Category: Uncategorized

George W. Bush had strong connections with the Reactionaries (fundamentalist religion) and the PBPs (tax cuts and deregulation), but he basically ran as a unifying CD in 2000. At the time, the CDs were a large percentage, similar to the PBPs, of the GOP, and were disproportionately represented within the leadership. Bush’s failures in Iraq and with the Great Recession changed the balance within the party by discrediting the CD faction and the leadership as a whole in the eyes of party activists and the electorate as a whole. Republican voters were consequently ready to embrace a dramatic change in both tone and substance at the end of the second Bush term. As you know only too well, they got it.

On the Democrat senator Joe.

To the left, he’s their reason for woe.

While he’s not a progressive

(You could call him regressive)

He’s the best that we’ve got, don’t you know.

Right-wingers in this country who reject mask mandates typically frame the issue as one of personal choice and responsibility. Well, I feel the same way about women and their right to abortion. How about them apples!

I suspect that most people who hold these obviously conflicting views would justify their apparent hypocrisy on two grounds, neither of which is particularly persuasive. The first would be that abortion always results in death, whereas appearing in public without a mask, and even possibly spreading the virus, may not damage anyone’s health. But sometimes it does, and can even kill; from society’s perspective, is the benefit of ditching a mask even remotely worth the risk? Second, the aborted fetus has no ability to protect itself, while the potential victims of maskless virus spreaders do. That isn’t really true, either; since you never know who is spreading the virus, the only way you can protect yourself with certainty is to completely shut yourself up at home. The ability to protect one’s self is thus contingent upon giving up any semblance of a normal life. Is the difference between death and a painful and unnatural way of life sufficient to justify the contradictory positions?

Rupert Murdoch made huge amounts of money running right-wing populist newspapers in the UK, Australia, and New York. He presumably thought a cable TV channel which operated on the same principles would also be successful. Financially, it was, but it is also a monster.

The right-wing populist formula had a different impact when it became available to a vastly larger audience in a country that was already badly divided on issues of culture. Fox News threw gas on the fire. Instead of providing harmless entertainment and helping frustrated reactionaries blow off steam, it effectively promoted civil war for profit.

Today, a frighteningly large segment of the America public gets its ideas about politics and culture almost exclusively from Fox News. It sets the agenda and tells people what to believe. It is Rush Limbaugh to the nth power.

Unless the Murdochs see the light, Fox will continue to present a clear and present danger to liberal democracy in America. It is thus a key player in the devolution of the GOP into, as Ben Sasse put it, “the weird worship of one dude.”

As I’ve noted before, George H.W. Bush was the last prominent genuine conservative in the GOP. He didn’t do the “vision thing;” he used his best judgment to deal with circumstances as they occurred. He went back on his promise never to raise taxes because conditions changed. He paid for it at the polls.

Gingrich, his successor as leader of the GOP, was a completely different animal. Gingrich was at the forefront of the successful effort to turn tax cutting into a GOP religion. He saw the opportunities provided by the new media landscape and took full advantage of them. He thought civility was for wimps. He made the notion of the “conservative” bomb thrower something other than an oxymoron. He played to the base before anyone used either the term or the tactic.

All of these are, of course, attributes of today’s GOP. It is no wonder that Gingrich supported Trump, and still does.

The central paradox of today’s GOP is that it both whines and swaggers. The paradox, however, is easily explained. The party swaggers because it is run by and for testosterone-drenched white men; it whines because they know they are losing, as a result of demographic and economic changes.

In this landscape, Donald Trump, with his allegations about voter fraud and the rigged election, fits perfectly. You would think that the GOP would drop someone who had just lost an election by seven million votes, and probably directly cost them the Senate, like a hot potato. Instead, he is serving as a stand-in for their grievances about the changing world. They are embracing him as a loser instead of running away from him.

It’s a dangerous picture, because it leads to attempts to enshrine minority rule, either by breaking or gaming the system. There are no other obvious alternatives except mass surrender.

Rush Limbaugh was to Ronald Reagan what “My City Was Gone” is to “the shining city on the hill.” The two would have agreed on most issues, but their styles and attitudes were completely different. Reagan lived in a happy nostalgic haze; Limbaugh saw a changing world and hated it.

Limbaugh wasn’t the first right-wing radio guy to make a mark on America. I can still remember Paul Harvey, for example. Harvey, however, was a relatively genial figure. Limbaugh’s real predecessor probably was the fascist Father Coughlin, but that was before my time.

Limbaugh brought anger, toxic masculinity, and the culture wars to a large audience of reactionaries. They lapped it up, and made him a millionaire. Everyone won except liberal democracy and the American people.

More than any single individual, Limbaugh was the prototype for Donald Trump. We will be feeling his influence, for good or ill, for many years to come.

Just kidding. It’s only for ill.

Donald Trump was hardly unique in his unwillingness to take the virus seriously in its early days. What sets him apart is his actions after the severity of the crisis became obvious to everyone: his refusal to wear a mask; his demands to open up states that were not ready for it; his repeated efforts to downplay the issue; his indifference to the suffering caused by the virus; and his refusal to take responsibility for mitigation measures that were clearly within his jurisdiction. His failures caused tens, and possibly hundreds, of thousands of unnecessary deaths. He was judged harshly by the electorate for it, and justly so.

Now that he is out of office, the MSM are discovering that a number of very visible Democratic governors did not exactly cover themselves in glory, either. Their mistakes pale, both in terms of kind and degree, next to Trump’s. Will these news stories nonetheless have the effect of rehabilitating Trump, at least to a limited extent?

Unfortunately, the most likely answer to that question is yes. On a more positive note, Biden will not be impacted, as he bore no responsibility for the crisis before taking office. If he makes mistakes in office, and the pandemic gets worse, that is legitimately on him.

The “genius” of Donald Trump, if you can call it that, was his ability to package completely orthodox GOP views on tax cuts and the economy in a way that appealed to reactionary voters regardless of their financial interests. His “populism” was limited to his swaggering style and culture war issues, but it was enough to convince the vast majority of GOP voters.

Ron DeSantis, in spite of his embarrassing fealty to Trump and their common ability to own the libs, is different on substance–more of a genuine populist. Instead of telling old Floridians to die and get out of the way, he put them first in line for the vaccine. He put state resources into the protection of water quality because he knew it was an important issue to the voters. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he didn’t use the pandemic as a convenient pretext to cut spending and bash public employees; he decided to rely on optimistic revenue projections and the possibility of federal aid to keep the ship moving in the same comfortable direction. It remains to be seen whether the Florida Legislature will follow him on this last point, but you get the picture.

Recent polls show DeSantis far ahead of Rick Scott in their home state. It is well known that the two men despise each other. What, if anything, will Scott (a man of sincere, if odious, principles) do to try to torpedo his rival? Will he work behind the scenes to defeat him in 2022? Will the populist ultimately prevail over the Bond villain? We’ll have more information after the 2022 gubernatorial election.

It can seem unfair to blame Reagan for what has been done in his name by his successors in the GOP. After all, he: had a sunny, optimistic view of America; raised as well as cut taxes; was willing to make deals with Democrats; appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court; and genuinely believed in the virtues of small government, not a cult of personality. In other words, he wasn’t an angry, bitter culture warrior who thought that tax cuts for business were a form of religious practice and that American liberal democracy was negotiable.

And yet, the fictional “Reagan” character that was created by the GOP leadership after the defeat of Bush 41 could not have existed but for the real item. He has to bear some of the blame for what happened thereafter.

The gold Trump statue tells you everything you need to know about the devolution of “conservatism” in this country. I’m surprised no one is burning incense or sacrificing animals in front of it. Seriously.

And to think that the man lost the election by seven million votes! Imagine what they would be doing if he had actually, like, won!

In the meantime, while “conservative” populists are letting the good times roll at CPAC, the GOP is playing the Snidely Whiplash party by voting unanimously against the Biden relief package–including the immensely popular $1,400 checks. Which version of the party will prevail in 2022 and 2024? Is there something plausible between the two extremes?

Probably not.

(Janet Yellen has come to the Oval Office to talk to Biden. Harris is there, too–always silent, but with open eyes and ears. One day, all of this will be hers!)

Y: Good morning, Mr. President! (Biden turns around and looks fruitlessly for Obama, then turns back)

B: Sorry. I keep looking for Barack. That’s the way it worked for so many years.

Y: I understand, Mr. President.

B: It should have been Beau, you know. I meant what I said about that.

Y: (With a small lump in her throat) The whole country understands, Mr. President.

B: But enough of that. What’s the deal today?

Y: I wanted to update you about the relief plan.

B: Right! The American people are suffering! They need help immediately! It’s our first priority!

Y: Things are going well, so far, but there are some concerns, even from economists on the left.

B: What are they?

Y: Inflation, and higher interest rates.

B: Inflation is bad stuff! It needs to be stopped! I can remember back in the seventies, when I was taking the train to Delaware every day. It seemed like the price of tickets went up every week! It was terrible!

Y: We don’t think it will be a problem.

B: You’re sure?

Y: There are lots of reasons. Recent history prior to the pandemic, and Japan’s experience, to name two.

B: So the concern is just a bunch of malarkey?

Y: I wouldn’t exactly call it malarkey, but we think it’s wrong.

B: Good! How’s it going with Congress?

Y: The bill passed the House. Now we have to get it through the Senate.

B: Well, just let me know if you need my help there. Those people are my friends. They used to call me the McConnell whisperer, you know.

Y: I’ve heard. We think we can get it through.

B: Good! Anything else?

Y: Everything else is on track.

B: Then go out there and build back better!

(Yellen leaves)

The polls consistently show that the Biden relief bill is extremely popular, even among Republican voters. Why, and what does it tell us?

It’s the $1,400 payments to middle class people, of course. More targeted payments, unless they go to very well-defined, sympathetic groups, don’t go over well with relatively affluent white people who love subsidies and tax breaks, but hate “welfare.”

What this tells us is that expansions to the welfare state, to have any staying power, need to include something like universal benefits. That may be bad policy in some cases, and it clearly increases costs, but it is definitely good politics.

I would say the pillars of orthodox Christianity are as follows:

1. LOVE: Love God and your neighbors as yourself.
2. FAITH: A gift from God and the key to salvation, it should be spread all over the world.
3. COMMUNITY: Christianity is a communal religion. The spiritual well-being of the entire community is paramount.
4. RIGHT CONDUCT: As defined in the Old Testament, with some tweaks in the New Testament.
5. SALVATION: Keep your eyes on the prize! Life on this planet is short. It’s what follows that really matters.

The Cult of the Big White Guy in the Sky, a/k/a the Reactionary’s Creed, goes more like this:

1. LOVE: You live in a tiny community, surrounded by cultural enemies who hate you. Fear them, and hate them back.
2. FAITH: Spreading the word to unbelievers is a waste of time. That battle has already been lost. Win and use political power to protect yourself and impose your values on your enemies.
3. COMMUNITY: The only community you recognize is among your fellow reactionaries. Everyone else is a scumbag, and a threat to your very existence. They must be crushed and kept powerless.
4. RIGHT CONDUCT: The survival of the reactionary community is paramount. You are entitled to engage in any kind of conduct necessary to protect yourself and other real Americans. If that means spreading lies and storming the Capitol, so be it.
5. SALVATION: Again, the survival of the reactionary community in the present world is essential. We’ll worry about the other stuff later.

As you can see, the two have little in common. The Cult of the Big White Guy in the Sky sounds more like a revolutionary party than a Christian group, and the reactionary “Jesus” sounds a lot like, well, Lenin.

If Trump chooses to run again in 2024, he will have to deal with the following questions:

1. He presumably will ignore his innumerable ethical issues and his inept and uncaring response to the pandemic, and will talk about returning America to the golden pre-pandemic days. But what if the economy is roaring in 2024? That would make pre-pandemic nostalgia pointless.
2. He will, of course, have to deal with the January 6 issue. He clearly can’t stand putting distance between himself and the extreme right. Would he do it in 2024? Would he cut himself off from a significant portion of his beloved base in an attempt to look respectable to moderate swing voters? If he does, would anyone believe him?
3. How will he respond to the rigged election question? If 2020 was rigged against him, surely 2024 will be; if so, what’s the point in voting for him?
4. Will he have anything to offer the American people as a platform except the implicit promise to destroy the “deep state” once and for all?