Culture Wars – Page 28 – The Wrongologist

Somewhere, Bull Connor is Smiling

You don’t remember Bull Connor? He was Commissioner of Public Safety (chief cop) in Birmingham, Alabama when, in 1963 he used fire hoses and attack dogs against civil rights activists. The films of the confrontation and Connor’s disproportionate response, became an iconic image of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. He became an international symbol of Southern racism.

Now, science has come up with a better, more efficient crowd control product. From the Daily Dot:

Imagine being soaked, head to toe, in a frothy mix of pureed compost, gangrenous human flesh, and road kill, and you might get some idea of what it’s like to be sprayed with Skunk, according to those who’ve had the misfortune of being doused.

A few police departments in the US, including the St Louis Metropolitan Police, have reportedly purchased the spray, a non-lethal riot-control weapon originally developed by the Israeli firm Odortec, and used first in the occupied West Bank in 2008 against demonstrators. The sticky fluid, which Palestinians say smells like a “mixture of excrement, noxious gas and a decomposing donkey,” is usually fired from armored vehicles using high-pressure water cannons.

Decomposing donkey? Where and when do you learn what THAT smells like?

It was used in Hebron on February 26, 2012 to disperse a crowd of an estimated 1,000 people which clashed with Israeli soldiers during a protest described as commemorating the anniversary of the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre.

Mistral Security, based in Bethesda MD, offers Skunk products to US police and the military. According to the company’s website, they sell it using a number of delivery systems, including 60 ounce canisters with a range of 40 feet; a “skid sprayer” equipped with a 50 gallon tank and a 5 HP motor that can shoot over 60 feet at up to 7 gallons per minute; and a 40mm grenade that can be fired by a 12-gauge shotgun.

The company reports that Skunk is made from 100% food-grade ingredients and is 100% eco-friendly – harmless to both nature and people. From their website:

Applications include, but are not limited to, border crossings, correctional facilities, demonstrations and sit-ins. Decontamination soap is available to mitigate the odor.

So what we have here is another way that our police spend money to create citizen compliance. Police have an ethical problem: How do they control (or disperse) a crowd that gets unruly without causing injury?

In the past year, we have seen several examples of “comply or die” in cities around the US. Now, we see that the technology is evolving from Bull Connor’s days of attack dogs and fire hoses, to tear gas, rubber bullets and bean bags, and now, Skunk. Policing seems to be headed in a strange direction. You better do what you’re told, and not participate in any, you know, civil disobedience, like sit-ins, protests, demonstrations and such, or we will Skunk you, (or worse).

A fundamental Constitutional issue has emerged in police response to civil disobedience in the past few years. City property has been “privatized”, with the municipal corporation as the owner. Public space is not owned, it is supposed to be available to the public with only limited conditions. But, we now see a growing number of examples where police, mayors and municipalities are limiting access for the press, for demonstrators as well as for ordinary citizens to public spaces.

When our laws are manipulated in order to suppress a free press, or personal speech, it shows contempt for the entire idea of a free people or a government of laws. When our police continually purchase new weapons to insure compliance with police orders, peaceful protest is at risk.

Consider this: At Donald Trump’s Dallas rally on Monday night, Politico reports that as the mostly white attendees filed out, they clashed with 200 or so protesters, mostly black and Hispanic.

Dozens of police officers, including several on horseback, pushed protesters off arena property. After being pushed to the other side of the street, one protest leader encouraged the rest to arm their families and teach them to protect themselves:

You’re only going to get Martin Luther King so long before you get Malcolm X.

Our police should be careful what they wish for.

See you on Sunday.

Hello Texas: Jade Helm Ended, but Your Paranoia Continues

From Vox:

On Monday, teachers at the Irving Independent School District in Irving, Texas, had police arrest a 14-year-old student named Ahmed Mohamed for bringing to school a simple electronic clock he had built as an engineering project. Police escorted Mohamed out of school in handcuffs — photos of the arrest show him wearing a NASA T-shirt — and accused him of trying to build a bomb.

It wasn’t a bomb, it was a clock. Fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed wanted to get noticed by his teachers. He loved robotics club in middle school and was searching for a similar niche in his first few weeks of high school. So, he built a digital clock, and brought it to school. It was a circuit board and power supply connected to a digital display. He showed it to his engineering teacher on Monday. The student picks up the story:

He was like, ‘that’s really nice’…I would advise you not to show any other teachers.’

Then during English class, the clock beeped. The English teacher kept the clock, and during sixth period, Mohamed was pulled out of class by the principal. Here is Mohamed’s story:

They took me to a room…with five officers in which they interrogated me and searched through my stuff and took my tablet and my invention…They were like, ‘So you tried to make a bomb?’ I told them no, I was trying to make a clock. But one cop responded, ‘it looks like a movie bomb to me.’

Mohamed told NBC-Dallas Fort Worth that he was taken to police headquarters, handcuffed and fingerprinted. Then on Wednesday, Irving Police Chief Larry Body said that Mohamed would not be charged with any wrongdoing:

We have no evidence to support that there was an intention to create alarm or cause people to be concerned…

So what have we learned?

• The engineering teacher gave Ahmed good advice: The teacher intuited that the training we now give to school teachers would kick in when a non-engineering teacher saw the clock.
• The English teacher confiscated the clock by picking it up and carrying it to her desk, but the school then waited until the 6th period to interrogate the student.
• Why the delay if they truly thought it was a bomb? Protocol probably prevents you from even touching it, and probably requires immediately calling 911.
• Five cops show up. Sounds like a lot, but they probably have to do that. It’s standard practice in most jurisdictions these days for school incidents because they don’t know the scope of the problem until they investigate.
• They bring the kid in. They know it’s not a bomb, even saying it looked like a movie prop. And unless there are facts not presented in this story, they had no evidence that it was intended to be a “hoax”.

The school principal’s response should be:

Look, I know you meant well, but here’s why you caused alarm. Please learn from it and don’t do it again.

Instead he’s marched off in handcuffs. And later, Ahmed Mohamed was suspended by the school for 3 days for a violation of the school’s conduct policy.

Once you realize that the school personnel didn’t act like people who thought they were in the presence of a bomb, then what was going on? It was something beyond profiling, which would be bad enough. They did this knowing he was innocent. Maybe they feared the reaction of parents when the story got out.

Here’s what parents should tell the school principal:

So a young, smart boy builds a thing most of us wouldn’t even attempt, and shows it off, and you say he should have known better?

Maybe Texans think that such power is not for children, it must be restricted to the great corporations. Lock up the boy wizard before he destroys us all with his magic time telling device!

The saddest part of Ahmed’s story was this line, from Ahmed’s father:

He’s vowed never to take an invention to school again.

We have a massive propaganda effort telling us that many Muslims are trying to do violence in America. It’s not surprising that some of their audience – including principals and police officers – believe this crap and let it affect their judgement.

29% of Americans Support a Military Coup

A law professor at West Point was forced to resign after it emerged that he had authored a number of controversial articles. In one, he suggested that the US military may have a duty to seize control of the federal government if the federal government acted against the interest of the country.

Link that thought to a YouGov poll taken this month that found that 29% of US citizens would support a military coup d’état. Moreover, a plurality of Republicans, (43%) would support a coup by the military. They were the only group with a plurality in favor in the poll:

They polled 1,000 people on September 2nd & 3rd. The poll has a margin of error of ±4%. Another theme of the poll was that Americans think the military want what’s best for the country, followed by police officers:

The other categories, which included Congress, local politicians, and civil servants, went in the other direction. The vast majority of those polled thought that local and DC politicians were self-serving.

In other words, most Americans have a lot of confidence in the police and the army, the armed enforcers of government’s rules, but very little confidence in the politicians and bureaucrats who actually write and enact them. This is a rather dangerous disconnect when you think about it. A fascinating poll question was: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

5. Should active duty members of the US military always follow orders from their civilian superiors, even if they feel that those orders are unconstitutional?
Should . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18%
Should not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%

The answer shows that many Americans think:

1. The military are all Constitutional scholars, and

2. Americans want soldiers to think for themselves, even though the civilian superior who matters is the Commander-In-Chief, or Mr. President to the rest of us.

All of this, despite the fact that the US military has long embraced the idea of civilian control of national affairs, and apart from certain rare moments, the American officer corps has faithfully followed the orders of their civilian superiors.

The weakening of support for many of our institutions is clear: Every year Gallup asks Americans about their confidence with 15 major segments of American society. The police and the military routinely top the list with overwhelming support, while no other government institution inspires confidence among the majority of voters. That includes the presidency, the Supreme Court, public schools, the justice system, and Congress. Also near the bottom, are the media, big business, and banks.

Essentially, the YouGov poll shows that most Americans have completely lost faith in the system, and the powers that run it. The only people they still trust are cops and soldiers. And a society that trusts its armed enforcers more than everyone else is a society that could be ripe for a coup. In today’s age of blanket surveillance, the military coup option may be especially appealing to quite a few US citizens who are afraid to risk their own lives opposing their government. It is a version of “let you and him fight”.

Those military officers who would make good political leaders are smart and too principled to launch a coup against the civilian government. We would likely see mass resignations of the officer corps before any attempted coup. So, a few questions:

• Why conduct this poll now?
• Who commissioned the poll, and why?

It’s clear that people are seriously disgusted with the political class. The first reasonably persuasive demagogue who comes along may give America’s political class exactly what it deserves.

Sadly, the rest of we Americans deserve better.

Monday Wake-Up Call – September 14, 2015

Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican contender for the presidency, moved to cut off $730,000 in Medicaid reimbursements to the state’s two Planned Parenthood clinics in late August. The question then arose, where would Louisiana women get these services in the event the funding was cancelled? From MoJo:

The task seems straightforward: Make a list of health care providers that would fill the void if Louisiana succeeded in defunding Planned Parenthood. But the state, which is fighting a court battle to strip the group of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Medicaid funds, is struggling to figure out who would provide poor women with family planning care if not Planned Parenthood.

So the state’s attorneys did some research. They said in a court declaration that there are 2,000 family planning providers ready to accommodate new female patients. John deGravelles, a federal judge who reviewed the list in a September 2nd court hearing, found hundreds of entries for specialists such as ophthalmologists; nursing home caregivers; dentists; ear, nose, and throat doctors; and even cosmetic surgeons. From Judge deGravelles:

It strikes me as extremely odd that you have a dermatologist, an audiologist, a dentist who are billing for family planning services…But that is what you’re representing to the court? You’re telling me that they can provide family planning and related services?

Dentists? Don’t dentists who do “Pap smears” wind up losing their licenses?

Anyway, the judge’s disbelief sent the state back to the drawing board. They came forward with a new list that did not include dentists, dermatologists, ophthalmologists and others. You will be shocked to learn the state was lying: Their new filing listed just 29 health care providers.

But even with this pared down list, it only got worse. MoJo reports that in Baton Rouge, the site of one of two Louisiana Planned Parenthood clinics, the state lists five alternate providers. But according to the state’s own filing, only three of those offer contraception, and two of those have wait times ranging from two to seven weeks. One of the Baton Rouge clinics the state suggested is not accepting any new patients for STI, breast cancer, or cervical cancer screenings.

Since Reagan, Republicans have been able to say whatever stupid or completely false thing they want. They keep doing it because their supporters don’t mind, and they almost never get called on it by the media. It’s been “regarding shape of the earth, opinions differ” for decades.

This tendency to make shit up or say ridiculous things is particularly pronounced whenever the subject is abortion, birth control, or any other aspect of female sexuality. Sadly, the notion that patients could turn elsewhere remains a key rationale when Republicans attempt to strip Planned Parenthood of $528 million in federal funding as part of this month’s budget talks.

So what Jindal’s minions are attempting is more of the same. But, perhaps you remember Mr. Jindal saying in 2013 that the GOP had to “stop being the stupid party”? He didn’t mean that. The GOP reserves the right to be as anti-abortion, anti-women, and anti-science as they want to be.

Let’s make an effort to wake up Mr. Jindal and his fellow GOP’ers, even if it may be futile. Here is Bon Jovi with “We Weren’t Born to Follow”, a top 10 hit for them in 2009:

For those who read the Wrongologist in email, you can view the video here.

Sample Lyrics:
We weren’t born to follow
Come on and get up off your knees
When life is a bitter pill to swallow
You gotta hold on to what you believe
Believe that the sun will shine tomorrow
And that your saints and sinners bleed
We weren’t born to follow
You gotta stand up for what you believe

Thursday Cartoon Blogging?

We will not have Sunday Cartoon Blogging this week, as Ms. Oh So Right and the Wrongologist will be in Vermont at a wedding. However, some are too good to pass up. There will be a 9/11 column on Friday. On to cartoons!

Kim Davis is out of jail. She remains on the case, however:

“I want you to go down to Morehead Kentucky, and instruct Kim Davis to stop putting words in my mouth”

Last week saw the incredible shrinking NFL Commissioner Goodell:

The surprising track races continue:

With Hillary looking weaker, Dems consider a relief pitcher:

The Iran deal now has a bullet-proof minority in the Senate. Time to get frisky:

At the time, Wrongo thought that awarding Mr. Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was a mistake. It was also a mistake for Mr. Obama to accept it. We will see if the Iran deal holds, and if it promotes peace in the Middle East.

Why Trump and Cruz hang out together:

And the GOP explains their Wall strategy:

Why do Conservatives Misunderstand Freedom of Religion?

At this point, Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is in jail for not doing her job. She was sent to jail for contempt of court last week for openly defying multiple court orders to obey the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in all US states. Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court said:

The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order…If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.

Davis has maintained that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples is against her Christian beliefs. This has prompted her attorneys and supporters to come up with some wildly fanciful comparisons, including this one from Rep. Steve King (R-IA):

He wasn’t the only Republican to try to co-opt black civil rights history. Her attorney, Mat Staver, went for this:

Kim joins a long list of people who were imprisoned for their conscience…People who today we admire, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jan Huss, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and more. Each had their own cause, but they all share the same resolve not to violate their conscience.

Republicans, particularly evangelical Christians, believe they are persecuted when other people receive the same rights that they have had for decades or possibly, centuries. Persecution would be burning a gay flag on Davis’s lawn or you know, firebombing her church. Nobody is physically assaulting her, or turning water cannons (or dogs) on her.

Saying same-sex marriage is Constitutional doesn’t create persecution for millions of Christians, no matter how badly Ms. Davis and her Conservative supporters dislike it. Asking her to do her job is not persecution.

But the grandstanding award goes to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who released this statement:

Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

Cruz goes on to observe:

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

Cruz then ups the ante:

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.

And, of course, Cruz is only the most vituperative of the Republican candidates. With the exception of Lindsey Graham and Carly Fiorina, all the other Republican presidential candidates have criticized the decision to jail Ms. Davis.

While it’s fun to poke at Republicans for their response, we need to remember that Kim Davis is an elected Democrat. That said, she was elected county clerk after serving 26 years as a deputy clerk under her mother in the same county, with a total population under 24,000. Her party affiliation has little meaning in the context of the national debate about gay rights, but it sure says quite a bit when most Republican candidates purposefully misunderstand what religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment really means.

They purposefully misunderstand that this country was founded on the rule of law, and separation of church and state. That the codifying of separation was designed to put an end to the interference of religion in the operations of government, exactly what Ms. Davis was trying to do. Congress passes laws, the President signs them, the Supreme Court determines their constitutionality… and then they’re subject to the individual veto of every county clerk in America?

Ok, Ms. Davis has principles that flow from her religious beliefs. That is just fine, and her faith can be celebrated.

She might remember that while she believes same sex marriage is against religious tradition, divorce was also forbidden and then difficult to get, because of religion until relatively recently. The no-fault divorce was introduced by California Governor Ronald Regan in 1970. Before then, you went to Reno, Las Vegas, or Mexico if you couldn’t prove adultery.

Thus, today’s Kentucky county clerk, who has been divorced three times, wouldn’t have easily gotten a divorce just 50 years ago, because, religion.

It sucks to be on the wrong side of history.

Anger is an Energy

We are witnessing the convergence of several trends, which may take politics as we know it and turn it on its head. First, a political trend in which both angry Republicans and angry Democrats now believe that there is zero chance that the government will do anything to improve their lives.

Second, the American Exceptionalism movement is morphing into something that says we must win, and win now. Never mind trying to figure out exactly what “winning” means. We’ve now spawned two generations of Trump wanna-be’s who have no time for losing. They must win, win, win, and they will say or do whatever it takes to win.

Third, people have sorted themselves into groups that are impervious to fact. Presenting people with the best available information doesn’t change many minds. Like a psychic immune response, they reject ideas that they consider harmful. Regardless of whether the subject is climate, vaccines or politics, they prefer and are much more susceptible to, appeals to emotion.

So we live in a time of angry rage. We can’t change most of what we see, but we sure can be pissed about it. The angry voter has been blamed for the insurgent candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, and the possible emergence of a third-party presidential run in 2016.

In the midst of this shit storm, political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster of Emory University last week posted an intriguing analysis at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball Blog on the role of anger in the 2012 presidential election. They conclude that voters are indeed angry. But their anger is directed mainly at the opposing party, and this anger is increasingly correlated with ideology. In other words, the most liberal and most conservative voters are also the most likely to be angry. Looking forward to 2016, they conclude: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

The most important influence on the 2016 presidential election as well as the House and Senate elections will be the division of the American electorate into two warring partisan camps. In the seven decades since the end of World War II, Democrats and Republicans have never been as divided as they are today.

Earlier this year, Abramowitz and Webster released a paper cataloging the sharp increase in party-line voting in recent decades. Once upon a time, it was not uncommon for Republicans to vote Democratic and vice versa. In 2012, the authors tell us, the US saw:

The highest levels of party loyalty and straight-ticket voting since the American National Election Studies first began measuring party identification in 1952.

What’s the reason for the polarization? Abramowitz and Webster call it “negative partisanship”, the tendency of voters to think of their ballots not as a way to help their party but as a way to hurt the opposition. In other words, it’s not that our side is so great; it’s that the other side is so awful.

How do we know the other side is awful?’

Abramowitz and Webster say that a crucial element in negative partisanship is the assignment of negative characteristics to the other party. From 1972 to 2012, the proportion of voters who believed there are significant differences between the parties rose from 55% percent to well over 80%. We can argue over why, but, as the authors point out, these changes in perception are rational, since the parties themselves have become more ideologically rigid.

A thought experiment: Is there a party where the voter who is for abortion rights, but against same-sex marriage is comfortable? How about the voter who supports the Affordable Care Act, but is a skeptic on climate change? And if you don’t believe such complex voters exist, you are part of the evidence for the authors’ thesis about party rigidity.

All of us have met political partisans who believe that those on the other side are irredeemably stupid or evil. Yet we know that view of superiority is ultimately enforceable only at the point of a gun — just the opposite of what we expect of our democracy.

So, is anger good for our democracy? In a world of twitter and other social media, there are just way more outlets for anonymous anger. And that anger reproduces itself with every re-tweet.

And if there’s one thing anger loves, its attention.

Maybe we can learn something from what Johnny Rotten said in his book, “Anger is an Energy”, (which is a line from his song “Rise”): (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

When I was writing the Public Image Ltd song ‘Rise’, I didn’t quite realize the emotional impact that it would have on me, or anyone who’s ever heard it since. ‘Anger is an energy’ was an open statement, saying, ‘Don’t view anger negatively, don’t deny it – use it to be creative...’

Anger doesn’t necessarily equate directly to violence. Violence very rarely resolves anything. In South Africa, they eventually found a relatively peaceful way out. Using that supposedly negative energy called anger, it can take just one positive move to change things for the better.

Maybe, a third party presidential run in 2016?

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – August 30, 2015

That light from the city on the hill isn’t a beacon. It’s the flash of gun fire.

The snuff video of two TV journalists this week got everyone talking about gun ownership and gun control for the umpteenth time. Phys.org pointed out that despite the fact the US ranks in the middle among other industrialized countries in virtually every form of crime, and only has 5% of the world’s population, we have had 31% of the mass shootings since 1966.

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the NRA has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. Mother Jones had a chart for you to consider:

Gun ownership is a part of our culture. We could have a conversation about why Americans need so many guns, but the current level of gun ownership is not going away. And there is a large disconnect between the current gun control proposals and the facts in the Virginia case. The TV killer wouldn’t have failed any test, either now in place, or contemplated under the new proposals.

A simple solution to the problem of gun deaths would be to require gun owners to have liability insurance for any gun that they buy. Mr. Market (beloved by the right) would then come up with solutions to keep that liability insurance costs low enough that people could own their guns, but fewer third-party deaths and injuries would occur, and there would be compensation for victims. You could still carry guns, but you would have to be able to produce proof of insurance. Like driving a car.

On to cartoons. The gun culture has a new Caliph:

New media and old media loved talking about the killings, live on your TV:

Hillary’s week didn’t improve, so she got help:

I’m you from 2015, Hillary. I’ve come back to help you set up your e-mail.

Biden called in a few favors:

Trump’s week was fine. Republicans? Not so much:

China’s stock market fell:

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – August 23, 2015

Another bad week for many people in the public eye. But let’s start with Malcolm Gladwell’s rant in the NYT about university endowments in which he focused on Yale’s endowment. He says:

Last year, Yale paid about $480 million to private equity fund managers as compensation — about $137 million in annual management fees, and another $343 million in performance fees, also known as carried interest — to manage about $8 billion, one-third of Yale’s endowment.

He tells us that, of the $1 billion the endowment contributed to the university’s operating budget, only $170 million was earmarked for tuition assistance, fellowships and prizes. He reported that private equity fund managers also received more than students at four other endowments; Harvard, the University of Texas, Stanford and Princeton.

He makes another great point, that university endowments are exempt from corporate income tax because universities support the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. The tax advantage also benefits the fund managers whose carried interest is taxed at lower capital gains rates rather than ordinary income rates. It isn’t a coincidence that hedge fund managers return the favor to their large university clients. Kenneth C. Griffin gave Harvard $150 million in 2014. This year, Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chairman of the private equity giant Blackstone, pledged $150 million to Yale toward a new student center. John A. Paulson, another hedge fund manager, topped both when he gave Harvard $400 million in June.

Maybe these university endowments need to do more to support students and faculty, and less to support fund managers, if they are to keep their tax-exempt status.

On to cartoons. With the email server and new polls, Hillary did not have a good week:

Maybe if the Obama years hadn’t decimated the Democratic bench for an entire generation, we wouldn’t have to rely on two senior citizens slugging it out for the chance to call the White House their retirement home.

Another senior, Mr. Biden, awaits the call, if Hillary falters:

Amazon also had a bad week:

Subway & Jared Fogel had bad weeks too:

Wannabe adulterers also had a bad week:

While Jimmy Carter gave us all a nice moment:

The Political Stylings of Donald Trump

We see a torrent of Trumpism, and viewed from the sidelines, it is a presidential candidacy based on emotion, while shockingly lacking in policy. It is difficult to see him succeeding, unless Republicans believe that being a vain, obnoxious and unapologetic old uncle is all that it takes to run the world’s largest superpower.

If that’s what they think, they have found their man.

The Donald has co-opted Tea Party rage. But, there’s nothing to grab onto, except the rage itself. He and his supporters hate immigrants. They hate Mr. Obama’s withdrawal from our blundering wars in the ME. They hate the vastly expanded access to healthcare coverage, and apparently, they hate being rescued from a Republican Depression. They do love them some American Exceptionalism, though.

As Bloomberg’s Melinda Henneberger comments about a recent Trump rally in New Hampshire:

Very little of what the conservatives in the hall were going wild over could be characterized as conservative, and most of it wasn’t political at all.

What Trump wants us to believe is; “I’ve got this.” His strategy is to have us believe he is a strongman brimming with rage. His “tell it like it is” approach has a true populist appeal, but his slogan “Make America Great Again” is as vague as it can be. Here are a few NH quotes: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

We will make great trade deals.

We will have Social Security without cuts.

We will come up with health care plans that will be phenomenal, phenomenal, [and] that will be less expensive.

Describing a future-perfect conversation between President Trump and the Ford Motor Co. officials, he’ll change their minds about building cars in Mexico. He says:

This is too easy, too easy! This is a couple of phone calls.

Some Trump supporters will vote for him, some will not, but all like his honesty, his lack of PC, his ability to run without outside money, his success, his independence from America’s political elite.

Krugman says the conservative explanation of the GOP’s onset of Trumpism is that their base voters are victims of celebrity. What they really want is a true conservative, but they’re being hoodwinked by someone who is entertaining on TV.

Krugman thinks the liberal version is that Trump is appealing to resentment that ultimately rests on economic failure: working-class whites have been left behind by growing income inequality, while they mistakenly blame immigrants taking their jobs. But he thinks Trump’s supporters look a lot more like the Tea Party, who are:

For the most part not working-class…They’re relatively affluent, and not especially lacking in college degrees.

Republicans seem to be in a mood to require heavy doses of impatience, resentment and outrage from any successful 2016 presidential candidate. Trump realized that sooner than his competitors, and neatly fills the bill. He is disorienting the Establishment Right. His supporters don’t give his political platform much thought, which works, since thoughtlessness is at the base of most of Trump’s policy cure-alls. He is cleaving the Republican Party into one camp that gawks helplessly at its past and a new camp that is inserting a shiv in the Establishment Right’s tired old body.

For progressives, what’s not to love? Trump said on Meet The Press: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

And if I’m president, we’re going to have a great country…And then we will really have [it] better than Reagan, better than anybody. We will make America great again. That’s what it’s all about.

Ok, Chuck Todd, you can’t ask: “How?”

Trump is the expression of today’s conservatism: loud, abrasive, and vacuous. Forget data, forget policy. Why search for evidence when you can rely on belief and tradition?

There are two options: Republicans either oust Trump and his Trumpeteers, perhaps forcing them to form a third party. Or, Republicans can accept that Trump is in their mainstream, and run a populist platform, laced with doses of anger and vague policies. If he is the Republican nominee for President, Republicans will then witness the Trumpocalypse, and be picking up the pieces for years.

Those are the choices. Either way, contemporary conservatism will be in ruins.

What’s not to love?

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Category: Culture Wars