Skip to content

Month: August 2021

Murdoch hypocrisy on steroids

Eric Boehlert’s excellent Press Run (subscribe here) points out Rupert Murdoch’s hypocrisy today. And no it isn’t a 20,000 word tome. It delves into just one of his many hypocrisy’s pertaining to Tucker Carlson:

Moving to curb the Covid-19 misinformation that’s flooding the media landscape, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp recently made the dramatic move of canceling a well-known conservative columnist. The move was made in Australia last week when the editor of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph notified Alan Jones, a staunch critic of lockdowns and vaccines who has claimed the Covid virus is no worse than the flu, that his column had been terminated.

The abrupt move comes as Australia struggles with another wave of lockdowns, and after Jones had lashed out at a top public health official, calling her a “dumb,” “out of touch,” “village idiot.” He’s also accused the government of ““embracing martial law”, entering “Stalinist territory” and “crushing business” with an extended lockdown and mandatory masks outdoors,” The Guardian reported.

The contrast with how Murdoch’s media empire is dealing with deliberate Covid-19 lies and misinformation in his own country, compared to the United States is startling. Tucker Carlson, who has staked his career on lying about the pandemic, and consequently is getting people killed, continues to enjoy free rein from News Corp. Carlson unapologetically claims the Covid vaccine is killing people and that the government and media are covering it up. Nobody can be trusted, he insists. Also, the vaccine poses a danger to pregnant women.

He also contradicts himself almost nightly while pushing his anti-vaccine crusade. Recently, he mocked health officials in Los Angeles County for reinstating mask guidelines by claiming there was no spike in Covid cases to justify the move — “It’s barely noticeable.” Days later, Carlson ominously warned viewers that “a huge number of vaccinated people are getting Covid. And some of them are getting very sick, even dying.”

On Friday night,the host appeared against a backdrop reading “Vaccine Coercion,” and suggested that looming and legal vaccine mandates would lead to violence. “The question is, really, how long are Americans going to put up with this? What happens when large groups of people start to resist these mandates?” Carlson said. “As inevitably they will, because they’re too unreasonable, they’re too irrational, they’re not rooted in science. They are pushing us toward something awful.”

But Carlson still has a job, and News Corp’s full backing.

Too cowardly to pull back his top-rated U.S. host, Murdoch refuses to protect American news consumers from Fox News’ cult-like disinformation regarding a miraculously safe and effective vaccine. In Australia, Murdoch’s company operates under different rules and, at least in the case of Jones, is far more willing to stand up for common sense and decency when it comes to not pushing obvious Covid-19 lies.

Support PRESS RUN

Why the double standard? Australia is Murdoch’s home country, so perhaps there is more concern about its collective well being. Sydney, Darwin, Perth and Brisbane – all capital cities – are currently in lockdown. More than 20 million Australians, around 80 percent of the population, are living under restrictions, which is the highest number since a national lockdown at the start of the pandemic. Australia lags far behind most countries in terms of vaccination rate, just 15 percent to date. The country decided to rely on keeping most foreigners out of the country during the pandemic, and requiring strict quarantine protocols. With the Delta variant, more breakouts have occurred in recent weeks.

Another possible explanation is that News Corps has recently come under intense political scrutiny in Australia, and faces a growing backlash over how it uses its media dominance there to wield political power.

Recently, former Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull — occupying different parts of the political spectrum — joined forces to denounce the Murdoch media cancer that’s eating the country. They urged the government to take steps to diversify media ownership and to break up the dangerous coalition that now exists between right-wing politicians and the Murdoch press, which serves as an unaccountable, but extremely powerful force. Parliament hearings were held after Rudd’s petition to establish a royal commission into media diversity became Australia’s largest-ever e-petition, and the country’s third largest petition of any kind.

Rudd, a progressive, has labelled Murdoch’s’ empire a “cancer” on the country, while the center-right Turnbull branded it “an absolute threat to our democracy.” Warned Rudd, “The most powerful political actor in Australia is not the Liberal party or the National party or the Labor party, it is News Corporation. We are drowning in lies.”

Murdoch’s News Corp control controls 70 percent of Australia’s print media, most notably The Australian, the national daily newspaper with the largest circulation. That would be like if Murdoch not only owned the New York Post and Wall Street Journal in the U.S. but also the Boston GlobeChicago TribuneMiami HeraldDallas Morning NewsDenver PostLos Angeles Times and the Washington Post, and used them all to pump out toxic, right-wing misinformation.

News Corp also owns the country’s second-biggest news website news.com.au and 24-hour channel Sky News Australia. The country where Murdoch was born recently ranked third in the world for media concentration, behind only the state-owned media of China and Egypt.

If Murdoch were consistent about how he treats deliberate Covid misinformers, Tucker Carlson would be out of work.

The interesting thing about Carlson is that he doesn’t really bring in advertising revenue. But he does bring in viewers and that’s what matters for cable companies to carry the network. Also, I’d imagine that Carlson’s neo-fascist ideology appeals very much to the Murdoch clan. It benefits them personally, after all.

Private employers join the team

The conservative Washington Examiner is demanding that its employees become vaccinated — or face a permanent ban from the kitchen and other crucial office areas.

“All Washington Examiner and MediaDC employees will now be required to be vaccinated for Covid-19,” the publication wrote in a Sunday memo to employees obtained by Mediaite. “All employees must submit an affirmative statement proof of vaccination for Covid-19 to human resources no later than August 9.”

Going forward, the memo said, unvaccinated employees “will be required to wear a mask at all times while in the office, to include workstations and common areas.” It added, “Unvaccinated staff members will not be allowed to use the kitchen areas or be present in any conference room or training room,” the memo added.

Imagine that…

It’s clear that this is going to be the key to getting a whole lot of the laggards vaccinated. It’s one thing to be a Trump voting zealot. It’s quite another to sacrifice your livelihood for him.

Conservatives generally have no problem with coercive employers. It will be interesting to see how they deal with this.

Soulmates

The Daily Beast:

Tucker Carlson will deliver a speech, appropriately titled “The World According to Tucker Carlson,” this coming Saturday at MCC Feszt, a far-right conference in Budapest that is backed by Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orban.

A person familiar with the matter confirmed to The Daily Beast on Monday evening that Carlson will speak at the event.

The news of Carlson’s appearance follows an apparent meeting between the Fox News star and Orban, as a friendly photo posted to the leader’s Facebook page revealed on Monday that Carlson had hosted Orban on his online show for Fox Nation.

Carlson appeared on his show from Budapest on Monday evening and announced his show would be broadcast from the Hungarian capital all week.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that Orban granted $1.7 billion—or about one percent of Hungary’s GDP—to Mathias Corvinus Collegium, or MCC, with the aim of training a new generation of conservative elite across Europe.

According to Open Secrets investigative researcher Anna Massoglia, Hungary paid a D.C. lobbying firm $265,000 in 2019, in part to arrange an interview on Carlson’s Fox News show.

In turn, Carlson has publicly praised Orban’s government on Fox News, including in July of that year, when he lauded the prime minister’s anti-immigration policies in the face of declining birth rates.

“Instead of helping the native population to have more children, the Hungarian government, they say, should import a replacement population from the Third World,” Carlson said at the time of the “neoliberals who run” the European Union. “That’s the George Soros solution. But Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, has a different idea. Instead of abandoning Hungary’s young people to the hard-edge libertarianism of Soros and the Clinton Foundation, Orban has decided to affirmatively help Hungarian families grow.”

He wants to help white families grow by forcing women out of the workforce and into the “traditional” role of brood mare.

I’ve written a lot about Carlson and Orban. It sent a chill down my spine the first time I heard about it. Here are a couple of them. In case you are wondering where Tucker is really coming from, this is the explanation. By the way, it’s neo-fascism.

Carlson, Bannon and Orbán sittin’ in a tree

What do Carlson and Orbán have in common?

Kookocracy

When they show you who they are, etc.

Jane Mayer’s New Yorker reporting unmasks the dark money behind efforts to undermine faith in the American democratic process via endless audits of the 2020 election results. Many of the usual players, naturally, including the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Über-rich, right-wing “reactionaries” long to restore themselves to their rightful place in the firmament. As rulers.

As Greg Sargent notes, actually finding voter fraud unicorns is no longer their goal:

Instead, those making such accusations need to create just enough confusion to enable well-placed Republicans to say the actual outcome of a given election is fundamentally unknowable. The coin of the realm is not concocted proof; it’s manufactured uncertainty. This is what will lay the groundwork for attempting to overturn a future election.

As I have said for years, listen carefully for the weasel words in voting malfeasance stories circulated on the right. This or that perceived election discrepancy might be, may be, could be, possibly, or is potentially fraud. Precious few actuallies, with the notable exception of Bladen County, NC. Thus did a federal district judge dismiss as worthless Rudy Giuliani’s binderful of affidavits from people who saw something they thought meant something about which they knew nothing.

What matters to these saboteurs, Sargent writes, is the “manufacturing of fake reasons to keep alive baseless impressions of uncertainty, in the full knowledge that they are manufactured.” This is a dry run for 2022 and 2024, for “inventing new ways to say an outcome is unknowable, which would then justify efforts to resolve the outcome in some other way.”

This from people who know a zygote is a baby.

This week, neo-fascist Tucker Carlson is stroking the ego of Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán in Budapest. “On paper,” writes Heather Cox Richardson, “Hungary is a democracy in that it still holds elections, but it is, in fact, a one-party state overseen by the prime minister.” That is where America’s kookocracy hopes to take this country:

Orbán has been open about his determination to overthrow the concept of western democracy, replacing it with what he has, on different occasions, called “illiberal democracy,” or “Christian democracy.” He wants to replace the multiculturalism at the heart of democracy with Christian culture, stop the immigration that he believes undermines Hungarian culture, and reject “adaptable family models” with “the Christian family model.”

No matter what he calls it, Orbán’s model is not democracy at all. As soon as he retook office in 2010, he began to establish control over the media, cracking down on those critical of his party, Fidesz, and rewarding those who toed the party line. In 2012, his supporters rewrote the country’s constitution to strengthen his hand, and extreme gerrymandering gave his party more power while changes to election rules benefited his campaigns. Increasingly, he used the power of the state to concentrate wealth among his cronies, and he reworked the country’s judicial system and civil service system to stack it with his loyalists. While Hungary still has elections, state control of the media and the apparatus of voting means that it is impossible for Orbán’s opponents to take power.

Trump supporters have long admired Orbán’s nationalism and centering of Christianity, while the fact that Hungary continues to have elections enables them to pretend that the country remains a democracy.

Just as they pretend now to support this country’s founding documents and principles.

Currently, political patterns in America look much like those Orbán used to gather power into his own hands. Republican-dominated legislatures are passing new measures to suppress the vote, aided by the Big Lie that former president Trump did not lose the 2020 election. Trump and his supporters are focusing on the so-called “forensic audit” of Maricopa County in Arizona, paid for and conducted by Trump loyalists who insist that Trump actually won despite the repeated investigations that have proved the election was clean.

For Carlson to broadcast from Hungary at this time, says Richardson, seems to be “a deliberate demonstration of the Trump Republicans’ plans for our future.”

When they show you who they are….

Now, do more than tweet

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina got his first shot of vaccine on Dec. 19.

A former Central, SC bartender has tested positive for COVID-19 shortly after maskless Senate functions and a cookout on Sen. Joe Manchin III’s houseboat on Saturday:

Now, do your countrymen a favor and go on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show and say that.

Like other members of Congress and high officials, Graham received his vaccination in December alongside high-risk health care workers, the Washington Post reports:

It is unclear whether Graham’s infection could affect the Senate’s consideration this week of a massive infrastructure package that was the result of a recent bipartisan deal among centrist senators. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to pass the bill this week.

Graham’s announcement follows a week of rising tensions on Capitol Hill over a renewed call for mask-wearing by the Capitol physician after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance in response to the growing number of infections across the country stemming from the delta variant of the virus.

The House and Senate have split over how to respond to the growing number of infections across the country.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week reimposed a mask requirement on that side of the Capitol, threatening to fine members who do not wear masks in the House chamber, saying she was following the advice of Brian Monahan, the top doctor in the Office of the Attending Physician of Congress.

But the Senate adopted a more laissez-faire approach, with no guidance from Monahan released and senators and their staffs making their own decision about whether to wear a mask. That created a split-screen image in which the entire Republican side of the Senate chamber would be maskless, as the Democratic side was overwhelmingly masked up.

First in the Senate, Graham’s is not the first breakthrough infection in Congress. A vaccinated member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s staff tested positive last month, as well as a vaccinated White House staffer. According to various reports, perhaps six senators attended Manchin’s wingding, including Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

The noted Trump sychophant could do his country a service by going on Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity’s Fox shows and touting the importance of vaccination.

CNN’s Stephen Collinson spotlights how the “vast human tragedy” of the COVID-19 pandemic is augmented by American vaccine refuseniks dying now as the virus seeks targets of opportunity:

The CDC said on Saturday for example that less than 0.004% of people who have been fully vaccinated against Covid-19 experience a breakthrough case resulting in hospitalization. Less than 0.001% died from the disease. While the tally of those breakthrough cases — 6,587 — and deaths — 1,263 — seems like a lot, they need to be set against the fact that more than 163 million people in the United States were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 as of July 26.

[…]

The idea that anyone would not save themselves because they are listening to a politician (not just Trump) who is downplaying the pandemic to boost their own career, or a right-wing pundit spiking their ratings, is its own tragedy.

But no matter the reason, it’s increasingly clear that people who refuse the vaccine are now taking a significant risk with their own lives and health — and the well-being of those who might be left behind if they die. With kids under 12 still ineligible to be vaccinated, the skeptics also risk exposing the youngest and vulnerable members of society to a serious disease. Ultimately, they are laying a wager in what West Virginia’s Republican Gov. Jim Justice called “a death lottery.”

Collinson reports on several who lost their bets, writing, “They didn’t have to die.”

You can help them save themselves, Senator Graham. Do what’s right.

More election shenanigans on deck

Ed Kilgore analyzes the threat of GOP gerrymandering in 2022. It’s somewhat depressing although, as he points out, anything can happen. There’s nothing new in this. But when you combine it with everything else they’re doing — it’s bad:

One of the concerns that has fed Democratic support for the sweeping voting-rights bill known as the For the People Act (S. 1) has been the imminence of a decennial redistricting process in which many Republican-controlled states are expected to pursue aggressive partisan gerrymandering at both the congressional and state legislative levels. Unsurprisingly, hostility to S. 1’s anti-gerrymandering provisions is one reason for the near-universal GOP opposition to that legislation.

Assuming there is no miraculous congressional breakthrough on voting rights this year, there will be some serious gerrymandering going on in states that have not adopted independent redistricting commissions or at least limits on hyperpartisan maps. Many progressives fear the worst, as Mother Jones senior reporter Ari Berman explains:

Republicans could pick up anywhere from six to 13 seats in the House of Representatives — enough to retake the House in 2022 — through its control of the redistricting process in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas alone, according to a new analysis by the Democratic data firm TargetSmart that was shared exclusively with Mother Jones. Republicans need to gain just five seats to regain control of the House. 

Yes, there will be states like Illinois, New York, and Maryland where Democrats could utilize gerrymandering to wipe out or endanger Republican incumbents. But in part because Democratic-controlled states are more likely to have adopted nonpartisan redistricting mechanisms, the GOP has a sizable overall advantage, controlling “187 congressional districts, compared to 75 for Democrats,” Berman calculates.

The limited good news for Democrats is that Republicans may not produce the maximum number of GOP districts. For one thing, despite the 2019 Supreme Court decision limiting federal judicial interference with partisan gerrymandering, there are some court-based inhibitions, particularly in those southern states where minority voting rights are at stake (racial, as opposed to partisan, gerrymandering remains open to federal judicial monitoring, in theory at least). For another, gerrymanders need to retain their effectiveness for a decade, which means too-cute or too-greedy partisan maps can backfire.

Kyle Kondik notes there have been plenty of overreaching “dummymanders” that failed their partisan purposes:

In 1981, Indiana Republicans enacted a partisan gerrymander of the Hoosier State designed to help Republicans net several seats. “Even the Democrats here concede that the newly drawn congressional district lines are a political masterpiece and that they face a much tougher task now in retaining their one-vote majority in Indiana’s congressional delegation,” reported the Washington Post.

But that following year, Republicans failed to make significant inroads in Indiana — the delegation went from 6-5 Democratic to a 5-5 split after the state lost a district because of reapportionment. By the end of the decade, Democrats held an 8-2 edge in Indiana, despite the Republican gerrymander.

Another problem for would-be mapmaking wizards is demographic change; sometimes safely partisan “maps” unravel between redistricting cycles. A good example, in fact, is provided by Georgia’s Sixth and Seventh Congressional Districts, now occupied by Democrats Lucy McBath and Carolyn Bourdeaux, respectively, and now prime targets for Georgia Republican gerrymandering. In the last round of redistricting, these two North Atlanta suburban enclaves looked safely Republican. Both were carried by Republican congressional candidates from 2012 through 2018 by over 60 percent, and both were won by Mitt Romney with 60 percent in 2012.

But then a rise in Black and immigrant populations and lagging Republican strength among college-educated white voters changed everything quickly. The Sixth hosted a red-hot special election in 2017 in which veteran Republican Karen Handel edged future U.S. senator Jon Ossoff. The next year, McBath unseated Handel. Similarly, in the Seventh, incumbent Republican Rob Woodall took 60 percent in 2016 but then won over Bourdeaux by 419 votes in 2018. Woodall retired and Bourdeaux took the seat in 2020.

Effective gerrymanders must take into account both short-term and long-term partisan needs, which isn’t easy. And ruthless partisan redistricting must also sometimes yield right-of-way to the congressional ambitions of individual pols, many of them state legislators who are involved in the map-drawing process. Plenty of past gerrymanders have run afoul of back-scratching incumbent-protection schemes wherein House members from both parties utilize their influence to stop major revisions in district lines.

None of this is to say that Republicans won’t succeed in gerrymandering their way to a House majority. As a party, they have become very attuned to the use of institutional power to thwart popular majorities, and one way to do that is to maximize the representation they can secure in legislative bodies at home and in Washington. With a possible wind at their backs thanks to the historical pattern of White House parties losing House seats in most midterm elections, augmented by the damage they are currently doing to voting rights, the GOP may not have to do too much additional election-rigging to regain the House gavel.

They’re going to do everything, old and new, legal and illegal. But Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema want to be “mavericks” so the Democrats can lose their majority and they can cozy up to Mitch McConnell and his benefactors so we will just have to let them.

Freeeedom

Hahahaha…

Actually, I shouldn’t laugh. Trump followers are so gullible, who knows what they might believe?

Just weeks after its launch, the pro-Trump social network GETTR is inundated with terrorist propaganda spread by supporters of Islamic State, according to a POLITICO review of online activity on the fledgling platform.

The social network — started a month ago by members of former President Donald Trump’s inner circle — featuresreams of jihadi-related material, including graphic videos of beheadings, viral memes that promote violence against the West and even memes of a militant executing Trump in an orange jumpsuit similar to those used in Guantanamo Bay.

The rapid proliferation of such material is placing GETTR in the awkward position of providing a safe haven for jihadi extremists online as it attempts to establish itself as a free speech MAGA-alternative to sites likeFacebook and Twitter.

It underscores the challenges facing Trump and his followers in the wake of his ban from the mainstream social media platforms following the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riots.

Islamic State “has been very quick to exploit GETTR,” said Moustafa Ayad, executive director for Africa, the Middle East and Asia at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank that tracks online extremism, who first discovered the jihadi accounts and shared his findings with POLITICO.

“On Facebook, there was on one of these accounts that I follow that is known to be Islamic State, which said ‘Oh, Trump announced his new platform. Inshallah, all the mujahideen will exploit that platform,’” he added. “The next day, there were at least 15 accounts on GETTR that were Islamic State.”

While GETTR does not provide access to its data to track the spread, or virality, of such extremist material on its platform, POLITICO found at least 250 accounts that had posted regularly on the platform since early July. Many followed each other, and used hashtags to promote the jihadi material to this burgeoning online community.

In the months since he was kicked off Twitter and suspended from Facebook, Trump has sought alternative ways to engage with his base online. While his supporters decamped to other online venues — including the social network Parler, where they could express themselves without facing increased scrutiny — Trump’s own effort to create an internet bullhorn has stalled.

In May, he launched a blog — titled “From the Desk of Donald J. Trump” — but it was taken down just weeks later amid widespread ridicule and poor readership.

So far, GETTR has been the highest-profile pro-Trump platform launch, given the names behind it: Jason Miller, former Trump spokesperson, is its chief executive, and the site is partially funded by Miles Guo, the business partner of former Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Trump, himself, is not directly involved in the operation, nor has he officially signed up to the platform. The social network has touted a “free speech” policy that, purportedly, would allow users to fully express themselves without the censorship of tech giants.

Yet this MAGA exodus to fringe social networks that champion unfettered speech has also caught the attention of supporters of Islamic State and other jihadist groups, according to extremism experts.

In response to questions about jihadi material being shared on GETTR, Miller told POLITICO that ISIS was attacking the MAGA movement because Trump had destroyed the group militarily. “The only ISIS members still alive are keyboard warriors hiding in caves and eating dirt cookies,” he said in a text message.

These terrorist communities have similarly faced widespread removals from the largest social networks, which have often promoted their clampdown on Islamic extremists as an example of how the tech companies are policing their global platforms for harmful content.

In response, Islamic State supporters have quickly shifted gears, looking for new spaces online where they can spread their hateful material, as well as piggybacking on tactics and platforms first used in the United States.

“Is Daesh here?” asked an account whose profile photo was of the Islamic State flag account, using the Arabic acronym for jihadi movement. The replies were in the affirmative, with some praising the social network for its willingness to host such content.

Days after GETTR was launched on July 1, Islamic State supporters began urging their followers on other social networks to sign up to the pro-Trump network, in part to take the jihadi fight directly to MAGA nation.

“If this app reaches the expected success, which is mostly probable, it should be adopted by followers and occupied in order to regain the glory of Twitter, may God prevail,” one Islamic State account on Facebook wrote on July 6.

Some of the jihadi posts on GETTR from early July were eventually taken down, highlighting that the pro-Trump platform had taken at least some steps to remove the harmful material.

Larger platforms like Facebook and Twitter now work via the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, an industry-funded nonprofit which shares terrorist content between companies — via a database of extremist material accessible to its members — so that the material can be taken down as quickly as possible.

GETTR has yet to sign up.

In the platform’s terms of service, it outlines how offensive or illegal content, including that related to terrorism, may be removed from GETTR. “This may include content identified as personal bullying, sexual abuse of a child, attacking any religion or race, or content containing video or depictions of beheading,” a clause reads.

Though the site has had notoriously spotty luck in moderating users on the platform — in its early days, it was flooded with a wide spectrum of pornography — Miller has drawn the line at doxxing, or sharing other people’s addresses, or advocating physical harm.

That’s just because of liability concerns. I guess he’s not worried about being sued over spreading ISIS propaganda.

He Is Dumb

So Kevin Mccarthy said over the weekend that if he becomes Speaker, :I want you to watch Nancy Pelosi hand me that gavel. It will be hard not to hit her with it, but I will bang it down.” People are justifiably appalled but McCarthy insists he was “just joking.” (See the post below.)

Kevin McCarthy is so stupid, I doubt he even knows how that sounds after his lovely constituents did this on January 6th:

And then there’s this adorable bunch:

https://youtu.be/PfiS8MsfSF4

We’re coming for that bitch. Tell fuckin’ Pelosi we’re coming for her, fuckin traitorous c**t … we’re comin’ for all of you!

McCarthy is a loose-lipped fool, always has been. His only talents are fundraising and licking Trump’s boots.

They Weren’t Kidding

David Frum runs down the details of Trump’s coup attempt and as he says, “when you put it like that, it’s pretty bad.” He writes:

That’s why a great deal of effort is being invested in never “putting it like that”—in finding some formula of euphemism and excuse that normalizes Trump’s attempt to keep power despite electoral defeat.

This campaign derides Trump’s failed putsch as a shambles and a farce, an “altercation,” a protest gone wrong, a coup that was no coup. It amiably suggests that nobody need worry about the events of January 6 overmuch.

To support this project, one must isolate the attack on Congress from the rest of the story of the 2019–20 presidential election. Trump was impeached in 2020 for extorting Ukraine to deliver disinformation to help him against Joe Biden. He was impeached in 2021 for inciting an attack on Congress to stop Biden from taking office. Those were two separate crimes, but they emanated from the same scheme.

And that scheme was not some solo lunacy of Trump alone. It’s not Trump who is systematically ending the political careers of every Republican who has stood up for democracy over the past year. That’s a broad effort almost universally supported in Trump’s party.

Nor is it Trump alone who is rewriting election laws, Trump alone who is exonerating and celebrating the January 6 attackers, Trump alone who is shutting down any investigation of questions about that day, such as “Who paid for the January 6 attackers to come to Washington in the first place?” Those too are broad efforts almost universally supported in Trump’s party.

Failed coups often look ludicrous in the aftermath. In 1961, elements of the French military tried to overthrow President Charles de Gaulle and the then-new Fifth Republic. De Gaulle mocked the coup-makers as “un quarteron de généraux en retraite”—“a handful of retired generals.” The phrase is even more dismissive in French than in English. But De Gaulle was talking after the fact, after he knew the outcome. During the attempted seizure of power, he took it seriously enough.

And so should we take January 6. The January 6 minimizers will argue that this was not the first violent protest on the Capitol grounds. Puerto Rican terrorists opened fire on Congress in 1954, wounding five House members. The Weather Underground planted a bomb in a washroom beneath the Senate chamber in 1971, doing serious damage to the building. A Communist group detonated a bomb in the Senate in 1983 to protest the U.S. invasion of Grenada. That one did less damage. But unlike all those other incidents—and unlike the antifa attacks on the Portland courthouse or any of the other “what abouts” favored by the Trumpists—the January 6 attack was unique in American history in one fateful and terrible way: It came from the inside.

That attack was not the work of avowed adversaries of the American government, of clandestine dissidents, of radicals outside the system. The January 6 attack was incited by the head of the American government, the man who had sworn to protect and defend that government. It was the thing most feared by the authors of the U.S. Constitution: a betrayal of the highest office by the holder of that office.

It’s no mystery why pro-Trump partisans would excuse January 6. Trump incited the putsch; he continues to justify it. Of course those loyal to Trump would condone this latest outrage as they have previously condoned so many others. You sign with the Mafia, you don’t get squeamish about the crimes.

It’s more interesting to consider why so many non-Trumpy Republican partisans and conservative intellectuals are willing to expend so much effort minimizing and contextualizing January 6. You might expect them to welcome the opportunity to draw a clean break, a sharp dividing line. Here, at last, is the toad too ugly to swallow; here is the long-awaited chance to shove Trump into the past and redirect their party to the post-Trump future.

I think I can see four reasons why this is not happening.

The first is the familiar human instinct to save face. You invest five years dismissing Trump as a vulgar but ultimately harmless buffoon. Then comes the definitive proof that you were wrong. Are you going to admit it? Of course not. You will use the mighty brain God gave you to explain why you were actually right all along, only in a slightly more complicated way than you were right before.

A second reason is that non-Trumpy conservatives share with Trump conservatives an intense preoccupation with the hypocrisies and double standards of their political opponents. If anything, non-Trumpy conservatives feel even more anger against those opponents than Trump conservatives do. Affirmatively pro-Trump conservatives feel right at home in the Trump coalition. For non-Trump conservatives, their situation is much less comfortable. Disregarding Trump himself as unimportant and irrelevant—while focusing all their attention on irksome things done by anybody other than Trump—becomes an indispensable psychological coping mechanism that leads them to reinterpret January 6 not as a story about Trump but as a story about why liberals did not say more in 2020 about urban disorders or some other irritant of the moment.

Reason three: Non-Trump conservatives have begun to absorb that Trump is not in fact receding into the past. Trump’s grip on the Republican Party remains tight. Unless he’s dead or otherwise unable by then, he’s the likeliest 2024 nominee. And even if he somehow is debarred from running, noisy loyalty to Trump will be a precondition for anyone who wants to succeed him. Non-Trump conservatives can privately allow that January 6 was a blemish on Trump’s record, but a defense of the record itself is the one and only meaningful test of loyalty in today’s GOP, more meaningful than being anti–abortion rights or pro-guns, to say nothing of the economic or fiscal principles that the party junked long ago.

Finally, while non-Trump conservatives may disapprove of the crude and excessive violence deployed on January 6, they do not disapprove of the post-democratic path being explored by the modern right. The yearning for a Caesar to repress the woke mob is expressed more and more explicitly, hence the appeal to even the highest-toned of today’s conservative intellectuals of Hungary’s Viktor OrbánPoland’s Law and Justice party, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Some even have favorable words for some of the fascists of the 1930s, such as Portugal’s António Salazar.

The post-Trump right has a style as distinctive as its authoritarian substance: trolling, ironic, evasive. It expresses itself in rhetorical questions, in false alternatives, in sleights of phrase, in mocking deflections. It does not openly declare its intentions, in part because it does not dare to—and in part because it itself does not yet fully know. Those of us who have walked away from this betrayal of our earlier beliefs can discern the resemblance to the fascism of the last century. But those heading toward the new destination do not see so clearly, distracted as they are by the wisecracks that they are tweeting as they trudge.

But some things cannot be wisecracked away. January 6 was the last exit. If you can shrug it off as no big deal, just another incident of Trump talking too much, then you have already signed up for the next incident—and the one after that. You are then offering a no-risk pair of options for the enemies of democracy: Try to overthrow democracy and win, then you win; try and lose—hey, you were only kidding.

That’s how the right rolls. And has rolled for a long time. The trolling, the nasty, juvenile name-calling, the demeaning of all civil discourse — ask Newt Gingrich about all that.

Anyway, I appreciate the directness of Frum’s analysis. It’s important not to sugarcoat what happened. They attempted to stage a coup. They failed. But that doesn’t make it just a tourist visit or a joke.

The Big Money Behind the Big Lie

Jane Mayer has written a fantastic piece about the Big Lie. It’s got a lot of interesting color in it and great insight into the local weirdos who are conducting the Arizona audit. Here’s just a little piece which proves just how cynical and destructive the whole “conservative movement” really is:

Although the Arizona audit may appear to be the product of local extremists, it has been fed by sophisticated, well-funded national organizations whose boards of directors include some of the country’s wealthiest and highest-profile conservatives. Dark-money organizations, sustained by undisclosed donors, have relentlessly promoted the myth that American elections are rife with fraud, and, according to leaked records of their internal deliberations, they have drafted, supported, and in some cases taken credit for state laws that make it harder to vote.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island who has tracked the flow of dark money in American politics, told me that a “flotilla of front groups” once focussed on advancing such conservative causes as capturing the courts and opposing abortion have now “more or less shifted to work on the voter-suppression thing.” These groups have cast their campaigns as high-minded attempts to maintain “election integrity,” but Whitehouse believes that they are in fact tampering with the guardrails of democracy.

One of the movement’s leaders is the Heritage Foundation, the prominent conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. It has been working with the American Legislative Exchange Council (alec)—a corporate-funded nonprofit that generates model laws for state legislators—on ways to impose new voting restrictions. Among those deep in the fight is Leonard Leo, a chairman of the Federalist Society, the legal organization known for its decades-long campaign to fill the courts with conservative judges. In February, 2020, the Judicial Education Project, a group tied to Leo, quietly rebranded itself as the Honest Elections Project, which subsequently filed briefs at the Supreme Court, and in numerous states, opposing mail-in ballots and other reforms that have made it easier for people to vote.

Another newcomer to the cause is the Election Integrity Project California. And a group called FreedomWorks, which once concentrated on opposing government regulation, is now demanding expanded government regulation of voters, with a project called the National Election Protection Initiative.

These disparate nonprofits have one thing in common: they have all received funding from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Based in Milwaukee, the private, tax-exempt organization has become an extraordinary force in persuading mainstream Republicans to support radical challenges to election rules—a tactic once relegated to the far right. With an endowment of some eight hundred and fifty million dollars, the foundation funds a network of groups that have been stoking fear about election fraud, in some cases for years. Public records show that, since 2012, the foundation has spent some eighteen million dollars supporting eleven conservative groups involved in election issues.

It might seem improbable that a low-profile family foundation in Wisconsin has assumed a central role in current struggles over American democracy. But the modern conservative movement has depended on leveraging the fortunes of wealthy reactionaries. In 1903, Lynde Bradley, a high-school dropout in Milwaukee, founded what would become the Allen-Bradley company. He was soon joined by his brother Harry, and they got rich by selling electronic instruments such as rheostats. Harry, a John Birch Society founding member, started a small family foundation that initially devoted much of its giving to needy employees and to civic causes in Milwaukee. In 1985, after the brothers’ death, their heirs sold the company to the defense contractor Rockwell International, for $1.65 billion, generating an enormous windfall for the foundation. The Bradley Foundation remains small in comparison with such liberal behemoths as the Ford Foundation, but it has become singularly preoccupied with wielding national political influence. It has funded conservative projects ranging from school-choice initiatives to the controversial scholarship of Charles Murray, the co-author of the 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” which argues that Blacks are less likely than whites to join the “cognitive elite.” And, at least as far back as 2012, it has funded groups challenging voting rights in the name of fighting fraud.

Since the 2020 election, this movement has evolved into a broader and more aggressive assault on democracy. According to some surveys, a third of Americans now believe that Biden was illegitimately elected, and nearly half of Trump supporters agree that Republican legislators should overturn the results in some states that Biden won. Jonathan Rauch, of the Brookings Institution, recently told The Economist, “We need to regard what’s happening now as epistemic warfare by some Americans on other Americans.” Pillars of the conservative establishment, faced with a changing U.S. voter population that threatens their agenda, are exploiting Trump’s contempt for norms to devise ways to hold on to power. Senator Whitehouse said of the campaign, “It’s a massive covert operation run by a small group of billionaire élites. These are powerful interests with practically unlimited resources who have moved on to manipulating that most precious of American gifts—the vote.”

An animating force behind the Bradley Foundation’s war on “election fraud” is Cleta Mitchell, a fiercely partisan Republican election lawyer, who joined the organization’s board of directors in 2012. Until recently, she was virtually unknown to most Americans. But, on January 3rd, the Washington Post exposed the contents of a private phone call, recorded the previous day, during which Trump threatened election officials in Georgia with a “criminal offense” unless they could “find” 11,780 more votes for him—just enough to alter the results. Also on the call was Mitchell, who challenged the officials to provide records proving that dead people hadn’t cast votes. The call was widely criticized as a rogue effort to overturn the election, and Foley & Lardner, the Milwaukee-based law firm where Mitchell was a partner, announced that it was “concerned” about her role, and then parted ways with her. Trump’s call prompted the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, to begin a criminal investigation.

In a series of e-mails and phone calls with me, Mitchell adamantly defended her work with the Trump campaign, and said that in Georgia, where she has centered her efforts, “I don’t think we can say with certainty who won.” She told me that there were countless election “irregularities,” such as voters using post-office boxes as their residences, in violation of state law. “I believe there were more illegal votes cast than the margin of victory,” she said. “The only remedy is a new election.” Georgia’s secretary of state rejected her claims, but Mitchell insists that the decision lacked a rigorous evaluation of the evidence. With her support, diehard conspiracy theorists are still litigating the matter in Fulton County, which includes most of Atlanta. Because they keep demanding that election officials prove a negative—that corruption didn’t happen—their requests to keep interrogating the results can be repeated almost indefinitely. Despite three independent counts of Georgia’s vote, including a hand recount, all of which confirmed Biden’s victory, Mitchell argues that “Trump never got his day in court,” adding, “There are a lot of miscarriages of justice I’ve seen and experienced in my life, and this was one of them.”

Mitchell, who is seventy, has warm friendships with people in both parties, and she often appears grandmotherly, in pastel knit suits and reading glasses. But, like Angela Lansbury in “The Manchurian Candidate,” to whom she bears a striking resemblance, she should not be underestimated. She began her political career in Oklahoma, as an outspoken Democrat and a champion of the Equal Rights Amendment. She was elected to the state legislature in her twenties, but then lost a bid for lieutenant governor, in 1986. She told me that she subsequently underwent a political conversion: when her stepson squandered the college tuition that she was paying, she turned against the idea of welfare in favor of personal responsibility, and began reading conservative critiques of liberalism. When I first interviewed her for this magazine, in 1996, she told me that “overreaching government regulation is one of the great scandals of our times.”

On behalf of Republican candidates and groups, she began to fight limits on campaign spending. She also represented numerous right-wing nonprofits, including the National Rifle Association, whose board she joined in the early two-thousands. A former N.R.A. official recently told the Guardian that Mitchell was the “fringe of the fringe,” and a Republican voting-rights lawyer said that “she tells clients what they want to hear, regardless of the law or reality.”

In our conversations, Mitchell mocked what she called the mainstream media’s “narrative” of a “vast right-wing conspiracy to suppress the vote of Black people,” and insisted that the fraud problem was significant. “I actually think your readers need to hear from people like me—believe it or not, there are tens of millions of us,” she wrote. “We are not crazy. At least not to us. We are intelligent and educated people who are very concerned about the future of America. And we are among the vast majority of Americans who support election-integrity measures.” Echoing what has become the right’s standard talking point, she declared that her agenda for elections is “to make it harder to cheat.”

Mitchell told me that the Democrats used the pandemic as a “great pretext” to “be able to cheat”: they caused “administrative chaos” by changing rules about early and absentee voting, and they didn’t adequately police fraud. She denied that race had motivated her actions in Georgia. Yet, in an e-mail to me, she said that Democrats are “using black voters as a prop to accomplish their political objectives.”

Few experts have found Mitchell’s evidence convincing. On November 12, 2020, the Trump Administration’s own election authorities declared the Presidential vote to be “the most secure in American history.” It is true that in many American elections there are small numbers of questionable ballots. An Associated Press investigation found that, in 2020, a hundred and eighty-two of the 3.4 million ballots cast in Arizona were problematic. Four of the ballots have led to criminal charges. But the consensus among nonpartisan experts is that the amount of fraud, particularly in major races, is negligible. As Phil Keisling, a former secretary of state in Oregon, who pioneered universal voting by mail, has said, “Voters don’t cast fraudulent ballots for the same reason counterfeiters don’t manufacture pennies—it doesn’t pay.”

What explains, then, the hardening conviction among Republicans that the 2020 race was stolen? Michael Podhorzer, a senior adviser to the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which invested deeply in expanding Democratic turnout in 2020, suggests that the two parties now have irreconcilable beliefs about whose votes are legitimate. “What blue-state people don’t understand about why the Big Lie works,” he said, is that it doesn’t actually require proof of fraud. “What animates it is the belief that Biden won because votes were cast by some people in this country who others think are not ‘real’ Americans.” This anti-democratic belief has been bolstered by a constellation of established institutions on the right: “white evangelical churches, legislators, media companies, nonprofits, and even now paramilitary groups.” Podhorzer noted, “Trump won white America by eight points. He won non-urban areas by over twenty points. He is the democratically elected President of white America. It’s almost like he represents a nation within a nation.”

I understand that very well and have for years. Of course, the majority of Democrats are also white — this is a majority white country, after all — proving that there is no “white America”, at least in the sense they think it is. Which is why they are so upset in the first place.

But the point that this is all bolstered by these right wing institutions and wealthy patrons is important. They are the ones who know very well that Trump didn’t win. They are the one’s setting up a new system that illegitimately guarantees them power. It’s not about “white America” for them. It’s about “rich America” (which is white America too, but a much smaller faction within it.) If anyone’s being used as props it’s the Real (white)Americans who are stupidly worshiping a ridiculous rich clown whom the not-so-clownish rich wingnuts are using to accomplish their own ends.