Distress, Acceptance and Taking the Long View

[Garrett78]

Republican refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing and accept facts is about greed and power, but it's also about an overarching ideology. And it's about tribalism. It's about supporting the party no matter what. And theirs is an ideology of extreme, mythical individualism and a mythical "free market." It disputes the existence of what's known as "the commons." Also embedded in their creed is an archaic racism and sexism. I don't think Republican officeholders merely foment and exploit racism and sexism for personal gain, though they certainly do, I think most Republicans in power are themselves devoutly racist and patriarchal. They almost have to be in order to push an ideology that depends, in large part, on denying the reality that injustice is systemic, not evenly distributed and that seemingly past/resolved injustices continue to influence power structures.

It can be infuriating to listen to Nunes, Jordan and others spout lies, but in their defense, they have no choice. As Cody Cain points out, lying is key to the Republican Party's survival. Their ideology is a house of cards, and to tell the truth would lead to collapse.

Just imagine the stump speech. “Vote for me and I will slash your health care! In fact, I’ll do even better — I'll fight like mad to completely eliminate your health care!”

The AG of the United States was going around the world trying to stir up conspiratorial nonsense, which is absolutely surreal, but it also follows a pattern. The Republican Party has been trying for decades, with quite a bit of success, to undermine faith in government. Run up debt so as to cut entitlements, have corporations write legislation, deregulate industry, install heads of departments whose mission it is to erode those very departments, etc. Since the likes of Putin also wish to undermine democratic institutions for the purpose of self-enrichment, Putin and Republicans make for interesting bedfellows. This is a war of ideologies: we vs. me. "It takes a village" vs. "every person for themselves" (cheating permitted...nay, encouraged). The likes of Barr, Bannon, Mulvaney, Pompeo et al. are especially dangerous--they're white nationalists and despise secularization. Bannon at the very least would prefer we return to pre-enlightenment days.

And, as has been mentioned by others, there is the distinct possibility that many Republicans in Congress are just as compromised as Trump. As I like to say, Republicans have more rubles than scruples.

The feelings many express of distress and depression are very understandable. Tempting though it may be to do otherwise, I think it's best that we all accept what we're up against. For instance, I never thought and still don't think the Ukraine story will result in a Senate conviction of Trump. I do, however, fully support impeachment and hope that it damages Trump enough that we can overcome the inevitable election fraud (in the form of foreign interference, voter suppression, dark money, gerrymandering and the utilization of an irresponsible profit-driven media to promote lies, obfuscation and false equivalencies) next November. Of course, impeachment hearings may continue. But I think what it would take to get a Senate conviction is almost unimaginable. It would have to be audio or video of something so grotesque (yes, even worse than Trump bragging about committing sexual assault, as he infamously did on the Access Hollywood tape) that Trump's approval rating, which has been unprecedentedly steady, would drop drastically almost over night (from around 40 to the mid-20s).

It's also best to resist the notion that Trump happened in a vacuum, so to speak, that the pre-Trump Republican Party was somehow reasonable and not at all responsible for the rise of Trump. It's an absurd notion, so it should be easy to resist, but there are Never Trumpers, members of the media and even some Democrats who seem to want to believe if we just get rid of Trump all will be well or "normal." As if most Republicans are decent and honorable, which is obviously not the case. As if 50+ years (going back to Nixon and his Southern Strategy) of increasingly cruel and unhinged policy and rhetoric didn't make Trump almost inevitable. As if we don't have to worry about Trump 2.0, a more politically savvy and intelligent version of the monster currently occupying the White House, coming down the pike. Trump is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

We should also accept that we have a tyranny of the minority political system that will become increasingly anti-democratic. It's been reported, for instance, that by 2040 we can expect nearly 70% of the US population will be represented by just 30% of the US Senate. That's an intolerable situation. Unfortunately, this political system is incredibly difficult to change for the very reasons why major structural reform is so desperately needed. I imagine the founders would have expected the US Constitution to have been rewritten at least once by now, especially if they knew just how drastically society, the nation and the world had changed. However, a constitutional convention would be a complete disaster with states like Idaho, South Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma having an outsized influence.

We should accept that the Republican Party is not on its death bed. I've seen post after post after post suggesting that the Republican Party is done for, or that it will be if it doesn't remove Trump from office. That idea is comforting, but it isn't rooted in reality. Demographic change isn't sufficient given our broken system. That said, demographic change (along with social progression, increased secularism, etc.) is a big reason why Republican tactics have become increasingly extreme in recent years (intense voter suppression and gerrymandering, full-throated attacks on science and public education, persistent attacks on the "liberal media" to help shift the Overton Window, stealing a Supreme Court seat and packing the judiciary with right wing ideologues, aligning with dictators who share the goal of undermining democracy for personal enrichment, replacing the dog whistle with a bullhorn, and so on). But the demise of the Republican Party has been predicted for decades. Without major reform of our tyranny of the minority political system, without public education reform, without media reform and without putting an end to what is essentially election fraud, the GOP will live on. It's ethically bankrupt but it will continue to be a major player. The GOP, as batshit crazy as it's become, currently holds more power nationwide (state legislatures, governors, etc.) than the Democratic Party. As more and more of the population lives in a disproportionately small number of states, the problem will worsen. 2020 may go really well for us, but between all of the aforementioned issues and an incredibly ignorant public with the attention span of a gnat, the Republican Party isn't anywhere close to being laid to rest.

A survey from earlier this year indicated that around 30 million US adults have never heard of Mike Pence. Never. Heard. Of. Him. Let that sink in for a moment. Meanwhile, there are those who support the Affordable Care Act but despise Obamacare. So, one can only imagine how many people aren't even aware of the various facts being established in the impeachment hearings, if they're even aware that the hearings are taking place. It's also not hard to imagine there being millions of people who don't even know there's a presidential election next year. We must address this epidemic of ignorance.

Oh yeah, there's also that whole existential threat known as climate change.

I've probably not done anything to dissuade those feelings of distress. But acceptance must precede action. I think it can be helpful to take the long view, to focus on planting seeds in the public consciousness. Literally planting seeds in a community garden and starting local cooperatives would be a couple of examples. Write. Get involved in local organizations that are focused on combating racism and sexism. Consume less. The Democratic Party placing greater emphasis on education reform and media reform seems necessary. Make civics a bigger part of a child's education. Make media literacy (such as identifying and verifying sources, and recognizing tactics such as 'projection' and the Gish gallop) mandatory curriculum from elementary school through college. Make college much more accessible. Raise hell over the media's tendency to give equal time to lies and obfuscation out of some twisted sense of what constitutes fairness, or simply because it's good for ratings. Raise hell over media consolidation. You may not see the kind of change you want to see in your lifetime, and that can be a difficult reality to face, but take the long view for the good of humanity.

[tblue37]

1. K&R. Excellent essay. nt

[Garrett78]

4. Thanks.

[PatrickforO]

2. This is a very interesting and well written post.

Concerning your last paragraph, I'm quite in agreement. If we actually took over school boards and state boards of education, we would be able to effect these changes. Our kids need more in school than chest pounding nationalistic pseudo-patriotism. They need to understand clearly what their responsibilities are as citizens of a republic.

As to local political and community action, I have a friend, now retired, who was the CEO of an economic development organization in a major urban area. He and I had many conversations about the future, and his standpoint was that the federal government was so polarized and corrupt that it would collapse of its own accord. In his mind, the taxes that would have been paid to the feds could then be freed up to address economic, social and infrastructure issues in the local community. He was of the mind that nation states are basically artificial, and that the only real continuity through time has come from city-states. I never quite agreed with him, but that is an interesting perspective.

I believe we can take back our republic. The greatest illusions to which humankind is prey are the lust for power and the lust for wealth. In the end, those two things are utterly meaningless. What does have meaning is to live in such a way as 'blesses' the world, or perhaps in such a way that your little neck of the world is better because you've lived. And that is about relationships - wisdom, understanding, compassion, humility and love - the only real 'currency' that has any meaning at all.

As to a constitutional convention, as an economist I have some concerns. The know-nothing tea party people - the ideologues who wish to impose a twisted prosperity-protestant theocracy on us - want to rewrite the constitution with a balanced budget amendment, which would truly be disastrous because the government must be the spender of last resort during a downturn to keep up demand for goods and services. Plus who knows how many of the current amendments in the Bill of Rights would be retained?

You are right about the senatorial imbalance - Bill Maher pounds on that during his show, which my wife and I try not to miss. He always says we shouldn't have two Dakotas for instance. We do need a better senatorial balance. The tiny states with very few people should not wield outsized power, because that is not fair to the rest of us.

Two last observations:
- You did not mention the overturn of Citizens United and the removal of 'dark money' from our national government. That would go quite far toward making things better, or at the least reducing the capitalist-corporate corruption.

- I think Trump will drag the Tea Party, which has become the Party of Trump, down with him. I really do. We will still have 'trumpism,' which is what I believe you're saying above, but I suspect the sane people (we Democrats) will split into two parties - a 'centrist' party, which are basically Eisenhower Republicans (think Obama, Biden, Klobuchar, Clinton), and progressives, which are basically New Deal Democrats (think Sanders, Warren, Katherine Porter, AOC). That is the argument we need to be having - that our founders intended we have.

In the meantime, we need to work hard at all levels with legislation and policy that systematically drives the Trumpists back under their slimy white nationalist, xenophobic, homophobic rocks. They will always exist, but we must hold a firm belief that we can pull their fangs.

[Garrett78]

3. I want to give a more complete reply later, but for now...

...there are very strong arguments against the nation state concept, borders and other social constructs. Arguments with which I tend to agree. But society just isn't there yet.

I mentioned dark money, but you're right that I didn't say much about that whole issue. The need for major campaign finance reform is clearly evident.

Just to be clear, I'm in agreement regarding a constitutional convention. It would be disastrous.

[aggiesal]

6. Where would FDR fall within the 2 Democratic Parties ...

Centrist or Progressives?

[PatrickforO]

7. Now, this is a bit tricky. The obvious answer is Progressive, since I'm

comparing that philosophy to the New Deal. But in terms of social justice, not so much.

Be mindful that FDR was a child of his time, and I believe it is a disservice to him, and to people who lived in that era to judge them through our modern lens. Historical figures will always come up short if we do that, though they may arguably have done great things. When I think of examples for this, Winston Churchill comes to mind. He was in fact a great man with a mighty destiny - arguably he inspired the Brits to stand alone (for a time) against the scourge of Nazi Germany. He did.

But he was also an imperialist in the worst sense of the word, and referred to Ghandi as a 'fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.'

And, of course, when Atlee forced an election after VE Day, Churchill campaigned on bringing back the British Empire to its glory days when his people actually wanted healthcare. So Churchill lost and Clement Atlee and Labour brought about Britain's National Health Service.

So, after this contemporary example, let us consider FDR. On the good side:
- Under the New Deal, brought to be a whole bunch of social safety nets - unemployment insurance, Social Security, welfare and so on.
- Took us off the gold standard, stopped the drain on gold reserves.
- Stabilized banking through the Glass-Steagall Act and the FDIC law that keeps people from losing their life savings if a bank fails. The SEC was also created on Roosevelt's watch, which provided much needed oversight in the stock market and outlawed the most common practices of market manipulation.
- Under Roosevelt, tax rates were dramatically increased for the wealthy.
- Roosevelt was pro-union, and under him union membership grew dramatically, and with it the economy and the US middle class.

On the bad side:
- The New Deal did not end segregation or the awful practice of lynching.
- The Federal Housing Administration implemented policies that arguably hurt African Americans.
- He backed off to pressure from the AMA not to implement a national health care system.

To answer your question then, in today's terms, Roosevelt would be considered a centrist in many ways. However, where economic policy is concerned, as the Depression wore on he became much more Keynsian in outlook than he was at the outset. Thus in terms of economic policy, by 1935 he had become quite progressive, yet still to the right of Bernie and Warren - just a bit.

[aggiesal]

8. Nice analysis, but ...

there is no way that FDR would be considered centrist.

To say the New Deal did not end segregation would be like blaming that the Constitution didn't end slavery.
FDR got what he could get at the time. Same thing with the Federal Housing Administration.
And backing off to pressure from the AMA to not implement a national health care system does not make him a centrist, because he actually wanted it and he wanted to implement it after to 1940 election except that WWII got in the way.

FDR was a complete Progressive pretty much spot on with Bernie and Elizabeth.



In this chart, it shows both Sanders & Warren as ultra progressive, which I believe is extremely incorrect.

[PatrickforO]

9. I wouldn't have put Obama that far towards progressive. Now, I'm not basing that

on what I guess his personal politics are, which are doubtless far nearer FDR and Truman on this continuum.

I'm basing this on how he actually governed. I'd shave about 0.05 points and put him around -0.3. What causes me to do that is the process by which he tried to enter the TPP. If you were on here at that time, I objected strenuously to the secrecy, the fact the members of Congress had to go and look at documents in a room but couldn't take notes (ridiculous!), and the fact the whole thing was written by international corporate attorneys who seemed deliberately trying to be obtuse.

And, the ISDS provisions seemed to me to be distinctly un-democratic in the sense that a company could actually force a local government into binding arbitration for imposing regulation that 'adversely affected their profits.'

You doubt me about these ISDS provisions? TransCanada sued the US under NAFTA over denial of permits for the Keystone Pipeline. Nothing came of it, but what would come of such a thing if it was a local government instead of the US government?

As to the stimulus (ARRA), I would rate that close to where his dot is on the chart, and you will remember that he did also impose some good new financial regulations, some of which were later overturned in subsequent Congresses. And of course Trump is trying to throw the whole thing out.

But you could also make a case to move O's dot further right with his continuation of the drone attack policy, and the deportations his administration engaged in.

In the end, I'm going to suggest that O's current 0.35 is a bit too far left. Moot point, though. Obama was in fact the best president of my lifetime, and that's no lie. He did the job well, thoroughly and I always felt very safe with him in the White House.

Unlike the anxiety I feel every day with Trump squatting illegally and treasonously in there.

[aggiesal]

10. I felt from the beginning that he was too much of a corporatist. ...

He wouldn’t fight for single payer and pretty much killed it before getting started.

I hated the TPP and I used to call it SHAFTA
Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement.
I hated the corporate tribunal, this pretty much stripped every nations judicial & legislative sovereignty.
I know very well about how the corporate judicial TPP system would work.
When the US passed a dolphin free tuna regulation, a company in Mexico sued that this regulation would eat into their profits and won.

Awful agreement.

[PatrickforO]

11. Well, you're being a little hard on him. Pretty much all the presidents since Ike

could be called 'corporatists' to some degree. That's kind of how our system works.

Aside from the TPP and the drone policies, I think Obama genuinely tried to put policies in place that mitigated corporate abuses, which is often about the best thing a Democratic president can do in this capitalist utopia.

And, don't forget that the Newtster and several Republican leaders met in a DC steakhouse the night of Obama's inauguration and agreed to have their rank and file opposed EVERYTHING O and the Dems did. Everything. That's why ACA got 0 R votes. That's why we had the massive corporate propaganda campaign against it. And that is why the GOP House voted to repeal it what, a couple hundred times? Funny, because the ACA was dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation.

[Garrett78]

13. I don't think it's particularly useful to compare Democrats across eras.

I seem to recall Buttigieg make the point in one of the debates that instead of looking to return to a more sane past, we should focus on establishing a new future. For one thing, our past is quite ugly, especially as it concerns the treatment of POC and women. For another thing, it's apparent that the status quo ain't working.

I just read the piece by Anand Giridharadas in the latest Time magazine and highly recommend it.

[aggiesal]

14. Why not? I'm looking at the ...

agencies and everything that FDR accomplished and what created the strongest middle class the world had ever seen.

Democrats ran the house for 50 years and cared about people. Since Reagan when (R)’s took over
they’ve shrunk the middle class and we (D)’s have stopped caring about people and started courting corporations.

We should start focusing on a more sane future, apply what we’ve learn from our past mistakes.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. k&r

Breaking the disinformation bubble will be hard; it's shielded by billions.

[Garrett78]

12. Yeah, it'll take a relentless campaign and the Democratic Party making it a priority.