IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

A Difference Without a Difference

10/18/2022

The Warnock v Walker Georgia Senate Debate

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker, face off in a debate in Savannah, Ga., on Oct. 14, 2022. (Screenshot) - Politifact

The debate between Democrat Senator Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker highlighted the difference between their appeal to "moderate" Republicans and swing voters. While Senator Warlock has demonstrated his qualifications to be a senator, Walker has only shown his qualifications to play a physical game - football. Walker, for example, is so inarticulate that I couldn't decipher much of what he was trying to say. But I could understand enough of what he was trying to say to know that he did not understand the issues he should have. Warnock had a different problem. Warnock did not directly answer questions. Warnock avoided answering when asked whether he would support a Biden run for re-election in 2024 or expanding the Supreme Court. Warnock did not want his answer to put off any voters he might be able to gain. Never mind those voters who might be put off by a politician not answering a question.

Generally, Warnock did not challenge the many openings the press had provided about Walker's life. Warnock did not attack Walker for failing to act as a father to his "outside" children or his hypocrisy in demanding his girlfriend got an abortion when he was campaigning as an anti-abortion candidate. Warnock did challenge Walker for pretending to be a law enforcement officer. Walker answered the charge by pulling out an honorary badge to support his claim of being an officer.

Warnock is campaigning as a moderate who is a good and honorable man that both black and white voters can trust. His reluctance to attack signifies his moderation. On the other hand, Walker is campaigning as a black man that whites can trust to act as expected and be compliant. Walker's honorary badge is a symbol of his compliance. Warnock and Walker used the same narratives that some blacks have used for generations to convince whites that they can be trusted. The narrative that Warnock is using, however, is based on values that all of us can support. The narrative Walker uses has lost much of its effectiveness and hopefully will lose even more.

Reflecting on January 6 Commission's October 13 Hearing

10/17/2022

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Committee Vice Chair U.S. Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) look on during the public hearing of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 9, 2022. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The final hearing of the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 insurrection was held on Thursday, October 13. It presented evidence that showed (1) how Republican Congressmen had enabled the insurrection by failing to hold Trump accountable for egregious violations, (2) Trump is a dangerous psychopath who will not stop at murder, and (3) the severe problem we have with the willingness of some law enforcement officers to uphold law and order for groups they do not think deserve it. The hearing confirmed three conclusions about these issues I had drawn and written about in my book, American Strife.

First, the committee showed a video of both Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders being held in an undisclosed location for their safety. The members were on their phones trying to arrange for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia national guard to restore order. In this setting, Republicans were aware of the danger they all faced. Within two days, some Republican leaders were making excuses for the insurrectionists who had threatened their lives. In American Strife, I examine the motivations of Republicans who, on the one hand, sing the praises of democracy while engaging in actions that will undermine it.

Second, despite Trump's public statements to the contrary, the committee revealed that Trump knew he lost the 2020 presidential election but was intent on convincing the public that he won. The purpose of this big lie was to set the stage for the overthrow of the election results. The committee presented compelling evidence that Trump was involved in planning the overturn. Trump incited thousands of his followers to Washington on the day the election results were to be certified. Trump knew that many of his followers were armed and intent on killing his Vice-President Mike Pence and Democratic leaders. If the deaths of these leaders had occurred, Trump would have been able to declare a national emergency and remain in power. In American Strife, I present psychological evidence showing that Trump is not simply a narcissist but a psychopathic personality.

Third, the violence that occurred on January 6 was partly due to the failure of various law enforcement agencies to act on the information that they had gathered about the planned violence. The Secret Service and the FBI had precise information about who was planning to breach the Capitol and the murders they intended to commit once inside. These premier law enforcement agencies failed to act on this information. And in hearings after January 6, these law enforcement agencies' leadership was not forthcoming about what they knew. The question is whether they were a part of a cover-up or simply covering for their agencies. In American Strife, I talk about white supremacists' infiltration of law enforcement agencies and the difficulty in rooting them out. As January 6 and the many suspicious shootings of blacks by police officers show, law enforcement is now considered a commodity, either good or bad, that police mete out to favored or unfavored tribes.

What’s the Story with Democrats

10/13/2022

Countless observers have noted that Democratic messaging is ineffective. They identify many different deficiencies in Democratic messaging, but three stand out. First, they point out that Democrats lack a messaging infrastructure like the Republicans have. Democrats do not have a Fox Network or network of hundreds of radio stations to echo their talking points like Republicans. Second, observers note that Democrats tend to believe they can count on the media to relate their message. But the media do not generally do not view its job as that of supporting Democrats. The media believes it has to drag both sides over hot coals, even when one side does not deserve it. Third, a few observers say that the Democrats’ most significant problem is that they lack a message that has an overriding theme. As a result, Democrats try to dress up the benefits of a particular policy as their message. But the benefits of legislation can not be what the party stands for. At least, Democrats’ messaging should refute Republican messaging.

Republicans say their party stands for lower taxes, smaller government, and pro-family (anti-abortion) values. Their messaging about what they stand for includes a comparison about Democrats: Democrats are bad because they are socialists and will raise your taxes. “Democrats are soft on crime, weak on foreign policy, will let government bureaucrats provide abortions to your daughter and ruin your health care.” Republicans define themselves partly in opposition to Democrats.

In effect, Democrats do not tell a story that connects facts about them and Republicans. Without a story, facts are passive and disconnected from each other. Voters’ understanding of those facts is limited, and their belief in them is undermined. Democrats need to do a much better job of saying what they are about in a story. Of course, the first step Democrats must take is to decide on their story.

To Keep Hope Alive, We Must Keep Democracy Alive

10/12/2022

I believe in liberal (as opposed to illiberal or autocratic) democracy, which is the only way I know to keep hope alive. First, because a country guided by all its citizens will be more economically and socially successful, I hope the U.S. will remain a liberal democracy. Second, a democracy has institutions that will protect its people from corporations and others who have more power. And eventually in most societies, those without power will need to be protected from those with power. Illiberal or autocratic countries reward loyalty to autocrats rather than achievement and merit.

Those who believe in illiberal democracy do so because they think they will benefit, even if others do not. And in fact, those favored by the autocrats may benefit. But the advantage of liberal democracies over illiberal democracies is that fair treatment should not depend on being in a selected group. Of course, that has not been and still is not the case in the U.S. There is rampant discrimination. Are autocrats or democratic institutions more likely to address discrimination? A clue to the correct answer is that we know how democratic institutions are supposed to function. Who are the autocrats, and why should they continue to favor the groups they say they prefer now?

Consider how the groups autocrats favor can change. Before and after the Civil War, the autocrats who ruled the South did not treat poor whites well. Poor whites did not have plentiful economic opportunities or receive first-class public education and health care. Many Southern autocrats claim they do not have the funds to provide for poor whites because they must provide for “unfavored groups.” Poor whites may feel better, but they do not do better.

Democracy is our best hope.

Democrats Must Say Why Democracy Is Important

10/11/2022

Logo of the Democratic Party

I am confounded by two related blunders in Democratic messaging this cycle. First, Democratic politicians praise democracy and declare that we must fight to maintain it. But they never say why democracy is essential. It is almost as if they believe democracy is important because we have had it for over 200 years. Second, Democratic politicians and strategists claim that they must speak to the issues of uppermost concern to voters. These issues include the economy, abortion, inflation, education and schools, immigration, climate change, and crime. These have in common that democracy underlies our ability to address them. Without democracy, a ruling elite will decide the country's path to each of these issues. Our choices will be limited.

Why Democratic politicians are unable to make a robust case for democracy as the foundation on which a strong economy, the right to reproductive health care, education, and other freedoms depend remains a mystery to me. Republican politicians do not support democracy. Republicans now support illiberal democracy (see my October 10, 2022, blog).

Illiberal Democracy Is about More than Race

10/10/2022

Demonstrators protest against recent legislative measures introduced by the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Budapest's Heroes square on Jan. 5, 2019.Photographer: Laszlo Balogh/Getty Images

Some MAGA Republicans now show a preference for illiberal democracy or authoritarianism. An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which the ruling elite allows their citizens to vote but denies them the information or rights needed to exercise the right to vote effectively. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, who describes Hungary as an illiberal democracy, won his last election by about 18 percentage points, giving his party a two-thirds majority. Orban's opponent partly attributed his loss to his inability to access media. Unsurprisingly, many MAGA Republicans who prefer an illiberal democracy also admire Orban. Those MAGA Republicans who want the U.S. to become an illiberal democracy are silent about what aspects of an illiberal democracy they favor. They favor a white Christian nation with no homosexuality, although they do not say how they intend to make that happen. But they do not say what other aspects of an illiberal democracy they favor or are willing to accept.

We can only speculate what an illiberal U.S. democracy would look like. Fascist Italy or Germany in the thirties, Eastern Europe today, including Hungary, or the authoritarian U.S. South in the twenties or thirties do not provide a realistic picture of an illiberal U.S. The U.S. is too different. But we do have the policies that libertarians like the Kochs and their far-right donor networks have advocated and actions Trump either implemented, tried to implement, or said he favored.

The areas in which we can expect are as follow:

Privatization of the commons, such as public schools, transportation, and some of the protections afforded by government agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Drug Administration;
Elimination of federal government protections from both other government entities and private corporations, such as pollution, workplace dangers, financial dangers, and drugs;
Elimination of privacy rights, such as the right to an abortion, contraceptives, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage;
Elimination or curtailment of freedoms of the press, speech, and assembly;
Elimination or curtail gun rights;
Elimination of safety net protections, such as Medicare, Social Security, right to unionize, and minimize wages;
Creation of obstacles for opposition parties and candidates, such as politicization of media regulation and sale of media outlets; and
Removal of the fair and equal protection of government such as judicial appointments, career bureaucrats, armed forces leadership, law enforcement including DOJ, court orders, and pardons.

Many MAGA Republicans support and would dispute the elimination or curtailment of many of these rights. For example, MAGA Republicans certainly support gun rights. But if Trump and his clan should become leaders of a perpetual ruling party, would that party support all citizens' access to guns? Similarly, MAGA Republicans now favor free speech, but in an illiberal democracy run by MAGA Republicans, I suspect their view of this and many other rights would change.

Celebrity Overwhelms Oil

10/6/2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman speak at the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires 2018 REUTERS

The mainstream media was surprised at Herschel Walker’s hypocrisy. He encouraged and paid for a girlfriend to obtain an abortion. The media knew Herschel had four kids with women whom he had not married or participated with in raising the kids. Presumably, the media was surprised that Walker claimed publicly to be opposed to abortion while encouraging and paying for abortion services to benefit himself. I am astounded at the media’s reaction. First, the media must know that Republican politicians lie and are hypocrites as a part of their job descriptions. But more importantly, in the second place, Republican men view themselves above the rules that others must follow. Anyone who does not understand these two facts about Republicans will not report very insightfully about them.

But I am also astounded at the media’s coverage of Hershel Walker’s fertility issues for a second reason. Competing with the Walker story was that OPEC, including Saudi Arabia, would reduce its oil production by 2 million barrels. Of course, the media mentioned the story, but only to pause before resuming the Hershel saga. The media could defend its coverage of Walker by saying that the outcome of his Senate race could determine which party controls the Senate. That argument would genuinely be sad. The cost of OPEC oil will partly determine the price of gas and the amount of inflation. Every Senate and House race could be affected. Perhaps Republicans were right, and Walker’s celebrity made him an overwhelming candidate.

History Rhymes

10/5/2022

The Red Summer of 1919 refers to a series of race riots that took place between May and October of that year. Chicago History Museum/Archive Photos/Getty Images

The summer of 1919 saw a burgeoning white nationalist reaction to blacks. George Edmund Haynes, the first executive director of the Urban League, identified more than 38 riots and 48 lynchings in cities across the country. Whites expressed animosity toward blacks for a variety of reasons. Following WWI, whites faced an economic downturn and increased competition with black workers for jobs and housing. White capitalists used blacks and ethnic European strikebreakers with native white workers. Also, the Communist Revolution in Russia provided capitalists with a concrete example of how socialist and communist influences among black and ethnic white workers native would further harm native white workers.

In addition to the economic strain, many native white workers resented the efforts of blacks to change their social status. Many blacks had migrated from the South to cities in the North or border states. Spurred partly by their achievements during WWI, blacks were unwilling to accept their previous societal treatment. When white mobs attacked blacks, blacks fought back with equal violence.

We are a long way from 1919, but there are some striking similarities. Some whites feel economic strains and resentment at the achievements of people of color. There is also a growing threat of more violence, following the individual violence we have seen in the mass shootings and the organized violence we saw on January 6. As grateful as we must be that Joe Biden is President instead of Woodrow Wilson, we must also be uneasy that today’s white nationalists are embedded in more substantial networks than previous white nationalists. “History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.”

Denying Helplessness

10/4/2022

One of the hallmarks of the last decade has been the absolute denial of some events about things that I had considered irrefutable. Trump’s bogus claim that he won the 2020 presidential election, the big lie, has been adopted by millions of MAGA Republicans. They also deny that Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. People deny other, more esoteric issues, like climate change and the need for vaccinations to decrease the risk of [long] Covid. But MAGA Republicans and conservatives are not the only ones who deny facts some of us consider incontrovertible. Some people with whom I agree on many issues deny some unarguable issues. One such issue is the affinity of Republicans to authoritarianism or fascism. Many Democrats deny that the current Republican Party has become a white nationalist party that supports fascism.

One of the explanations for the willingness of people to deny issues that others can support with evidence is derived from the Kitty Genovese murder. In 1964, Kitty Genovese returned home from work late in the evening. Winston Mosely, a stranger, followed Genovese to her home and killed her. The attack occurred outside an apartment complex where, according to news stories, 38 people watched the killer stalk and stab Genovese. The 38 witnesses represented a range of reactions. Some witnesses could see the attack, but not very well and only fleetingly. Other witnesses could only hear the sounds of the attack and were not certain what was happening. And at least one witness did intervene.

Applying what we learned from the Genovese murder, at least three things are necessary for witnesses to help. They must notice the events that might signal help is needed, know how to render assistance, and feel individual responsibility for helping. That is, if a large group of witnesses is present, then the responsibility of any one person to give aid is reduced. “If they don’t help, why should I?” When we fail to render help or correct a situation that calls for change, we may deny the need for help or deny that we are responsible for fixing the problem. If we apply what we learned from this murder, we may be willing to ignore evidence because we do not know how to acknowledge it.

Failure to Pass Voting Rights Act - The Pathway to More Failure

10/3/2022

Because of the opposition of Democratic Senators Sinema and Manchin to a voting rights bill, President Biden and the Democratic Congressional leadership decided to prioritize infrastructure and climate change bills. According to numerous civil rights groups and national civil rights leaders Reverend Al Sharpton and Sherrilyn Ifill, the failure to pass a voting rights act were due to the White House’s emphasis on other legislation. The Democrats failed to remind voters that the President needed Congress to pass legislation. Thus, failure to pass voting rights undermined a critical campaign promise that promised to undermine the motivation of Democratic campaign workers. As a result, Biden had to bear the brunt of the blame for not passing voting rights.

The Democrats’ failure to pass voting rights jeopardized the likelihood that they could keep a majority in the House. But they saw another path to minimizing losses in the midterm election. The press reported that some White House staffers hoped to out-organize Republicans and use court battles to stave off a complete rout. If so, those staffers are curiously unaware that for the last decade or so, Republicans have out-organized Democrats. Republicans have relied on a media infrastructure anchored by Fox News and radio stations throughout the country to spread lies. Nonetheless, it has delivered for Republicans on election day. And one only must look at the Supreme Court to see that depending on the federal judiciary to follow the rule of law is a flawed strategy.

Without voting rights, Democrats do not have much chance of retaining the House in November. Of course, the anti-abortion ruling by the Supreme Court, the January 6 and Mar-a-Largo stolen classified documents investigation, and the legislative victories that President Biden and Congressional Democrats have achieved should minimize losses. If Democrats had realized earlier they had a chance to carry the midterms; they might have started earlier to run strong campaigns. But they did not go after Republicans like they had a chance to win. And now the structural advantages that Republicans have, such as gerrymandering and conservative rural districts, maybe too much to overcome. Not all is lost. If Democrats can learn lessons from the midterm, such as effectively communicating, they may still have a chance in 2024. I will have more to say on this later.

Pop-up Window