party can be most accurately characterized as the vehicle of an ideological movement. Most Republican voters-- and nearly all of the party's activists, financial supporters, candidates, and officeholders--identify as conservatives and voice support for the abstract values of small government and American cultural traditionalism. In contrast to the variety of single-issue interest groups and social movements that collectively constitute the activist population of the Democratic Party, Republican politics is dominated by a broadly organized, cross-issue conservative movement that now maintains control of the party apparatus. Likewise, the Republican base of support in the mass electorate is less an aggregation of conscious social groups mobilized by the activation of identity based interest than a less diverse set of voters who perceive themselves as mainstream Americans defending the values of individual liberty and traditional morality against the encroachment of left-wing-ideas."
So which is it? More to come.
And this from Zeynep Tufekci: " 'Jail her!' is the collective cry. It’s not an actual policy statement as much as an entertaining fiction. It’s in fact the logical outcome of a political strategy not based on policy differences but on delegitimizing President Obama, and now Hillary Clinton. The Republican establishment has used this strategy to cover over the fact that a substantial chunk of its base does not share its pro-big business, small government politics."
These two comments share a common theme - that the Republican Party at its core is an alliance of two dissimilar groups: (1) white working class and (2) wealthy business people.
Yet from Grossman and Hopkins in Asymmetric Politics, we have: "While the Democratic Party is fundamentally a group coalition, the Republican Party can be most accurately characterized as the vehicle of an ideological movement. Most Republican voters-- and nearly all of the party's activists, financial supporters, candidates, and officeholders--identify as conservatives and voice support for the abstract values of small government and American cultural traditionalism. In contrast to the variety of single-issue interest groups and social movements that collectively constitute the activist population of the Democratic Party, Republican politics is dominated by a broadly organized, cross-issue conservative movement that now maintains control of the party apparatus. Likewise, the Republican base of support in the mass electorate is less an aggregation of conscious social groups mobilized by the activation of identity based interest than a less diverse set of voters who perceive themselves as mainstream Americans defending the values of individual liberty and traditional morality against the encroachment of left-wing-ideas."
So which is it? More to come.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Fixing a Broken System
At WTBP, we see a broken political system in the U.S. and identify key villains - not the worst actors, but those with good intentions (presumably), but lacking in the will to act to effect change. Taking the existing political structure of the U.S. as a given, we find that (1) moderate Republicans who remain faithful to their party caucus in Congress -no matter what happens- and (2) the popular mainstream press who stick to the broken "balanced" model are the two main culprits. Applying pressure to
(1) and(2) to change their ways represents the path of least resistance to meaningful reform.
Making institutional reform happen is difficult because a gridlocked legislature is not likely to reform itself. A minority party that benefits from outsized power and even control of Congress is not likely to seek democratic reforms. These challenges have prompted interest in remedies that do not require monumental laws that may never be passed.
In recent years, interest in electoral reforms has surged. Unfortunately, some creative proposals seem to be driven more by what can be done rather than what needs to be done.
The Center for Election Science (CES) does just that. The CES sees the main problem as the voting method, specifically, voter preference can only be expressed by selecting a single candidate. The CES proposed solution is "approval voting", that is, the voter can pull the lever for all candidates the voter likes. CES invokes year 2000 for their example. The result would be that Nader voters would have exercised two votes in many cases - one for Nader, their "honest favorite" and one for Gore, to register the preference of Gore over Bush. Year 2000 is not a great example of a fix, because Nader had such a small following.Any vote for Nader was clearly a protest vote or a mistake brought about by confusion over the butterfly ballot. People have to get used to the idea that when you vote you do it to affect the outcome of an election. If you are trying to feel good, there are plenty of other avenues.
California has an intriguing Top-Two Primary System for most offices. The primary field is reduced by vote to two candidates regardless of party. This is worth exploring in other States that do not have it. California also operates an independent redistricting commission to eliminate gerrymandering. The solution to gerrymandering is not simple. The math behind voter preference and drawing legislative districts show us that solving some problems with any system creates others. (re: social choice see Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem.)
The neuroscientist Sam Wang has developed a beta tool to statistically test for partisan gerrymandering.
The California efforts and the objective tool to measure extent of partisanship in creating districts show promise. But the CES proposals would require enormous effort to enact, and do not directly or realistically combat the problems with our democratic system.
(1) and(2) to change their ways represents the path of least resistance to meaningful reform.
Making institutional reform happen is difficult because a gridlocked legislature is not likely to reform itself. A minority party that benefits from outsized power and even control of Congress is not likely to seek democratic reforms. These challenges have prompted interest in remedies that do not require monumental laws that may never be passed.
In recent years, interest in electoral reforms has surged. Unfortunately, some creative proposals seem to be driven more by what can be done rather than what needs to be done.
The Center for Election Science (CES) does just that. The CES sees the main problem as the voting method, specifically, voter preference can only be expressed by selecting a single candidate. The CES proposed solution is "approval voting", that is, the voter can pull the lever for all candidates the voter likes. CES invokes year 2000 for their example. The result would be that Nader voters would have exercised two votes in many cases - one for Nader, their "honest favorite" and one for Gore, to register the preference of Gore over Bush. Year 2000 is not a great example of a fix, because Nader had such a small following.Any vote for Nader was clearly a protest vote or a mistake brought about by confusion over the butterfly ballot. People have to get used to the idea that when you vote you do it to affect the outcome of an election. If you are trying to feel good, there are plenty of other avenues.
California has an intriguing Top-Two Primary System for most offices. The primary field is reduced by vote to two candidates regardless of party. This is worth exploring in other States that do not have it. California also operates an independent redistricting commission to eliminate gerrymandering. The solution to gerrymandering is not simple. The math behind voter preference and drawing legislative districts show us that solving some problems with any system creates others. (re: social choice see Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem.)
The neuroscientist Sam Wang has developed a beta tool to statistically test for partisan gerrymandering.
The California efforts and the objective tool to measure extent of partisanship in creating districts show promise. But the CES proposals would require enormous effort to enact, and do not directly or realistically combat the problems with our democratic system.
Monday, September 26, 2016
What's All This About Asymmetry?
Scholars and the blogosphere are getting excited about asymmetry - and you should too -- because this is the key to reforming standards of political journalism in the U.S., the UK, and any country with a free press that bends over backwards to appear unbiased by tracking down every negative story at the expense of context and true fairness - to readers, fairness to the subjects.
Asymmetric Politics is a new book from Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins on this topic. More to come on that.
Washington Monthly has a shout out to Jay Rosen's blog piece on the subject.
See Why Asymmetry Matters.
As you read, keep in mind the seminal theory of the Six Points and related pages Beyond the Pale, Key Takeaways and Both Sides Do It
As noted in the Six Points the two groups in society who hold the power to change the dangerous direction of American politics are the journalists, who need to modify (really replace) the current standards, and moderate Republicans, who need to take the chance to threaten to form a rump group to leave their caucus in order to weaken the Tea Party scorched earth tactics.
If you read all of these posts and the arguments make sense to you, Congratulations! You have just been thoroughly brainwashed. Kidding! But really, that's was the Times editors seem to be saying in their recent News Analysis of the Clinton twitterstorm. All liberals apparently, who did not vote for Bernie think alike and wait for commands from their leader, Hillary. That would mean the Bernie Bros believe whatever their leader tells them. If these people do not think for themselves, how did they decide between Bernie and Hillary in the first place.
Asymmetric Politics is a new book from Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins on this topic. More to come on that.
Washington Monthly has a shout out to Jay Rosen's blog piece on the subject.
See Why Asymmetry Matters.
As you read, keep in mind the seminal theory of the Six Points and related pages Beyond the Pale, Key Takeaways and Both Sides Do It
As noted in the Six Points the two groups in society who hold the power to change the dangerous direction of American politics are the journalists, who need to modify (really replace) the current standards, and moderate Republicans, who need to take the chance to threaten to form a rump group to leave their caucus in order to weaken the Tea Party scorched earth tactics.
If you read all of these posts and the arguments make sense to you, Congratulations! You have just been thoroughly brainwashed. Kidding! But really, that's was the Times editors seem to be saying in their recent News Analysis of the Clinton twitterstorm. All liberals apparently, who did not vote for Bernie think alike and wait for commands from their leader, Hillary. That would mean the Bernie Bros believe whatever their leader tells them. If these people do not think for themselves, how did they decide between Bernie and Hillary in the first place.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Four Party System
Our March 24, 2016 Post - Down the Road muses on the possibility of a 4-party system evolving in the U.S. as a possible path to avoid persistent deterioration of government function. Lo and behold, Bloomberg News and Jeffrey Sachs have similar thoughts: This Campaign Broke the System. Of course, on this blog, we do not see the Trump campaign as an aberration that broke the system, but as a not unlikely outcome of the sliding quality of Republican presidential campaigns over recent decades.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Down the Road
In response to Douthat's Trumpism after Trump:
The best case scenario to end Republican obstructionism in the Congress is a split in the Republican party between those willing to compromise and those not.The most stable outcome for the country that could emerge following a Republican party split into two parties would be a Democratic party split of the current Sanders supporters following four years of the Hillary Clinton administration. Without a counterbalance of a leftist 4th party, we will continue to experience the debilitating instability of the various Republican party coalitions jockeying for position. Those coalitions will continue to seek to exert more power by morphing into two separate groups such as Tea Party/Establishment, but third parties are doomed to failure in our system without a counterbalancing effect of a fourth party on the other side. If this 4-party system does not evolve, we will continue to experience a stalemated Congress, and possibly a Democratic President stymied by a do-nothing Congress. We could have an 8 member Supreme Court or even a 7 member Supreme Court down the road with appointees blocked indefinitely, along with substantially Republican control of governorships and state legislatures for years to come.
The best case scenario to end Republican obstructionism in the Congress is a split in the Republican party between those willing to compromise and those not.The most stable outcome for the country that could emerge following a Republican party split into two parties would be a Democratic party split of the current Sanders supporters following four years of the Hillary Clinton administration. Without a counterbalance of a leftist 4th party, we will continue to experience the debilitating instability of the various Republican party coalitions jockeying for position. Those coalitions will continue to seek to exert more power by morphing into two separate groups such as Tea Party/Establishment, but third parties are doomed to failure in our system without a counterbalancing effect of a fourth party on the other side. If this 4-party system does not evolve, we will continue to experience a stalemated Congress, and possibly a Democratic President stymied by a do-nothing Congress. We could have an 8 member Supreme Court or even a 7 member Supreme Court down the road with appointees blocked indefinitely, along with substantially Republican control of governorships and state legislatures for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)