Sunday, December 29, 2019

ANS -- How Lindsey Graham Convinced Me That Democracy is Dead

This one is even shorter than the last.  It's one more bit of explanation is the liberal quest to understand what the heck is going on with the Republicans and their falling in line with this train wreck of a president.
--Kim



How Lindsey Graham Convinced Me That Democracy is Dead

Karen Shiebler
Dec 16 · 3 min read
"Lindsey Graham" by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Let me start out by saying that I have never agreed with Senator Graham on policy. He's a conservative. I'm a progressive.

I have never agreed with his views on economics or his views on foreign policy. I consider him to be a huge hawk to my little dove.

Nevertheless, over the past couple of decades, I have considered Lindsey Graham to be a man of integrity and a man of honor. I thought that he was a Senator who would fight for his own beliefs and values.

When Senator Graham referred to Republican presidential candidate Trump as a "kook" I thought he was an honest man. His full quote was this:

"I'm not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump because I don't think there's a whole lot of space there. I think he's a kook. I think he's crazy. I think he's unfit for office."

I agreed with him wholeheartedly and thought that it took some courage for a Republican to make such a statement.

Yay, Lindsey, I thought.

When the good Senator called on Trump to apologize for his racist birther attacks on then-President Obama, I was impressed with his integrity and his sense of honor.




I thought that it was the very definition of a functioning democracy to see a Republican Senator, a man with many years of service behind him, standing up to the man who was surging toward his party's nomination. At that time, I thought that both Senators Graham and McCain were living proof that in the United States, loyalty to the Constitution was more important than loyalty to the party.

I was wrong.

I was stupid, naiive and totally unprepared for the complete meltdown of the Republican party in the face of a morally corrupt, dishonest, self-serving despot as it's leader.

I expected Republican members of Congress to stand up, to uphold their oaths of office and push back against the lies, the nepotism, the personal enrichment of the President who somehow finagled his way past their best intentions and landed himself in the Oval Office.

But it never happened.

Instead, three years into the madness of King Donald, we see the once-revered Senator Lindsey Graham selling his soul for the chance to be reelected in a district that admires the mad King. We see him promising to violate the oath he'll be taking in the Senate as the corrupt President is brought to trial under impeachment. He said,

"I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here."

His mind is made up, says the Senator. He won't even pretend to uphold the oath he'll take. Trump is his king and he will bow down, kiss the royal ass and hope that all the bad stuff goes away.

Democracy is dead.

Senator Graham, along with his equally subservient boss Mitch McConnell, has made it absolutely clear. Under our current system of two parties who run the show, any President whose party has a majority in the Senate can do whatever the hell they want, laws and constitutions be damned. They will never be removed from office because the members of their party will follow in the footsteps of the spineless GOP of 2020.

They won't even pretend to be fair jurors here.

Why should they?

Democracy is dead in the United States of America.

Thanks, Senator Graham, for letting us know.

)

ANS -- The Endless Hypocrisy of the “How Are We Going to Pay For That?” Talking Point.

This is short and makes several good points.  The comments at the end were amusing but not deep.  People just don't understand economics.  It's about asking where we want to spend our money rather than what can we afford.  
--Kim


The Endless Hypocrisy of the "How Are We Going to Pay For That?" Talking Point.

In the richest country on the planet, its time for the right wing and centrist democrats to put an end to that rhetoric.

Photo via Nancy Pelosi on Instagram

Over the past few years in particular, there's no denying that the political apparatus here in the United States has shifted significantly on both the left and the right. While the right wing inches closer and closer to fascism, the left wing has become considerably divided in their approaches to dealing with the issues that face everyday Americans. While the leftist coalition of the Democratic Party has begun fighting for things like Medicare for All, free public college, and a Green New Deal, the centrists have predictably moved in the direction of what the Republican Party once was about twenty years ago.

The divide in the Democratic Party has certainly been most on display on the national debate stages during this primary season, with some candidates such as Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg spouting a number right wing talking points in response to leftist goals and ideas. Of all the talking points hurled at leftist policies, the most infuriating is undoubtedly "how are we going to pay for that?"

How are we going to pay for that?

Just recently, the Democratic House of Representatives appropriated an additional $120 billion dollars to the military budget, bringing the defense budget to over $738 billion dollars. A total, it should be noted, that was more than President Trump even asked for. Not one centrist Democrat or Republican asked if we had the money for that. Meanwhile, the newly enlisted soldiers that our politicians claim to care about and revere don't even make twenty thousand dollars a year.

The issue is not about having the money. It is an irrefutable fact that this nation can afford programs like Universal Healthcare and free public college. If all of Europe and every other developed nation on earth can afford those things for their people, then the richest country on earth is absolutely able to. The issue is about where the money actually is, and where it's being spent already.

No one asks how we can afford for companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Delta to go without paying their taxes. No one asks how we can afford to slash the tax rate of the richest people in the nation while at the same time having the nerve to argue that we have no choice but to cut social security and Medicare, programs that every American pays in to their entire working life. No one asks how we're going to pay for a senseless, nearly twenty year long war in the Middle East that has cost not only trillions if dollars, but hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. No one asks how we can afford to give our oil companies responsible for the destruction of our climate yet another tax payer funded government subsidy. No one ever asks how we can afford to subsidize the research for multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies with tax payer dollars, only to have them turn around and price gouge the American people who paid for the development of their drugs in the first place.

The brazen hypocrisy of our government officials might actually be laughable if it wasn't costing lives.

At the end of the day, as with so many other issues in the political discourse when it comes to new ideas and legislation, everything comes down to framing. With the help of the media and other powers that be, there's no demying that up until recently, the right wing and centrist democrats have won in that regard. Far too many of our politicians use "how are we going to pay for that?" as a way of cautioning the American people against supporting policies and spending decisions that would actually be in our best interest, and that's not something we should be forced to accept. It's time to elect politicians with the courage to turn that narrative on its head, and rather than asking how we're going to pay for things like Medicare for All, they'll show the American people that we can't afford not to.

Dialogue & Discourse

News and ideas worthy of discourse. Fundamentally informative and intelligently analytical.

)

Saturday, December 28, 2019

ANS -- an opinion piece on "alternative facts"

I found this on Facebook, so I don't have a URL for it, but I think you can find her if you want. (Her name may be a link, if it comes thru...) This is a sort of history of "alternative facts" and is very interesting, and ends on a hopeful note, so if you want something upbeat, read the whole thing.  
--Kim


Heather Cox Richardson



December 26, 2019 (Thursday)

Today began and ended with Trump melting down. This morning, after a silence during the holidays, he came out swinging at the Democrats generally, and at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi specifically. Then this evening, apparently against the advice of his lawyer, he retweeted a story that named someone claimed to be the whistleblower, a person who currently has a security detail for protection, not in a foreign war zone, but in our own nation's capital.

It seems clear that Trump cannot bear that Pelosi—whom he is calling "Crazy Nancy"-- is not rushing to send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate for a trial… a trial that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already promised will exonerate Trump. It is worth noting that it has been only a week since the House passed the articles of impeachment, and we have had major religious holidays in that time, and yet Trump is obviously angry and desperate for movement on impeachment. But he's got to wait even longer. The House will not be in session again until January 7—twelve days from now—and the Senate calendar for January is still in flux.

In other impeachment news, you will recall that Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law Professor who testified before the House Judiciary Committee in favor of impeachment, wrote an op-ed last week saying that Trump was not officially impeached until the House sent the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. Trump jumped on this idea, and has been saying that he is not really impeached. Today one of the other law professors who testified, George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, who was called by the Republicans and was opposed to impeachment, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled "I testified against Trump's impeachment. But let's not pretend it didn't happen." The title pretty much sums it up. As Turley concluded: "The House speaks in its own voice and in its own time. It did so on Dec. 18, 2019."

For all the drama of these two stories, I have been more interested in what feels to me like a changing trend: it appears that media is finally recognizing that it cannot simply report "both sides" of the news as if they are equally valid when one side is lying. On the evening of December 24, Rolling Stone magazine published a short interview with Chuck Todd, an NBC journalist who moderates Meet the Press and who is the Political Director for NBC NEWS. On December 29, Meet the Press is doing a show on disinformation and how it is weaponized, and this interview was a teaser.

It's really important to understand that "misinformation" and "disinformation" are different things. "Misinformation" is bad information caused by errors-- someone makes a mistake. "Disinformation," though, is deliberately false information intended to manipulate public opinion. Another word for disinformation is propaganda.

In the interview, Todd laments that he has been "absurdly naïve." Right up until he had Senator Cruz on his show recently and Cruz echoed Russian propaganda, Todd apparently believed that the Republicans were acting in good faith when they talked to the media. Todd says he was "stunned" by Cruz's embrace of Russian disinformation, especially since he was the third senator to do exactly that on the show. Cruz had asked to come on, and Todd thought that since Cruz had always been a Russia hawk, he wanted to set the record straight. When, instead, he followed the party line, Todd finally got it: Trump Republicans are using the media to spread propaganda.

Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, responded to this revelation by pointing out that it was on Todd's own show in January 2017 that Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway launched the concept of the administrations lies simply being based on "alternative facts." But, Rosen writes, media leaders nonetheless treated officials' lies as hyperbole, just Trump and his spokespeople being ridiculous.

The upshot is that, three years later, Trump's base is divorced from reality, while other Americans are so tired from incessant gas lighting we have lost faith that we can still perceive reality. This is why gaslighting is effective propaganda: having lost confidence in their own perceptions, people are so eager for peace they are willing to accept a strong leader who will promise to create stability.

I'm with Rosen on this. There is no excuse for such "naivete" on Todd's part. He's the Political Director for NBC News, after all, and should have had a better handle on the well-known methods at play here.

Even more, it has been very clear that today's Republican Party has risen to power by rejecting facts and creating its own reality. After World War Two, Republicans and Democrats both shared a belief that the government had a role to play in regulating the economy, providing a basic social safety net, and promoting infrastructure. Indeed, that belief about government was so widely embraced it became known as the "liberal consensus."

In 1951, William F. Buckley, Jr., fresh out of college, wrote a book attacking that consensus by attacking fact-based argument. In God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom," Buckley said that trying to reach the truth by constructing arguments out of facts—the premise of the Enlightenment-- was a worse superstition than the Dark Age traditions the Enlightenment tried to root out. When presented with fact-based arguments, voters kept choosing the liberal consensus. So far as Buckley was concerned, that consensus flew in the face of God's laws. So, Buckley concluded, it was imperative to stop arguing based on facts, and simply promote a "Conservative" view of the world by whatever means necessary.

The construction of a narrative undercutting the popular liberal consensus took the modern Republican Party further and further away from a fact-based reality, until by 2002, journalist Ron Suskind had this extraordinary exchange with one of President George W. Bush's aides.

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles…. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. '…When we act, we create our own reality…. We're history's actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

Ten years later, in 2012, Thomas E. Mann from the left-leaning Brookings Institution and Norm Ornstein from the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute warned that it was imperative to stop saying "both sides do it," because the parties were not equally polarized. "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics," they wrote. "It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

We now have a president who has made more than 15,000 false or misleading claims in fewer than three years in office, and it has become increasingly clear recently that those lies echo Russian propaganda. Senior officials repeat his claims to the media, creating their own reality.

It is my sense that Todd's revelation is a sign that media figures are starting to see how they are being used to advance disinformation. There has been discussion emerging of how to report the news without providing a platform for lies. If it takes hold, there will be an important shift in media coverage of the administration and congressional supporters in the new year.


ANS -- Jacinda Ardern Says Economic Growth Is Pointless If People Aren't Thriving

this is a short article from last September.  I had not heard of this organization, "Goalkeepers",  but I love the idea of a well-being budget.  Read it.  It's short.  
--Kim



Jacinda Ardern Says Economic Growth Is Pointless If People Aren't Thriving

New Zealand's new well-being budget focuses on mental health and poverty reduction.


Why Global Citizens Should Care
The United Nations' Global Goals seek to improve global human welfare. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has become a champion of this effort. You can join us in taking action on this issue here.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern criticized the tendency among countries to measure success by economic growth and gross domestic product at the 2019 Goalkeepers event on Wednesday, hosted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ardern said that governments should instead focus on the general welfare of citizens and make investments in areas that unlock human potential. She pointed to New Zealand's new well-being budget that seeks to expand mental health services, reduce child poverty and homelessness, promote Indigenous rights, fight climate change, and expand opportunities.

"Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success," Ardern said. "It is failure."

She said the global obsession with economic growth as the ultimate measure of success intensified in the 1980s, when countries around the world began to cut social safety nets and promote privatization. As a result, inequality began to soar, with some people becoming spectacularly wealthy while others struggled to escape poverty. 

Ardern has become a champion of changing this framework. She advocates for a new paradigm of success that uses the United Nations' Global Goals as its guiding set of principles.

She said every policy pursued by a government should improve the human welfare of all people in a society. 

In New Zealand, that involves the Indigenous Maori people, who have historically faced widespread discrimination and social exclusion. Since taking office, Ardern has struggled to better include Maori voices in decision-making processes.

The prime minister has also emphasized the link between human well-being and the environment, and has vowed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies to combat climate change.

"There is no point in subsidizing the climate change we seek to [fight]," she said.

Related StoriesSept. 23, 2018Jacinda Ardern Wants to Make New Zealand the 'Best Place in the World to Be a Child'

The well-being budget, in particular, reflects a growing trend in the global development space. The World Bank, for example, unveiled its new Human Capital Project earlier this year to encourage countries to invest in the welfare of children as a way to ensure future economic stability. The thinking is that children who receive health care, education, and nutritious diets will be more productive in the future.

For Ardern, the logic of this approach is self-evident.

"When you start looking beyond simple cost benefit analysis and look at the cost benefit of human welfare then you make record investments in [unlocking human potential]," she said.