Friday, March 15, 2024

Speaking to fear. Some are truly afraid, not from ignorance, but of societal changes, update June 29,2024

Speaking to the fearful is a messaging challenge. How do you even begin when fear is what Donald Trump is selling...fear of immigrants, fear of crime, fear of being left behind in the economy, fear of others not like themselves.  Lack of knowledge is part of it, but changes are going on now that are profound and often felt if not put into words.   Some are truly afraid, not because of ignorance but because of societal changes. These changes have been coming for a long time, and those who want to turn back the clock and those who embrace changes to modern society are still clashing.  Change comes easy for some, and for others, it scares them. Politicians usually respond by digging in or hurling insults at their opponents to support their immediate public policy issues on immigration, women's role and ability to control their lives, sexual orientation, and election "integrity" that affects minority access to the ballot.  Most do not see their fears in the context of history or as part of a larger movement. They just feel it in their bones. Others understand it and ride it to power, as Donald Trump is trying again and again to keep the fear, hate, and victimization exaggerated and heated as his case for election. Only he can fix it, he opines, so vote for him. 

 What has also become clear is that the fear of these societal changes affects many.  Democrats must find a way to recognize the fear, address it, acknowledge it, respect it, and not make it worse.  It does not mean agreeing to roll back the clock to 1938 or the 1950s, but perhaps a shift in attitude would help to be more empathetic with policies that respect the fears, acknowledge them,  and provide the facts and data that mitigate them. Some will listen. Not everyone has lost their ability to reason and think. In fact, the GOP is losing followers as the number of registered independents has soared, and Democrats have gained some. Voter registration is fluid in 2024 as citizens begin to tune into their choices. That is one part of the equation. 

The next step is to go forward and present plans that at least smooth out the rough spots and make the case that even the fearful will be better off in time, more peaceful, and more prosperous. A fanatical minority attempting to seize power and suppress others guarantees chaos, or the less kind word, turmoil, and even violence: endorsing the violence of January 6, using terms like "bloodbath if I don't get elected", "things will be wild," calling the violent actors patriots, and executing generals who fail to obey him, including use of the active military to put down demonstrations by those who oppose him.  A platform of revenge, retribution, and favoring loyalty over ability is not how economic prosperity is nurtured.  

The good news in political messaging is that optimism usually wins over a darker vision of change for the worse.  It is that track that Biden is following. However, it is not a strategy limited to presenting hope and plans for a better future.  Biden and his supporters need at every opportunity to point out the contrast with the jarring, violent, racist conflicts Trump is promising to use to promote himself to become a "strong man", dictator, or autocrat. That is not a fabrication of accusations when using Trump's own words and his past and current actions and attempts to verify that Trump is not just bloviating or Trump being Trump. He has already attempted to promote and use political violence in the past.  No need to exaggerate or lie.  His words are right in your face, and his history and actions speak louder than words.

 . https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2020/08/trump-fans-flames-of-violence-yet-calls.html

Update: June 29, 2024;Religious affiliation is another large determinant influencing voters' decisions besides race that overwhelms political critical thinking.  Justice Alito's wife was caught raising the Christian Nationalist flag, a flag carried by the rioters on January 6. It did not used to be that way. I am a white Christian protestant who belongs to a mainstream traditional church, and sometimes I wonder where some of the theology these evangelical radical right-wingers espouse has nothing to do with the bible I read comes from.  I grew up in the "bible belt," Eastern Oklahoma, where the goal was to get more believers in faith preached in a particular denomination.. Now it has become, get more Trump supporters because he is the second coming. Christian Nationalism is the cause they are fighting.  Their goal is to turn our democracy into their theocracy. This came as no surprise to me when I read that Oklahoma just now ordered the Ten Commandments posted in school, and one-upped everyone else, requiring the Bible to be taught in school.  Christian Nationalists are jumping the gun: While the issue of posting the ten commandments in schools are being fought, Oklahoma has just one upped this: They order the Bible to be taught in classrooms.  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/oklahoma-orders-schools-teach-bible-every-classroom-2024-06-27/)

That is not a unanimous view, even among those protestants who identify themselves as evangelicals, and there is pushback, but the Christian nationalism this Flashpoint preacher promotes is very much part of the Trump political base.  It helps answer the question of where is this belief ideology coming from?

Some currents underlie the fears felt by many on the right. Society is indeed experiencing rapid change, and many fear it. The following is a personal account of how I came to understand what is happening.

In 1960, after a year abroad and face-to-face with communism and societal and religious cultures, including Islam, I returned to my senior year in college at Northwestern. I had the advantage of independent studies in my senior year, and my focus was on the cultural differences I had encountered, which had been so far removed from my bible belt upbringing in northeastern Oklahoma, or even in Evanston, Illinois, for that matter.  I needed to get a better understanding so I could digest what I had just experienced. It shaped my views for a lifetime, including what became issues 65 years later of cultural wars, racism, and civil and individual rights.

Among those classes and studies at Northwestern were standouts: The most impressionable one was examining the clash between traditional societies and religion, which I saw firsthand as my small independent studies group delved into Middle Eastern history and current events. We read the Koran, we read Zionist literature, and we read a book called "A Village in Anatolia," which gave an autobiographical account of a young man, a teacher, from and in a Turkish village with very insightful comments on the role of women and politics in a traditional Turkish society.  We concluded that Islam did not practice much "empathy," walking in other people's shoes.  Was that wrong? If not wrong, at least it was different.  Furthermore, where I grew up in Muskogee, Oklahoma, neither did the bible belt Christians possess empathy or tolerance.(Oklahoma is one of the heartlands of the current Evangelical Christian movement). Oklahoma, in my youth, was the epitome of Jim Crow.  However, our 1960 seminar concluded that there would be a huge, even violent, reaction to modern society that accepted and supported these new attitudes of women's role, tolerance and acceptance of others' viewpoints, and energy production self-interests.  (Many in my group were from families engaged in energy development in the Middle East). I was there with a different motivation since I was about to begin life marrying someone from the multi-cultural, ever-clashing Balkans.  Mine was no abstract laboratory of thinkers; it was hands-on. Now what?

What I didn't see is that the clash of traditional roles and viewpoints was also affecting Christianity and Judaism, not just Islam. In her book, The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong, published in 2000, brought home the upheaval, the clash between the old and the modern,  that was showing itself in full bloom. All three religions had their roots in Abraham's story. What was a sin in all three were similar, and all believed in the same God, though they were called different words in different languages and theological references. However, all three were impacted by the clash of tradition vs modern society, and the reaction was already profound and palpable in politics, wars, revolts, and generational changes in values.  

 I plead guilty to a lack of empathy. I promise to try to be better at understanding, just as I was able to do in straddling the tolerance and attitudes of a multicultural and multigenerational family myself.  However, time marches on, and we have to deal with what is reality now in politics.  It does not mean we who embrace modernity have to give that up, but it does mean we have to change our approach and attitudes and show how public policies and political approaches give a chance for all to have their place.  The greatest difference between Democrats and the current GOP is that Democrats do not want the government to be the tool for forcing others to adopt cultural and religious practices and beliefs, and the other party wants the opposite.  

Here is where I would start. I think the traditionalists go wrong because they want to protect their viewpoints and force others to obey them through government edicts and laws imposed on those who find such viewpoints abhorrent or a painful health or economic burden.  What the Democrats must do is point out individuals are not being asked to have abortions or not use contraceptives or IVF, but to let individuals make that choice, respect it, but not force others to bow down and obey their religious-based beliefs and interpretations of scriptures with which they disagree. That has always been the Democrats' stated view, but not the emphasis that what choice means is really a choice, not an edict resulting in a government prosecuting someone. The advantage of Roe v Wade is that it was held up as what the majority of society approved, life begins viability, and it is still the standard with which the overwhelming majority agrees per the polls.  It is up to the clergy to make their case that abortion is murder,  that life begins at inception, and that the pill is murder, too. Still, it should not be the government's job to be the enforcer in the kind of democracy we have,  a multicultural, multi-religious, and diverse population. 

Regarding women's role in modern society, those embracing modernism also recognize the economic necessity that requires women to work and have a political voice in shaping their lives so that they are treated fairly and equitably.  However, women who choose to stay at home, home-school their kids, or must do that because of either religious beliefs or financial ones deserve respect, too. I have both modernists and dedicated conservative Christians in my family.  

The question of sexual identification is another area of enormous cultural conflict.  If anything, permitting people to come out of the closet and be open about their choices in life or to be just themselves has been a jolt and no doubt a jarring experience for traditionalists. However, the joy and peace of mind it brings to those now liberated to be free and open about it is to be respected and appreciated, not condemned and criminalized.  As with matters of choice and women's roles, no one is forcing or should force anyone to become what they feel they are not.  Have a heart, holier than thou people.

 Biden was correct when it comes to the fear of immigrants and others. He recognizes an administrative failure to fund and implement existing laws that do provide respect and the goal of the US being a refuge to those who are being prosecuted or are victims of rampant crime in their native lands.  Just enforce the existing laws and give the wherewithal to do it. Economic refugees have their place in contributing to the US economy as well, even if access is uncontrolled with open borders.  What this approach does is respect a sane approach but eliminates the motivation of hate and fear that permeates the inhumane approach that Trump is exploiting for his political advantage with such racists comments as "adulterating our blood," "murders and rapists," phrases that are not born out by any data or statistics, but are just blanket fear-mongering to make followers think he is the only one who can fix what he promotes as the problem.  He is not as the bi-partisan bill passed by the Senate demonstrates.  Now, he wants the "crisis" that is not so much of a crisis after all. wait until he controls Congress, both Houses, and the Oval Office, so he can do it his way.   Those "blood adulterers, rapists and murderers, human traffickers. and brown people", all of those he tells you to fear and you now believe him, will have another year to flood the borders.  The reason is fear is his platform, his ticket to victory, and solving the problem now would take that plank away.   Is it possible, fearful of immigrant folks, that you are being played?

Another element in fear-mongering by MAGA is that voter fraud is widespread, so votes do not count, and elections deserve to be overturned. The racist motivation is not disguised since most attempts to suppress the votes are aimed at areas with heavy Black populations. It is no coincidence. " Suppression efforts range from the seemingly unobstructed, like strict voter ID laws and cuts to early voting, to mass purges of voter rolls and systemic disenfranchisement. These measures disproportionately impact people of color, students, the elderly, and people with disabilities. And long before election cycles even begin, legislators redraw district lines that determine the weight of your vote." https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020   

https://www.amazon.com/Village-Anatolia-Mahmut-Makal/dp/B0000CISI9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_for_God  for a good synopsis.

Gallup Poll Reveals GOP Party Affiliation Drops as Independent Voter Numbers Soar (msn.com)


A very important fact checking on Trump's talking points on the deficit, energy, and crime

 For those who still care about data and facts to respond to Trumpian BS on energy, crime, and the deficit, Steve Rattner pretty well demolishes Trump's talking points. Take a look at this:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/steve-rattner-fact-checks-trump-s-favorite-attack-lines-against-biden-206504517649

Some highlights: Trump added over 5 trillion to the deficit with his tax cuts to the rich and other actions not attributed to Covic. Drill baby Drill is totally a B  aimed at the ignorant. The US is producing more energy(from all sources) than any country in history, and the US has been energy-independent for the past 5 years and an exporter of energy. That just shows how deceptive his BS is on that point.  Biden's war on energy is  a fabrication. He also fact-checks Trump's claim that crime, violence, and against property are up.

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

How the Supreme Court is contributing to democracy's demise

https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-takeaways-from-supreme-court-hearing-on-whether-trump-has-presidential-immunity-that-shields-him-from-criminal-trials-212849131.html       Will the Supreme Court try to slow walk democracy to death?Will history call the Supreme Court not the Roberts Court but the Trump Court? Will the Supreme Court be as just another legislative body like the current House's majority under the fearful spell and control of  Donald Trump? Will it every be viewed again as an objective  ruler on Constitutional issues?  That is the danger the current Supreme Court faces.

 Listening to the hearings and the loaded question the Court's majority ordered the two parties address in advance of the hearings, it was already clear they were trying to ship the question down to the purgatory of the lower court to delay any decision until after the November election.The hearings revealed the tactic.  If successful, the Trump majority would deprive Americans of the critical  information needed to make a rational judgment of the guilt or not of Donald Trump in the attempted January 6 coup and the fake elector's scheme that led to that fateful day. The indictment papers of the Department of Justice special prosecutor are not enough to convince fence sitters when they have to cast a ballot.. The final word should be the from the jury of Trump's peers and whether  voters will ever have a chance to hear both sides of the issue aired in the trial of the century or not before they mark their ballots.

 What it appears to me is that the Trump Court majority is attempting to bury the coup case and keep it from the eyes of public who need the information to make a rational decision.  Trump himself is not only trying to divert attention from the relevant case that could likely judge him a criminal  and with evidence exposed to the public in the middle of the campaign, but also to give himself cover for committing crimes if he ever gets into the White House again. That is the travesty being committed by  the Trump justices on Trump's behalf that is happening before our very eyes.

What was asked of the Court by Jack Smith was a simple question: Does Donald Trump have absolute immunity as Trump had  claimed in his defense or not in this particular case. What we saw were three Trump loyal justices quibbling over hypothetical theories that any president in the future would have immunity while doing "official acts,".  They rudely cut short any attempt by non-Trump justices to apply their decision to the case at hand.  It was a Trump supporting campaign tactic, not a Court considering the Constituional relevance or application.  

What happened in the Justice's question period is that one of their own conservative justices, a Trump appointee,Amay Coney Barette brought the hearing down to the earth to consider the  actual case before them. She  read off some of key charges in Smith's case and asked whether these were public or private acts..What Trump attorneys had to admit they were nearly all private acts.If that's the case,  why quibble over the public vs private debate when it is virtually irrelevant to this particular case? The obvious answer, it will delay the chance the public will ever get a jury verdict or hear the elements before the November election by referring their 'questions" back to the appeals court.

 Criminal acts can be committed while doing public acts and private one and the president does not have immunity in either case. In fact,what separates whether any act is a crime depends of the prosecutor proving defendants intent to break the law,, not whether it is done in an official capacity or a private one. In short, while committing an official act, a crime can also be committed. There is or should be no cover to commit a crime by calling it 'official act".  But I am not a lawyer, just a lay person, but I sense that there is a partisan tactic to muddy the waters and delay, delay any jury hearing the case and deciding guilt or innocence. . What is forgotten in the quibbling is that for a defendant to be found guilty  crimes mustof a crime, the test is not whether it was a public or private act,but a jury needs to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was  proof of  intent to break the law,  whether or not  it was committed while doing an official act or a private one.  

This April 26  hearing  about a specific, historic case, it is not the only an example of  how a Supreme Court could contribute to democracy's demise., but there are examples of how it has already done so.. Below, excerpts from some of my other blog postings on the subject.

 How the Supreme Court has unintentionally contributed to a feared democracy's demise is disturbing for those of us who love our country both when we win politically and when we lose. The three most US Supreme Court acts or inactions in my mind are the Citizens United ruling that permitted dark and secret campaign contributions, the ruling overturning the recent Colorado ballot case that inadvertently gave a permission slip for any failed insurrectionist or civil war participant to run for federal office, plus the Court greenlighting political gerrymandering by declining to restrict it, making legislative compromises nearly impossible and empowering extremists. 

 The recent Colorado ballot decision gave the green light for any candidate who loses a civil war or an insurrection to come back as an elected office and abuse, and sabotage institutions that stood in the wannabe tyrant's way. The  US Supreme Court claimed political gerrymandering was not in their ability to rule, unlike race-based gerrymandering which they could.  In so doing, the Supreme Court permitted the pernicious practice of drawing legislative and congressional district lines to give one or the other political party to carve out safe districts stacked for their party. This, in turn, ensures only the most hardliners and party loyalists get to go to a general election and to avoid being "primaried", the threat most elected officials fear the most.  It is party discipline gone berserk and it ensures compromises are never reached, giving voters in a general election a choice between usually two extreme candidates.

 When in conversations with my European friends and relatives they mention how corrupt our elections system is because of the money pouring into it, making elected officials appear to be for sale to the highest bidder. Once upon a time, I had an answer. Yes, thanks to our election laws, who contributes is public information so it becomes another element contributing to making decisions for whom we vote. That is no longer true. The Citizens United decision changed that by permitting corporations to contribute and to do it in the disguise of supporting some fine-sounding single-cause political action committee. That is the "dark money" reference we hear about.  We no longer have a way to know which piper is playing whose tune.

The recent Supreme Court decision was another serious blow to democracy in the Colorado ballot case. Claiming it was a federal matter, as the court did, was not the problem. What the Court did was to tell Congress they would have to pass laws to enforce the clause. of the 14th Amendment that kept insurrections from running for public office.  Hell will probably freeze over before that happens since Trump would benefit as would any similar power-hungry revolutionist from the left.   Colorado's decision to define Trump as an insurrectionist upheld by the State of Colorado's supreme court decision was left untouched by the US Supreme Court. The original court case was decided with due process to make the case, fairly., that Trump was an insurrectionist in trying to overturn the 2020 election he lost.  In short, the US Supreme Court tossed the ball into a trash can of political self-serving dealing.  It paved the way for anyone (including Trump) to lead a civil war or a more or less obvious insurrection to run for federal office, to be elected to office, and to continue his insurrection by other means, including undermining the institutions that get in his way by only appointing loyalists to him instead of to the rule of law.

The next dastardly anti-democracy, anti-voter rights step by the US Supreme Court would be to uphold in full and in part to agree that all presidents would have immunity from being prosecuted for crimes they commit while in office.  That would clearly be a license to kill opponents and to cheat and steal taxpayer money to feather their own nests of power and wealth.   Be aware of what you wish because what is good for the goose will be for the gander.  If democracy survives a second term of Trump. and wins immunity from being charged with crimes after his term for breaking the law while in office, any other future president from the left or the right will also have that immunity claim and protection.

In the meantime, anyone who tags Trump as an insurrectionist can now point to one court of law that defined him as one after a civil due process trial and appeals: the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado could not enforce the federal constitutional 14th Amendment, per the US Supreme Court, but anyone who calls Trump an insurrectionist now has a basis in law to attack him with that designation.

The remedies are now left to Congress, to require political districts to be drawn by independent commissions in each state, to reverse those contribution provisions in Citizens United by requiring all political PACs to disclose their contributors and to define who, what, and how the 14th amendment clause concerning insurrectionists are to be enforced. Do not hold your breath. 

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Trump seems determined to turn off older voters

 Trump seems determined to turn off older voters.   The demographic of voters over 65 is the second largest group of those who vote. " Cutting Medicare and Social Security" is not a phrase that will win friends and influence older voters.  He immediately back tracked, saying he would just cut waste. However, his GOP MAGA party is serious about cutting Medicare and Social Security, and the question becomes, if President, would he sign such legislation.  House Republicans float changes to Social Security in budget proposal (axios.com)

Trump had been losing them, and now he is actively turning them off of his MAGA world.  Vintage Trump.   Instead of trying to bring more into his base, he is committing political malpractice because now he is saying he is open to cutting Medicare and Social Security, without saying how. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics/trump-entitlements-social-security-medicare/index.html#:~:text=Former%20President%20Donald%20Trump%20on,primary%20rivals%20over%20the%20issue.

Biden responded: “If anyone tries to cut Social Security or Medicare, or raise the retirement age again, I will stop them,” Biden said during a speech in New Hampshire. “This morning, Donald Trump said cuts to Social Security and Medicare are on the table again.”  https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/biden-pounces-trump-eyes-cuts-social-security-medicare-rcna142920

 That there needs to be financial shoring up, who does it,  and who gets hurt just leaves the threat out there.  Do you really trust the GOP to do the best for Social Security and Medicare if they get their hands on Congress or the Oval Office? The GOP has had to destroy Medicare and Social Security on their radar, ideologically motivated since the day they were created. They seem to think turning it over to the Wall Street casino and letting for-profit insurers with their fancy advertising and high overhead run and ruin the programs. * 

Why older voters have stuck with Biden more than younger generations | CNN Politics

Older voters flee Trump, solidifying Biden's advantage in the 2020 race (nbcnews.com)

Biden's old guy advantage with older voters - POLITICO

Forgotten Purpose: Civics Education in Public Schools | NEA

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/americans-oppose-most-trump-policies/ar-AA1mPgWu?ocid=socialshare&pc=DCTS&cvid=b1985bfa8fa14970849a5b58c9d57617&ei=18

https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-changes-planned-if-nikki-haley-wins-election-1859696 

Number of Voters as a Share of the Voter Population, by Age | KFF

        This demographic of voters over 65 is the second largest group of those who vote.

From my January 2024 blog post: Aside from the GOP hurling constant insults at Biden for his age (seniors know people's brains age at different rates, and so do their bodies), there is a reason why voters are showing a preference for Biden in a recent Q poll in Pennsylvania. and other polls dating to 2020. As an older person myself and with adult children and their spouses approaching or arriving at 65 years old, let me give six good reasons besides the GOP insulting Biden's age and abilities just because he is 3 years older than Trump. 

  1) We lived long enough to remember what it was like before Roe v Wade and the days when women could not apply for credit without their husband's approval or any political statements made by women in media or in politics were considered not credible because they came from a woman's emotional brain.  Age brings memories of when it was worse.

 2) We lived through Vietnam and the Cold War to see BS when we heard it as BS and to question BS and see Putin and China as the same adversaries as before: all about power, just without the ideology of Marxism as the reason. We understand how dictatorships, communists, fascists, or whatever work and what political freedoms mean.  Age brings wisdom.

 3) W got a good education in civics and American history which the younger generation did not get.'National Survey Finds Just 1 in 3 Americans Would Pass Citizenship Test - Institute for Citizens & Scholars (citizensandscholars.org)

 4) Moral leadership still has value, and Trump is not a moral person. P grabbing and infidelity are not moral.  Lies, in the face of fact and data, are not moral either. There is still something credible about data and evidence.  Age brings us memories of higher moral standards.

5) Civil rights and tolerance of others are a moral value and worth the struggle of the movement. Many old people have moved on to more tolerance on the basis of fairness and acceptance of diversity within their own families and in the workplace, sports, and military service. We remember the violence of the resistance to the civil rights movement...Age brings with it real-life experience.

 6) Policies that take away access and qualifications to Medicare and Social Security are a threat to old people's well-being. Every time the GOP advocates to "save" those programs by cutting access to them, seniors revolt and ask why not give them taxpayer support instead. Obamacare is a bridge to give affordable access to health care until those over 50 with aging bodies and health problems are not yet eligible for Medicare. Hands of Obamacare, GOP.   Aging has special needs, and the government can help meet them. 

*https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/sep/20/bernie-sanders/comparing-administrative-costs-private-insurance-a/    Sanders claims the difference in administrative costs between private insurers and government-administered Medicare is 12-to 18% more for private insurers and 2% for Medicare.  It is partially true, but most private insurance and Medicare Advantage cover prescription drugs, and Medicare itself does not unless you sign up for Medicare Advantage.(I do at the cost of about $45 per month on my PPO plan).   Biden's initiatives resutlig in new laws also extend the life of Medicare by requiring drug companies to bid for becoming the preferred drugs(formularies) which will force the price of drugs down as it does with veterans admi;nistrated programs.  Also, reducing the cost of insulin for seniors will help both, as well as capping the new law passed under the Biden term no more than $2K out of pocket co-pays a year for prescription drugs.


        This demographic of voters over 65 is the second largest group of those who vote