Skip to content

Month: November 2021

Why McCarthy will not be speaker

He’s too dumb, even for the House GOP. Last night he spoke for 8 hours (incoherently and stupidly as above) apparently in the hopes of making the Democrats pass their BBB bill in “the dead of night.” But it was meaningless because Pelosi just rescheduled the vote from late last evening when nobody was watching to this morning when everyone was awake. It was an idiotic display both in terms of showing not only that he’s a bad speaker but that he’s a stupid tactician as well. I’m not even sure he impressed Donald Trump which must have been his primary reason for attempting such a stunt.

This is how Pelosi handled it this morning:

Poor Kevin. He’s just so bad at this.

The Chris Christie Comeback Tour is insufferable

Arguably the most famous comeback in American political history was that of Richard Nixon, who lost a close presidential race in 1960, followed up by a loss in the California Governor’s race two years later. After that defeat, he famously whined to the press: “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” Everyone thought he was done for. Nixon was, after all, an extremely unlikable politician whose nickname, “Tricky Dick,” said everything about his uniquely slimy character. But then he ran again for president six years later — and won.

Nixon’s appeal to his voters was the fact that he was an asshole, there’s just no other way to put it. He had no charisma or charm. But he was a ruthless operator who his supporters believed would do whatever was necessary to keep their political opponents and foreign enemies in line. We all know how that worked out.

It’s tempting to see Donald Trump as a true heir to Nixon. After all, his appeal was similar in many ways. He too lied as easily as he breathed, stripped the bark off of anyone who crossed him and was seen as someone who would keep the hippies and the minorities in line. And Trump actually outdid Nixon in personal corruption. But that’s where the similarities end. Nixon had a deep understanding of government and policy and a fully formed, sophisticated ideological agenda. Trump was a rank amateur with no interest or capacity for learning anything new. And say what you will about him, there is no denying that Trump managed to create a full-blown cult of personality, something poor old Dick Nixon couldn’t even come close to achieving.

No, the true heir to Nixon in modern Republican politics is former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. Like Nixon, Christie’s main appeal lies in the fact that he’s an asshole which seems to thrill about half of America’s voters at any given time. He’s also got a record of political dirty tricks, deep unpopularity with his (former) constituents, a failed presidential campaign and what appears to be an attempt at a comeback.

As hard as it is to believe after his sad performance as a Trump toady, Christie has a new book out in which he is endeavoring to present himself as the one guy willing to stand up to Donald Trump. It’s his bid to compete for the presidential nomination in 2024 — and the media is eating it up with a spoon. In fact, there has never been so much excitement over a book by a has-been politician who left office years ago with a 14% approval rating and whose main claim to fame since then was doing debate prep for the man who beat him. But the press can’t get enough of this guy. As Aaron Rupar documented in his newsletter Public Notice, in the last week:

Following an interview published in the New York Times on Saturday, Christie has been doing a ridiculous number of TV hits. He’s appeared on two ABC shows (This Week and The View), Fox & FriendsFox NewsFox Business, the Daily Show, and CNBC. He appeared on MSNBC three separate times during a 24-hour period stretching from Monday evening into Tuesday.

On Monday evening, CNN ran an hour-long, soft-focus special about Christie. (The scandal that tanked Christie’s standing in New Jersey, Bridgegate, wasn’t even mentioned.)

That’s not all. If you read Christie’s Twitter feed, you’ll see that he’s doing late-night shows, radio, streaming interviews and podcasts as well. He is in great demand. And it’s mind-boggling. As Late Night host Seth Myers quipped:

“Cable is so desperate to fill time that CNN even aired a ludicrous special focused entirely on Christie called Being Chris Christie…You guys are acting like he’s some weird lifestyle-having guy that everyone wants to know about. He’s not Harry Styles or Banksy, he’s a loudmouth from New Jersey. If you want to know what he’s thinking you don’t need CNN. You just need to be within earshot, which is for him I think like a mile?

I suspect that’s exactly what most people think of Christie, especially Trumpers who will only see him as disloyal — and no one else ever liked him in the first place. But apparently, the media is so hungry for some Trump-lite that they are lapping up everything he says as if he’s some exciting, new political superstar.

To his credit Christie admits that the election was not stolen and mildly criticizes Trump for refusing to let it go, always suggesting that it’s bad for “the party” rather than admitting that it’s a grotesque perversion of American democracy. In his book, he even dishes a bit on the former president, revealing that Trump personally leaked to the press that he’d offered Christie the White House Chief of Staff job and revealing that Trump had offered him “just about every other position this side of White House chef.” Unfortunately, he never offered him Attorney General, which Christie says was the job he really wanted.

But mostly Christie is trying to walk the line between Trump critic and Trump supporter, a position which Politico reported he sees as the road to victory in 2024. He distanced himself after January 6th and has not promised not to run against him, as others have done:

There is a strategic logic to that approach. Christie, according to those familiar with his thinking, would occupy a middle lane in a potential primary, positioned between those who embrace Trump without reservation and would never criticize him, and any candidate who sought to capture the Never Trump vote.

Christie says he wants to “rescue” the party. What he doesn’t say is that he wants to rescue the party from Trumpism. In fact, it’s quite clear that he sees himself as its rightful leader.

“He’s very ambitious, always has been. And he’s very, very smart and knows how to calculate the odds,” said former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, who has known Christie since high school and whom Christie once called a mentor. “He felt the last election that Trump took his place. He thought he had carved out a space for himself, the rough-talking, tell-things-as-they-are position. But that was Trump. Now he thinks Trump is probably in the rearview mirror and what position can he get into now.”

Trump stole his lane last time and now the voters are over him and will want to vote for the real thing? That’s just sad. But this is even sadder:

No matter what, he’s not going up against Fox News. Here he is belatedly responding to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace after she cornered him about the real problems underlying Trumpism and the Big Lie:

 Chris Christie’s book is called “Republican Rescue: Saving the Party from Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden.” Wallace was 100 percent correct. It’s pretty clear that the only thing Chris Christie is trying to save is his reputation and it’s not going well.

As the (parody) Nixon twitter account put it:

Salon

Only Democrats care about governing

You know something’s really off when you see David Brooks quoted here twice in one week. Here, he addresses Joe Biden’s efforts at meeting the needs of people in “left behind” places in the country that did not vote for him. If Larry Summers thinks lifting wages at the bottom will cause inflation, Brooks writes, “so be it. The trade-off is worth it to prevent a national rupture.”

Brooks continues in unsettling past tense:

As president, Biden had mostly economic levers to try to bridge this cold civil war. He championed three gigantic pieces of legislation to create a more equal, more just and more united society: the Covid stimulus bill, the infrastructure bill and what became Build Back Better, to invest in human infrastructure.

All of these bills were written to funnel money to the parts of the country that were less educated, less affluent, left behind. Adam Hersh, a visiting economist at the Economic Policy Institute, projects that more than 80 percent of the new jobs created by the infrastructure plan will not require a college degree.

But that’s just the beginning, says Brooks:

The Biden $1.9 trillion stimulus package passed and has been tremendously successful. It heated the overall economy. The Conference Board projects that real G.D.P. growth will be about 5 percent this quarter. The unemployment rate is falling. Retail sales are surging. About two-thirds of Americans feel their household’s financial situation is good.

But the best part is that the benefits are flowing to those down the educational and income ladder. In just the first month of payments, the expanded Child Tax Credit piece of the stimulus bill kept three million American children out of poverty. Pay for hourly workers in the leisure and hospitality sector jumped 13 percent in August compared with the previous year. By June, there were more nonfarm job openings than there had been at any time in American history. Workers have tremendous power these days.

The infrastructure bill Biden just signed will boost American productivity for years to come. As Ellen Zentner of Morgan Stanley told The Economist recently, it’s a rule of thumb that an extra $100 billion in annual infrastructure spending could increase growth by roughly a tenth of a percentage point — which is significant in an economy the size of ours. Federal infrastructure spending will be almost as large a share of annual GDP as the average level during Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Voters look askance at big changes, Brooks suggests, and, citing Michigan State political scientist Matt Grossmann, they punish both Republican and Democratic first-term presidents in mid-terms. “That’s especially true if the president achieved big things.”

History will judge Biden in the end, he concludes, and if Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022, ” it will have totally been worth it.” If they don’t screw up by making some programs temporary so Republicans can let them expire.

Brooks is jumping the gun on the Biden administration’s “tremendously successful” infrastructure bill and his other unpassed human infrastructure package.

What he is right about (indirectly) is that Republicans are no longer a political party, but an insurgency, an insurgency of unserious vandals more interested in irritating opponents than in public service.

Witness the glee (CNN video) with which former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows ponders naming Donald Trump the Republican Speaker of the House to replace Nancy Pelosi.

“You talk about melting down. People would go crazy,” Meadows told Steve Bannon’s podcast. “She would go from tearing up a speech to having to give the gavel to Donald Trump. Oh, she would go crazy.”

Maggie Haberman told CNN, “You could almost see Steve Bannon as the ventriloquist moving Mark Meadows’ mouth.”

But unserious and disruptive is what recent polls show the public wants, as both Brooks and Martin Longman note. Longman warns:

As presently comprised, the Republican Party is fascist and undemocratic, and they will not allow free and fair elections going forward. What this means is that we’ll be powerless to organize the inevitable backlash and ride it back to power. They won’t concede elections that they lose, and that assumes we can even win elections for these noncompetitive seats that are overseen by radical election officials and even more radical state legislatures.

Normal isn’t returning soon, the “not ordinarily a pessimist” Longman explains:

I’d say that we should do away with the legislative filibuster and pass voter reforms, and that we should develop an intelligent and politically savvy legislative plan for 2022, and that we should do more and better messaging. But most of that won’t happen and the rest won’t be sufficient. The coup-plotters are in the driver’s seat and if we don’t have a radical and preemptive response, they’ll do next November what they failed to do on January 6.

And we won’t come back from that.

Brooks and Longman should compare notes. Hell, David Brooks of The Atlantic and David Brooks of The New York Times should compare notes.

John Kennedy Cornpone

Senate Republicans suggested on Thursday that a Soviet-trained communist was about to take over a key office in the country’s banking regulation infrastructure.

President Biden nominated Cornell University law professor Saule Omarova to be comptroller of the currency in September. But at her Thursday confirmation hearing, Republican senators played on Omarova’s birth in the former Soviet Union to suggest that she was a Marxist sleeper agent.

“Have you resigned from the young communists?” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked Omarova at the hearing.

Kennedy was referring to Omarova’s early years in the USSR. Born in what is now Kazakhstan, Omarova received the prestigious Lenin scholarship to study at Moscow State University. As a child, she was also a member of the komsomol, the communist youth — a common group to be involved in in the USSR.

It’s all red meat for opponents of Omarova’s candidacy on the Senate Finance Committee, which held a confirmation hearing on Thursday.

“Did you send them a letter resigning?” Kennedy asked, referring to Omarova’s komsomol membership.

Committee Chair Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) interrupted him, saying that Omarova had “renounced her Soviet citizenship.”

Kennedy pressed on with Omarova: “I don’t mean any disrespect — I don’t know whether to call you professor or comrade.”

Omarova is up for an extremely important role. As comptroller of the currency, she’ll be in charge of chartering banks, and supervising them. It’s a job that holds great authority over the country’s largest financial institutions. The office can levy fines and restrict activities of banks if supervisors find particularly egregious deficiencies.

“What do the banks like? They like light regulations, and they like freedom to do what they want to do to make money,” Phillip Basil, director of banking at Better Markets, a financial regulation-focused non-profit, told TPM. And what they don’t want as head of the comptroller of the currency is someone who is going to pursue strong supervision. That means they’re going to have to spend a lot of money on infrastructure — staff that are just pure overhead.”

“So the more assertive the supervisory program is, under the head of the OCC, the more banks are going to be concerned for a couple of reasons,” Basil added.

Before the Thursday hearing, the campaign against Omarova’s nomination was already in full gear.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board published a piece last-month decrying her positions on tougher regulation, while also including the same suggestion that her upbringing in the Soviet Union continued to hold influence over her.

“Senate Republicans have asked for a copy of her thesis ‘Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in The Capital,’” the column reads. “She hasn’t complied, and neither has she repudiated her Soviet-era views.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) took a similar line in his opening remarks, saying that “taken in their totality, her ideas amount to a socialist manifesto for American financial services.” He has also demanded that Omarova provide a copy of her undergraduate thesis.

Omarova addressed the thesis at the Thursday hearing, pointing out that she wrote it as an undergraduate while saying that, when departing Moscow 33 years ago, she would have been surprised to learn that the document would be of interest to a future congressional panel.

“It did not reflect my views then; it does not reflect them now,” Omarova replied, adding that she was living under a totalitarian regime with a state ideology at the time. “I could not choose where I was born.”

Sen. Kennedy pressed the point, telling Omarova, “you studied scientific communism, the science regarding the working class struggle and the communist agenda.”

“You called the financial services industry a ‘quintessential asshole industry,’” he added, referencing more recent remarks.

“My family suffered under the communist regime,” Omarova replied. “I grew up without knowing half of my family.”

Apart from political repression, Kazakhstan experienced a devastating famine under Soviet rule. According to some estimates, as many as 1.5 million died from starvation in the region during the collectivization campaign in the early 1930s, with more than a quarter of the Kazakh population disappearing.

“My grandmother herself escaped death twice under the Stalin regime,” Omarova added. “This is what’s seared in my mind. That’s who I am.”

He is a phony, through and through, a wealthy Oxford educated elite who speaks like Gomer Pyle and acts like George Wallace to fool the rubes into thinking he’s one of them:

And now he’s falling back on outright, crude, old-fashioned McCarthyism.

The Nat-Con threat

I have been writing about the Bannon-style “intellectual” underpinning of Trumpism but there’s a complimentary line of thinking out there and, to be honest, it’s actually worse. Here’s an account of a recent meeting of the National Conservative Conference and if you read it (or scroll to the bottom) you may be surprised by who wrote it. I have picked it up about half way through:

The first great project of the national conservatives is to man the barricades in the culture war. These people have certainly done their homework when it comes to cultural Marxism—how the left has learned to dominate culture and how the right now needs to copy their techniques. If I’d had to drink a shot every time some speaker cited Herbert Marcuse or Antonio Gramsci, I’d be dead of alcohol poisoning.

Hawley delivered a classic culture-war speech defending manhood and masculinity: “The deconstruction of America depends on the deconstruction of American men.” Listening to Hawley talk populist is like listening to a white progressive Upper West Sider in the 1970s try to talk jive. The words are there, but he’s trying so hard it sounds ridiculous.

Another speaker, Amanda Milius, is the daughter of John Milius, who was the screenwriter for the first two Dirty Harry films and Apocalypse Now. She grew up in L.A. and wound up in the Trump administration. She argued that America needs to get back to making self-confident movies like The Searchers, the 1956 John Ford Western. This was an unapologetic movie, she asserted, about how Americans tamed the West and how Christian values got brought to “savage, undeveloped land.”

This is about as dumb a reading of The Searchers as it’s possible to imagine. The movie is actually the modern analogue to the Oresteia, by Aeschylus. The complex lead figure, played by John Wayne, is rendered barbaric and racist while fighting on behalf of westward pioneers. By the end, he is unfit to live in civilized society.

But we don’t exactly live in an age that acknowledges nuance. Milius distorts the movie into a brave manifesto of anti-woke truths—and that sort of distortion has a lot of buyers among this crowd.

The first interesting debate among the NatCons is philosophical: Should we fight to preserve the classical-liberal order or is it necessary to abandon it?

Some of the speakers at the conference were in fact classical liberals, who believe in free speech, intellectual debate, and neutral government. Glenn Loury gave an impassioned speech against cancel culture, the illiberal left, and the hyper-racialized group consciousness that divides people into opposing racial camps. Loury asserted that as a Black man he is the proud inheritor of the great Western tradition: “Tolstoy is mine! Dickens is mine! Milton, Marx, and Einstein are mine!” He declared that his people are Black, but also proudly American. “Our Americanness is much more important than our Blackness,” he said, before adding, “We must strive to transcend racial particularism and stress universality and commonality as Americans.” This is the classical-liberal case against racial separatism and in favor of integration.

But others argued that this sort of liberalism is a luxury we cannot afford. The country is under assault from a Marxist oligarchy that wants to impose its own pseudo-religious doctrine. If you try to repulse that with pallid liberalism, with weak calls for free speech and tolerance, you’ll end up getting run over by those who possess fanatical zeal, economic power, and cultural might.

Yoram Hazony, the chief intellectual architect of national conservatism, is an Orthodox Jew who went to Princeton before moving to Israel. He argues that you can’t have a society that embraces government neutrality and tries to relegate values to the private sphere. The public realm eventually eviscerates private values, especially when public communication is controlled by a small oligarchic elite. If conservatives want to stand up to the pseudo-religion of wokeism, they have to put traditional religion at the center of their political project.

Another Israeli political philosopher at the conference, Ofir Haivry, argued that Americans shouldn’t delude themselves into thinking that a nation is built out of high-minded liberal abstractions, like the Bill of Rights. A nation is, instead, a cultural tradition, a common language, a set of rituals and beliefs, and a religious order—a collective cultural identity.

The history of Judaism demonstrates, Haivry argues, that you don’t need a state or a political order to be a nation.

For his part, Hazony argued that the American cultural identity is Christian—and has to be if it is not going to succumb to the woke onslaught. If 80 percent of Americans are Christian, Hazony reasoned, then Christian values should dominate. “Majority cultures have the right to establish the ruling culture, and minority cultures have the right to be decently treated,” he said. “To take the minority view and say the minority has the ability to stamp out the views of the majority—that seems to me to be completely crazy.”

The problem in America, Hazony continued, is that LGBTQ activists today, like American Jews in the 1950s, are trying to expel Christianity from the public square. This threatens to render the public square spiritually naked. Wan liberalism collapses in the face of  left-wing cultural Marxism. “Eliminating God and scripture in the schools … was the turning point in American civilization,” Hazony said. “Above all else we’ve got to get God and scripture back in the schools.”

Another interesting debate among the NatCons is political and economic. Conservatives have lately become expert culture warriors—the whole Tucker Carlson schtick. This schtick demands that you ignore the actual suffering of the world—the transgender kid alone in some suburban high school, the anxiety of a guy who can’t afford health care for his brother, the struggle of a Black man trying to be seen and recognized as a full human being. It’s a cynical game that treats all of life as a play for ratings, a battle for clicks, and this demands constant outrage, white-identity signaling, and the kind of absurd generalizations that Rachel Bovard used to get that room so excited.

Conservatives have got the culture-war act down. Trump was a culture-war president with almost no policy arm attached. The question conservatives at the conference were asking was how to move beyond owning the libs to effecting actual change.

Christopher Rufo, the architect of this year’s school-board-meeting protests against critical race theory, argued that conservatives had erred when they tried to slowly gain power in elite cultural institutions. Conservatives were never going to make headway in the Ivy League or the corporate media. Instead, Rufo argued, they should rally the masses to get state legislatures to pass laws embracing their values. That’s essentially what’s now happening across red America.

My old friend Rod Dreher of The American Conservative argued that because the left controls the commanding heights of the culture and the economy, the only institution the right has a shot at influencing is the state. In these circumstances the right has to use state power to promote its values. “We need to quit being satisfied with owning the libs, and save our country,” Dreher said. “We need to unapologetically embrace the use of state power.”

This is where Viktor Orbán comes in. It was Dreher who prompted Carlson’s controversial trip to Hungary last summer, and Hungarians were a strong presence at the National Conservatism Conference. Orbán, in Dreher’s view, understands the civilizational stakes of the culture war; he has, for instance, used the power of the state to limit how much transgenderism can be taught to children in schools. “Our team talks incessantly about how horrible wokeness is,” Dreher said at the conference. “Orbán actually does something about it.”

This is national conservatism pursued to its logical conclusion: using state power to break up and humble the big corporations and to push back against coastal cultural values. The culture war merges with the economic-class war—and a new right emerges in which an intellectual cadre, the national conservatives, rallies the proletarian masses against the cultural/corporate elites. All your grandparents’ political categories get scrambled along the way.

Will it work? Well, Donald Trump destroyed the Reagan Republican paradigm in 2016, but he didn’t exactly elucidate a new set of ideas, policies, and alliances. Trump’s devastation of the old order produced a grand struggle on the right to build a new one on Trumpian populist lines.

The NatCons are wrong to think there is a unified thing called “the left” that hates America. This is just the apocalyptic menace many of them had to invent in order to justify their decision to vote for Donald Trump.

They are wrong, too, to think there is a wokeist Anschluss taking over all the institutions of American life. For people who spend so much time railing about the evils of social media, they sure seem to spend an awful lot of their lives on Twitter. Ninety percent of their discourse is about the discourse. Anecdotalism was also rampant at the conference—generalizing from three anecdotes about people who got canceled to conclude that all of American life is a woke hellscape. They need to get out more.

Furthermore, if Hazony thinks America is about to return to Christian dominance, he’s living in 1956. Evangelical Christianity has lost many millions of believers across recent decades. Secularism is surging, and white Christianity is shrinking into a rump presence in American life. America is becoming more religiously diverse every day. Christians are in no position to impose their values—regarding same-sex marriage or anything else—on the public square. Self-aware Christians know this.

Finally, there is something extremely off-putting about the NatCon public pose. In person, as I say, I find many of them charming, warm, and friendly. But their public posture is dominated by the psychology of threat and menace. If there was one expression of sympathy, kindness, or grace uttered from the podium in Orlando, I did not hear it. But I did hear callousness, invocations of combat, and whiffs of brutality.

One big thing the NatCons are right about is that in the Information Age, the cultural and corporate elites have merged. Right-wing parties around the world are gradually becoming working-class parties that stand against the economic interests and cultural preferences of the highly educated. Left-wing parties are now rooted in the rich metro areas and are more and more becoming an unsteady alliance between young AOC left-populists and Google.

NatCons are also probably right that conservatism is going to get a lot more statist. At the conference, Ted Cruz tried to combine culture-war conservatism with free-market economic policies—free trade and low taxes. Marco Rubio countered by, in effect, arguing that you can’t rally cultural populists if you are not also going to do something for them economically. Cultural populism leads to economic populism. Rubio’s position at least has the virtue of being coherent.

Over the past few decades there have been various efforts to replace the Reagan Paradigm: the national-greatness conservatism of John McCain; the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush; the Reformicon conservatism of the D.C. think tanks in the 21st century. But the Trumpian onslaught succeeded where these movements have so far fizzled because Trump understood better than they did the coalescence of the new American cultural/corporate elite and the potency of populist anger against it. Thus the display of Ivy League populism I witnessed in Orlando might well represent the alarming future of the American right: the fusing of the culture war and the class war into one epic Marxist Götterdämmerung.

Sitting in that Orlando hotel, I found myself thinking of what I was seeing as some kind of new theme park: NatCon World, a hermetically sealed dystopian universe with its own confected thrills and chills, its own illiberal rides. I tried to console myself by noting that this NatCon theme park is the brainchild of a few isolated intellectuals with a screwy view of American politics and history. But the disconcerting reality is that America’s rarified NatCon World is just one piece of a larger illiberal populist revolt that is strong and rising.

That was written by David Brooks. If he’s freaked out by it I think the rest of us should be terrified. These are his people.

Careful what you wish for

New Quinnipiac poll:

Americans say 46 – 38 percent they would want to see the Republican Party win control of the House of Representatives, while 16 percent did not offer an opinion.

Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly back their own parties. Independents say 41 – 31 percent they would want to see Republicans win control of the U.S. House of Representatives, while 28 percent did not offer an opinion.

I wonder if all those who want the Republicans to take over (including, I assume, some of those soccer moms who think their kindergarteners are being taught racist Marxism) know that they will be voting for Joe Biden’s impeachment?

The poll also says that the public is feeling hysterical over inflation so that has something to do with it. I’m sure if Biden had any control over it, he would do something about it. But I can guarantee that Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell can’t do anything a bout it so I’m not sure how voting for them will help.

Mainly, I think people are just feeling sour. Politics suck, prices are going up and this fucking pandemic is hanging around much longer than we thought it would, mostly because a bunch of morons won’t get vaccinated. That mood isn’t helped by the overwhelmingly negative coverage in the media. So, I think the best we can hope for is that things are looking up a little bit by the time the election rolls around. Otherwise, it appears we’re going to have to put up with a House Judiciary Committee led by Jim Jordan, initiating impeachment proceedings on January 21st. Should be fun.

Big Pic

I thought this was a good overview of the infrastructure bill, both policy and process:

This represents a lot of money and, in away, it’s shocking that they managed to get it done with 19 GOP votes. There’s a lesson here but I’m not sure what it is except for the fact that the country actually is falling apart and that politicians do like to bring home the bacon.

If Biden can get the reluctant egomaniac Manchin over the line on the Build Back Better Bill, it will be an enormous achievement. Whether that translates into thanks from the public is another story. As I wrote in the post below, the public has been so thoroughly brainwashed by anti-government propaganda that there’s no guarantee that doing the right thing will accrue to the Democrats’ benefit. But it’s important to do it anyway.

Justice in action

Meanwhile at the Rittenhouse trial, justice is not blind. Remember, this is the judge who ostentatiously defended the constitution in his courtroom, apparently forgetting about due process and the First Amendment today. But it’s par for the course.


The judge presiding over the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial has banned MSNBC from entering the courthouse after a person who claimed to be a producer with the network allegedly followed a bus transporting the 12-person jury deliberating the teen’s fate.

Judge Bruce Schroeder on Thursday said that Kenosha Police apprehended a person “who identified himself as James J. Morrison, and who claimed he was a producer with NBC News and MSNBC.” He was apparently pulled over for running a red light and told police he’d been instructed to follow the bus, Schroeder said.

“I have instructed that no one from MSNBC will be permitted in this building for the duration of this trial,” Schroeder said. “This is a very serious matter. And I don’t know what the ultimate truth of it is.”

The Kenosha Police Department confirmed Thursday that a person “who is alleging to be affiliated with a national media outlet was briefly taken into custody and issued several traffic-related citations.”

Police and Schroeder said that the jury’s security was never compromised in the incident. Jurors are on their third day of deliberating whether Rittenhouse, 18, should be convicted of five felony charges for killing two people and injuring a third last August.

“Police suspect this person was trying to photograph jurors,” the police said in a statement, adding that the incident is “being investigated much further.”

However, NBC said in a Thursday statement that the person was a freelancer who just happened to get a traffic citation near the jury bus.

“Last night, a freelancer received a traffic citation. While the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations, and never photographed or intended to photograph them,” the statement said. “We regret the incident and will fully cooperate with the authorities on any investigation.”

This judge is a real piece of work. He doesn’t know the truth of the matter but has decided to ban a national news network anyway. Ok. And let’s have a big round of applause for the Kenosha cops, once more showing their bias by saying they know what this guy was “intending” without any proof. I guess he should be glad they didn’t shoot him.

Meanwhile, Trump TV was thrilled:

Immediately after, several Fox News personalities celebrated the fact that their cable news rival wouldn’t be allowed to cover the highly watched trial live.

“I think it speaks to this bigger issue of chilling free speech,” Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner declared during Thursday’s broadcast of Outnumbered. “And I don’t mean on behalf of MSNBC. They wanted to change the narrative! They wanted to get pictures of people and they know that’s wrong.”

Former Trump spokesperson and current Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany added to the pile on.

“They have so poorly misbehaved,” she exclaimed. “That means Joy Reid will have essentially no facts for her show. MSNBC not in the courtroom. She’s been among the worst offenders to defame this young man, among others at her network.”

Yeah. I’ll just leave this here for you, after which you can go have a drink:

The greatest con of all

This is a fascinating op-ed about a new study looking at how the Republican trashing of government has affected the public’s understanding. (I would add that the whole “fleecing of America” obsession that went on for decades helped as well.)

It has brought us to the point at which no matter what the government does, people attribute the effects to something else and blame the government for failure. It’s a problem that’s going to take years to undo:

Ending the pandemic has proved hard in the United States, and decades-long political dynamics are a big part of the problem.

Not only has distrust in government contributed to vaccine hesitancy, but following a script too long in the making, many Republican leaders have encouraged citizens to see mitigation methods — like mask and vaccine mandates — as driven by malevolent motives.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, for one, suggested that President Biden’s policies weren’t actually focused on thwarting the spread of the coronavirus and its devastating impact. Instead Ricketts asserted that they were “about government control and taking away personal liberties.” In July, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) claimed that requiring masks in the House of Representatives was about “giving power to the government, and lessening the ability for individual choices.”

Right-wing media figures amplify and stoke these sentiments. As journalist Alex Shephard put it, Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson’s questions about vaccine safety scream, “The elites are hiding something — likely something very sinister — from everyone else.”

And this framing matters, driving down Republicans’ concern about the threat posed by covid-19 as well as their support for mitigation efforts, because they see this resistance as taking a stand against a dishonest, manipulative effort to increase government power.

This is the Republican playbook in 2021. But it’s nothing new. This sort of “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy” epitomizes what historian Richard Hofstadter labeled “the paranoid style in American politics” almost five decades ago.

In fact, anti-government rhetoric has been the central strategy of the contemporary Republican Party and the glue that most reliably bound together its coalition dating back to Barry Goldwater and the rise of the conservative movement within the GOP.Advertisement

This strategy has proved powerful in winning elections, undermining faith in institutions controlled by Democrats and waging successful issue fights without having to engage on policy substance. Stoking anti-government suspicions is particularly useful to the GOP because it can galvanize both social and economic conservatives — two groups that might not otherwise agree — without scaring off independents, as explicitly advocating more aggressive conservative social and cultural positions might do.

This rhetoric isn’t even new when it comes to public health crises and health policy.

Democrats have prioritized increasing health-care coverage for Americans throughout the 20th and early-21st centuries. Each time, the GOP has deployed this strategy of distrust in response.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first Democratic president to broach such policies. In his 1944 speech touting a Second Bill of Rights, Roosevelt included “the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.”Advertisement

Right-wing critics labeled Roosevelt and his New Deal policies socialist and communist.

In 1945, when Roosevelt’s successor, Harry S. Truman, introduced a plan to provide health coverage to all Americans, GOP opponents once again proclaimed it a Trojan horse hiding dangerous governmental power.

Truman’s attempts to counter these claims fell flat.

Conservatives wielded this rhetoric about liberal conspiracy more broadly as well. While speaking on behalf of Goldwater at the GOP’s 1964 presidential convention, actor and activist Ronald Reagan starkly contrasted the nominee with “those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state.” In his speech accepting the GOP nomination, Goldwater himself proclaimed that “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” This language — and the rejection of a plank denouncing the conspiracy-minded John Birch Society — signaled the GOP’s increasing comfort with incorporating the far right into its coalition.

Although Goldwater lost in a landslide, he won five Deep South states (plus his home state of Arizona) at a time when the South was still largely Democratic. These victories suggested an opportunity for a newly conservative GOP. As Republicans courted the South, White backlash to Democrats’ promotion of civil rights, voting rights and anti-poverty programs intensified the GOP’s focus on promoting distrust in the government.

Nixon’s appeals to White Southerners provided a blueprint for Reagan as he challenged President Gerald Ford from the right in 1976, and eventually captured the GOP nomination — and the presidency — in 1980.

Reagan relied heavily on rhetoric about the evils of government. Such bromides helped stitch together a coalition of evangelical Christians, young professionals and working-class Whites, especially in the Midwest. The professionals liked the emphasis on low taxes, the evangelicals distrusted a government that could legalize abortion, pass the Equal Rights Amendment and ban school prayer and the working-class Whites resented programs that they felt like they paid for but that benefited undeserving minorities.

Notably, Reagan saved his harshest anti-government rhetoric for populations like the “welfare queen,” a racially-coded trope, who was purportedly cheating, while boosting funding for programs favoring preferred constituencies such as White Midwestern farmers.

The success of this rhetoric enabled Republicans to capture five out of six presidential elections. In 1992, Bill Clinton finally ended this streak by running as a “New Democrat” who emphasized individual responsibility coupled with limited, targeted public investment — showing the power of the GOP’s formula.

Despite this centrism, the Republican opposition led by House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich railed against government programs while painting Democratic officeholders as corrupt and evil, pursuing powers beyond the Constitution and on the side of damaging cultural forces. Gingrich and his allies capitalized on a new media innovation, conservative talk radio, to speak to the public, and skillfully used polls and focus groups to craft messages that seized upon and cultivated public dissatisfactions.

In echoes of the past, Gingrich and his allies unleashed fearful, anti-government rhetoric against Clinton’s signature health-care proposal. In February 1993, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) compared Clinton’s plan to the Canadian health-care system which, he said, practiced “Gestapo medicine.”

And this rhetoric worked, contributing to the deeply damaging defeat of the proposal, which helped propel Republicans to a historic midterm election victory. An internal White House report concluded that “Much of what the public thought they knew was in fact wrong,” a result “both of deliberately spread misinformation and disinformation” as well as of existing public “cynicism and mistrust in government.”

While Republicans had warned about an out-of-control, corrupt Democratic Congress in the 1980s when the GOP controlled the White House, after Gingrich became speaker of the House in 1995, he argued that only a robust Congress could check the president’s sinister designs.Advertisementhttps://edc805d432ce1d1f4b4af79391a5da3d.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

And this became the norm for the GOP: Scaring people about government brought their voters out in election season and gave them a weapon to fight Democratic proposals. Republicans understood that both libertarians and social conservatives feared government power, and ruthlessly stoked these fears at every turn.

Donald Trump’s strategic uses of distrust were a continuation and expansion of this tactic.

Trump applied anti-government rhetoric to parts of the federal government Republicans previously had not. Beleaguered by charges of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and, later, by his weak performance on the international stage in Helsinki, Trump backed Vladimir Putin’s “strong denial” of interference over the word of U.S. intelligence officials. Deeming the intelligence community’s views as concoctions of a “deep state,” Trump deflected government investigations into his own actions by dubbing them “witch hunts.” While some Republicans previously raised the specter of voter fraud, Trump took this tendency much further in questioning the legitimacy of elections.

Trump created GOP unity and resolve by tapping into extant distrust, rousing restive grass-roots conservatives who disliked establishment Republicans and using conservative media to spew an overtly racialized and xenophobic version of the GOP’s now-standard message.

In 2021, Republicans’ use of political distrust makes it more difficult to control a pandemic that’s led to hundreds of thousands of Americans dying, many more suffering chronic illness and disruptions of our economy, education system and society. Yet Trump and numerous Republican officeholders continue to stoke distrust toward public health officials. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis even sells campaign merchandise saying “Don’t Fauci My Florida,” turning voter suspicions against public health officials at a time when the public needs them most.

Only by recognizing and countering this weaponization of distrust in government can we begin to safeguard American institutions that are the bulwarks against these threats. Yet so potent is the rhetoric of distrust that engaging in such efforts is difficult for Trump-critical Republicans, as disagreement with the “big lie” now ignites massive backlash from the party’s base.

Framing of beneficial policies — like masking, vaccines and broader legislative agendas — as evidence of how government can be a force for the common good can help undo this cynicism. Americans need to see government as a force for good, or else this distrustful rhetoric will continue to wreak havoc on our institutions.

We have three quarters of a million dead people and tens of millions more who think they should take horse paste instead of vaccines, This thing has finally reached the apex of government distrust and it’s killing people.