IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

Another Pathetic Morning Joe Meme

8/19/2016

One of Morning Joe’s favorite memes is that in the years he and Mika Brezinski have known Donald Trump, he has never heard him say anything racist, misogynistic, or xenophobic or witness him act in a bombastic or bullying manner. Of course, Joe does not count Trump’s full page ads in the Daily News and the New York Times to call for the death penalty for teenagers who were accused and subsequently confessed to the rape of a white jogger in Central Park. Also, Morning Joe may have missed the racism attached to Trump’s claim the President Obama was born in Kenya and thus, not eligible to be President.

Assuming that these two examples, as well as the discrimination case that the Justice Department won against Trumps, should not be considered because they occurred in public, then Joe may be right. Joe and Mika may never have heard a racist word from Trump’s mouth. Nonetheless, Joe should realize that many people, and almost all sociopaths, have the ability to manage their interpersonal impressions they give to others and disguise the unpleasant aspects of their personalities they show others. Of course, it is unclear how close Joe and Mika are to Donald, but perhaps Donald was merely managing the impression he showed to them. In any event, by this time we certainly know what Trump is.

Hillary Clinton Needs to Take Her Emails off the Table

8/19/2016

The Clinton campaign needs to take the accusations FBI Director James Comey levelled against Hillary Clinton off the table. That is, the Clinton campaign needs to provide a narrative to counter the one that Comey, Trump, and the right wing are pushing. Namely, that Hillary Clinton does not care about U.S. security requirements and is so careless she was willing to risk the lives of American servicemen for her on convenience. (See Hillary Needs Joe Biden to Refute James Comey’s Negative Opinions about Her.) Three points have become clear since Comey’s initial statement and subsequent appearances before Congress. First, Hillary Clinton did not send any emails correctly marked as classified (i.e., contrary to classification procedures, they were only marked with a “C” in the next and no header indicating classified material to follow); two or three emails were incorrectly marked as classified. Moreover, the two or three emails that were incorrectly marked as classified with a “C” in the text, were not classified and thus, should not have been marked as classified.

Second, Clinton was following the recommendation of former Secretary of State Colin Powell to follow his practice and use private email for non-classified material. Although the State Department’s email system had improved enough by Secretary’s Clinton’s tenure so that private email was not required, Powell’s recommendation does explain, in part, why she used private email. Third, the experience State Department officials that sent Secretary Clinton emails that contained classified material did so after having chosen NOT to use the classified email system that all State Department officials, including Secretary Clinton, have access to and are supposed to use for classified material.

Unless the Clinton campaign pushes an alternative narrative, Secretary Clinton will be handicapped if she chooses to hold a press conference because of the barrage of email questions she will face. Further, if a counter narrative is not pushed before the debates, Donald Trump will trumpet her email controversy as an all-purpose way of avoiding questions and a way of shifting attention from his own inadequacies. Just as the nine Benghazi reports clear Secretary Clinton and take that issue off the table, another email narrative is needed to take to take it off the table.

The Education of Donald Trump: Why the GOP Needed Dog Whistles

8/19/2016

Donald Trump’s campaign for both the Republican nomination and has been a paean of plain talking racism and xenophobia. Although many Republican voters celebrate Trump’s crude racism, many of the other voters he needs to win the Presidency have been so thoroughly disgusted with his racist speech, they are signaling their intent to vote for Hillary Clinton. Trump’s plain talking racism and campaign style clearly demonstrates that he does not understand how the modern GOP was formed nor what it takes to win the entire GOP base.

When Lyndon Johnson’s prediction that the Democratic Party had lost the possibility of electoral victory in the South for at least a generation was fulfilled, most Americans understood it was because the Democratic Party led the fight for the inclusion of African Americans in the social and political life of the U.S. To capitalize on white disaffection with the Democratic Party, Richard Nixon and the Republican Party touted states’ rights and “law and order” to thinly veil an appeal to white racism.
As some aspects of the inclusion of African Americans became more acceptable throughout the country, even thinly veiled appeals to white racism became more taboo. Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained the derivation of the more robust “dog whistle” as a way of disguising appeals to racism.

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Maintaining the appearance of racial neutrality was so important to Reagan that he substituted the phrase “young man” for the more racially tinged “young buck” to describe a welfare cheat. Appearing racially neutral was a requirement for obtaining the electoral support of Republicans in the northern suburbs. Any overt appeal to racial animus would be a barrier to electoral support. Dog whistling was the mechanism for appearing racially neutral and obtaining the electoral support of racial moderates while simultaneously appealing to those who harbored racial animus and obtaining their votes.

While the racists who support Trump are quite happy to hear his racist remarks and avoid the usual GOP dog whistles, Trump has been hemorrhaging Republican voters in the northern suburbs. Just as previous GOP Presidential candidates have had to send mixed messages to obtain the support of two very different factions of their party, Trump is now appealing to northern Republican voters, after having cemented the support of racist voters. Trump’s faux appeal to Afro American voters is a way of signaling to moderate Republicans that he is not as racist as his affinity for Senator Jeff Sessions, David Duke, and other members of the alt right.

Is Something Wrong Mentally with Donald Trump?

8/14/2016

The Main Stream Media (MSM) has recently focused on mental illness as an explanation for Donald Trump’s behavior that many political analysts find is bizarre for someone seeking to win a Presidential election. Part of the impetus for this focus has been driven by pundits who concluded that many of Trump’s actions in his campaign were inconsistent with winning the election and therefore, irrational. These pundits have speculated that Trump suffers from either narcissistic personality disorder or sociopathy, although the traits associated with these disorders overlap. Traits of inflated sense of self, lack of empathy, deceitfulness and manipulativeness are associated with both narcissism and sociopathy.

Trump has exhibited examples of these traits on many different occasions. For example, he has proven himself to be a perennial liar and distorter of facts—Politifact found 60 percent of his statements to be “false” or “pants on fire” lies. He has mocked and demeaned those with whom he has disagreed—he attributed remarks Meghan Kelley made to him to her menstrual cycle and mimicked the neural tremors of a handicapped reported with whom he disagreed. And, he has callously disregarded others--when introducing his Vice President, Mike Spence, Trump spoke more about himself than Spence.

Neither narcissism nor sociopathy, however, is necessarily associated with irrational or dysfunctional behavior. A few members of the media have noted that focusing on Trump obscures what is really important: the attractiveness of his white nationalist theme to 40 percent of U.S. voters. It seems highly unlikely that 40 percent of U.S. voters are mentally ill in any clinical sense. Much of the distortion of the right is not due to mental illness, but rather stems from isolation from certain experiences and groups within U. S. society. The MSM may have seized on this psychological explanation for Trump’s behavior to distance itself and us from having to deal with the implications of our social structure shaping a part of the electorate that finds someone like Donald Trump so attractive.

The Biggest Lesson from the Two Conventions

8/3/2016

The Democratic National Convention (DNC) was more flexible, effective, and efficient than the Republican (RNC) Convention. It was more flexible because it touched on more themes, like American exceptionalism, that should play well with many voters. It was effective in validating Hillary Clinton, and it was efficient presenting several key themes: Americanism, patriotism, and the superficiality of the Republican theme of America is failing.

The lesson to take from a comparison between the two conventions is that first, Hillary’s team has a good sense of where the public is and have crafted compelling messages that can appeal to it. This shows that Hillary’s campaign has the ability to structure a winning campaign. The disarray of the RNC suggested no one was in charge; from the missteps following the convention, it is clear that no one was in charge.

The Main Stream Media Missed the Biggest Story at the Republican Convention

7/25/2016

Share this article on Facebook

While Melania Trump’s plagiarism, the Trump campaign’s refusal to acknowledge the plagiarism, Senator Ted Cruz’ non-endorsement speech, the delegates’ obedience to Trump and palpable hatred Hillary Clinton, and the dark and dystopian tone of Trump’s acceptance speech drew the attention of the Main Stream Media (MSM), the back story of the convention, was largely ignored. The MSM has yet to acknowledge the biggest story at the Republican Convention: its evolution to a white nationalist party.

Donald Trump has consistently retweeted anti-semantic and racist memes. His pathetically weak explanation that he only retweeted these memes is disproven by the fact they all originated from the same ill-defined, but tangible source: the alt right. The alt right is an amalgam of racists, neo-Nazis, fascists, nativists, and populists, and white supremacists who use the internet to promote their ideologies. The strong ties betweenthe alt right and Trump were demonstrated at the Republican Convention where prominent alt right leaders showed up to support Donald Trump. Also, Trump’s praise for Vladimir Putin has been reciprocated by Putin’s support for Trump. According to Franklin Foer in Slate, Putin support for Trump is part of a well-documented pattern of support for right wing populists who promise to support Putin’s geo-political aims . Of course, Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager has long been associated with Putin allies. Afer reports that Russian Intelligence hacked the Democratic National Committee and leaked emails showing the Committed tried to sabotage Bernie Sander’s campaign, the scope of Putin’s support for Trump has become clearer. Closing the circle, the right wing populists supported by Putin, espouse the same kind of white nationalism that the alt right supporters of Trump advocate.

photo by Jason Davis

photo source: Kommerant.ru

Melania Gets Two for One

7/25/2016

After a rather predictable series of angry “red meat” speeches designed to create a patina of unity among the delegates, Melania Trump, introduced by her husband, Donald, proceeded to give a speech plagiarized from Michelle Obama. The reaction of the MSNBC commentators in real time exposed how two of the most common media narratives for explaining Melania’s plagiarism evolved. The first group was male dominated (Brian Williams, Lawrence O’Donnell, Steve Schmidt, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow). They exonerated Melania as the victim of irresponsible speechwriters and incompetent campaign officials. This group explicitly opined that Melania did not write or review her speech because she was the candidate’s wife. In other words, as a woman judged by mostly white men, Melania got a break.

The second group was female dominated (Joy Ann Reid, Hallie Jackson, Kelly O’Donnell, and Jacob Soboroff) they excoriated Melania because it was, after all, her speech. As Reid, a black female, also noted, if Michelle Obama had given a speech that included two plagiarized paragraphs from Laura Bush, the media would have demeaned her mercilessly. In other words, as a white woman judged by mostly women, Melania was called to account for her behavior. Interestingly, both groups were very positive about Melania’s speech and gave it the highest marks of the evening. What does it say when the least angry, most positive speech is the one that the candidate’s wife plagiarized? Kudos to Michelle Obama.

Cops and Black Lives Matter - No Third Way

7/25/2016

In a period of 10 days, eight police officers were assassinated by lone wolf snipers. Amid the outrage that these attacks could occur “on all of us,” there were almost not diagnoses of why the attacks occurred other than the invalidated charge that they were ISIS-inspired. Of course, Rudy Giuliani and other right-wing observers suggest the attacks on police officers were due to Black Lives Matter and the failure of President Obama to proclaim support for police officers seen on video shooting unarmed blacks.

Lone wolf attacks, however, do not originate in organizations. Even if there were no Black Lives Matter, there would still be lone wolves. One of the implications of social media is its guarantee that neither the MSM nor organizations are needed to expose the images that drive lone wolves to act. Further, the cultural impetus to grabbing an assault rifle to solve problems is stronger in Dallas, and Baton Rouge than in many other parts of the U.S. And, after almost two decades of continuous foreign war, many people have the skills for taking violent action.

While acquiescence to the demand of vigilantes is never appropriate, ensuring justice for all is a much more important social commitment. From at least Biblical times, people have recognized the need for the civil society to inflict punishment rather than expecting aggrieved individuals to seek revenge. Such acts of individual revenge only perpetuate a cycle of escalating revenge and violence. But, society must be willing to ensure that police officers who use excessive force are punished proportionately to their crime.

Surprisingly, police officers in the field seem reluctant to avail themselves of community practices that might make their job easier and safer. Police supervisors and media commentators, on the other hand, insist that the key element of policing is working effectively with all communities. According to one commentator, the actions of police officers are consistent with their orders from the political establishment. Regardless of what standards the political establishment wants for police conduct, the establishment certainly is using the police to control excluded groups. To deter future attacks like Dallas or Baton Rouge, the police can be used to crush excluded groups, or the political establishment can take additional steps to include all of the society’s groups. The third way, using the police to control excluded groups, is simply not working.

Brexit: Will It Be a Redo or an Undo

7/25/2016

Europe and the elites in Washington and New York are still reeling from the decision of voters in the United Kingdom to vote to “leave” the European Union (EU) by a margin of 52 to 48 percent. Questions remain about whether the vote actually represents the will of the people, and even, whether the exit will actually happen. One explanation frequently cited in the Main Stream Media (MSM) is that older voters (over 50) were uncomfortable with the changes in the U.K. due to immigration. Also, these older voters were tired of bureaucrats in Brussels (the home of the European Union) imposing regulations on them. Younger U.K. voters, however, are comfortable with the new European culture as they seek and find employment all over the EU. A second less frequently cited explanation in the MSM is that the influx of immigrants to the U.K. was reducing incomes and the standard of living. Specifically, this explanation holds that because immigrants increase the available labor supply, wages are reduced, and strains are places on social services such as the National Health Service. Government sponsored studies, however, have found that an aging native U.K. population without immigrants will reduce the U.K.’s productivity and result in a net loss of income. Moreover, much of the strain felt in social services is due to reduced spending by the Conservative government, supposedly to demonstrate to bond markets that the government is serious about holding down inflation.

Following the election, many of the voters seem stunned by their collective decision while other voters turned to Google to find out what the EU was, and presumably why they voted to leave it. Over four million voters signed a petition to have a “redo” vote, although government officials quickly announced that there would be no redo. Nonetheless, Scottish officials were quick to point out that the previous referendum to remain in the U.K. passed only because the U.K. was a part of the EU. They quickly proceeded to file for another referendum that would almost certainly result in Scotland leaving the U.K. Further, one of the provisions of the peace agreement between Northern Ireland and the U.K. guaranteed unhindered passage between the two countries would be null and void once the U.K. leaves the EU. Northern Ireland is therefore expected to leave the U.K. and join Ireland. The loss of Northern Ireland and Scotland were unanticipated by the voters. In light of these reactions, the declaration by the newly chosen U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May to Scotland’s First Minister that the U.K. would not withdraw from the EU until Scotland agrees to the withdrawal seems to be a way to undo the vote without a redo.

Why Are Lone Wolf Killers So Deadly?

7/17/2016

In the last month long killers have been responsible for deaths in Orlando (49), Dallas (5), and Nice, France (84). While ISIS was not operationally responsible for these attacks, the Main Stream Media (MSM), with some corroboration from the authorities, have called them “ISIS inspired.” None of the attackers seemed to be particularly knowledgeable about ISIS, although the attackers in Orlando and Nice were from Muslim families and the Dallas attacker said he hated white people. What seems to especially raise concerns among authorities is the difficulty of identifying attackers who are not a part of any network and who cannot be infiltrated. By lumping these attacks together under the rubric of “lone wolf ISIS inspired terrorists” the MSM, including their paid consultants who provide color commentary, play into a more exciting narrative.

These attacks were certainly deadly, but not because they were “ISIS inspired” or carried out by “lone wolves.” The attack in Orlando, and possibly the Dallas attack, was deadly because of the availability of military style weapons. The attack in Nice was deadly because a vulnerable street was not secured with impenetrable barricades. Lone wolf attacks can be very deadly even though the attackers do not have help in planning and executing the attack, nor anyone to critique their operational plan. Nonetheless, attacks planned, resourced, and executed by trained terrorists are likely to be even deadlier. Since 9/11 there have been no such attacks in the U.S. due to the extraordinary efforts of law enforcement and the help provided by various civilian communities.

Pop-up Window