Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

Talked to a guy today who said that though he is a Republican, if it comes down to Clinton or Trump, he'll vote for Clinton. Why? He thinks, based on a lifetime of doing business overseas, that if Trump becomes president, people like Putin, or the Saudis, or the Chinese, will eat him alive. Hilary, he says, is at least cunning enough to survive. He may have a point. Whatever happens, I suspect we're not going to enjoy the next few years. :ph34r:

vs, say, the last 15? Welcome to the 21st century.

[kenberg]

I watched a bit of the R debate last night, as much as I could stand, and Trump is now trying to sound like a polite reasonable guy. The problem is that once you take away the insults, he has nothing left to say. He was asked to explain specifically what was wrong with Common Core. Answer: It's a disaster. Asked for more detail: It's been taken over by the federal government. Asked about Social Security, he explained that no changes were needed, the money could be found by eliminating waste and abuse. Asked for more detail, he explained that he would make America great again.

 

But then I note that the Sanders plan for paying for free tuition is that the billionaires will pay for it, the Sanders plan for medicaid for all is that the billionaires will pay for it, and so on. I watched about as much of the D debate as I did of the R debate. See Alexandra Petri for a summary.

 

I gather that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now totally dead. DT, HC, BS and everyone in between seems united on this point. Do any of these folks have an alternative idea as to how to deal with the 21st century world? Oh yes, Donald has explained his plan. Let China and Japan know that we are serious. Presumably this would require that we elect someone other than Donald.

 

Ok, I will drink some stuff and chill.

[Winstonm]

I watched a bit of the R debate last night, as much as I could stand, and Trump is now trying to sound like a polite reasonable guy. The problem is that once you take away the insults, he has nothing left to say. He was asked to explain specifically what was wrong with Common Core. Answer: It's a disaster. Asked for more detail: It's been taken over by the federal government. Asked about Social Security, he explained that no changes were needed, the money could be found by eliminating waste and abuse. Asked for more detail, he explained that he would make America great again.

 

But then I note that the Sanders plan for paying for free tuition is that the billionaires will pay for it, the Sanders plan for medicaid for all is that the billionaires will pay for it, and so on. I watched about as much of the D debate as I did of the R debate. See Alexandra Petri for a summary.

 

I gather that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is now totally dead. DT, HC, BS and everyone in between seems united on this point. Do any of these folks have an alternative idea as to how to deal with the 21st century world? Oh yes, Donald has explained his plan. Let China and Japan know that we are serious. Presumably this would require that we elect someone other than Donald.

 

Ok, I will drink some stuff and chill.

 

Just how idiotic does one have to be to get a job as a Dem debate moderator - questions from 3rd grade.

[blackshoe]

vs, say, the last 15? Welcome to the 21st century.

I'm saying things are going to get worse before — if — they get better. That's taking into account not just the last 15 years, but the last 60 or so.

[Winstonm]

I'm saying things are going to get worse before — if — they get better. That's taking into account not just the last 15 years, but the last 60 or so.

 

Can you be more specific? What things are going to get worse. What are the things you feel are bad today?

[PassedOut]

Can you be more specific? What things are going to get worse. What are the things you feel are bad today?

I know exactly what he means, even though he always prefers to be vague. He faults Harry Truman for stopping McArthur from invading China. He faults Dwight Eisenhower for launching the interstate highway system and for appointing Earl Warren as the Chief Justice. In his mind, those three events started the ball rolling toward the destruction of the US. Everything before 1950 was great...

[hrothgar]

I know exactly what he means, even though he always prefers to be vague. He faults Harry Truman for stopping McArthur from invading China. He faults Dwight Eisenhower for launching the interstate highway system and for appointing Earl Warren as the Chief Justice. In his mind, those three events started the ball rolling toward the destruction of the US. Everything before 1950 was great...

 

Nah, this is Blackshoe we're talking about...

 

Things all started going downhill with the Civil War and accelerated with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1907.

Once the 16th amendment passed in 1913, the great experiment had come to an end.

[PassedOut]

Nah, this is Blackshoe we're talking about...

 

Things all started going downhill with the Civil War and accelerated with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1907.

Once the 16th amendment passed in 1913, the great experiment had come to an end.

I would have thought that, but he specifically said that things started getting worse about 60 years ago. So he must be perturbed about things that Eisenhower did to affect the course of US history.

[Winstonm]

If there is something sadly wrong about America, this article sums up, for me, the problems. Democracy begins to fail when the press loses its way.

 

Do you remember these headlines: “Republicans Oppose Civil Rights”; “Republicans Work to Defeat Expansion of Health Insurance”; “Republicans Torpedo Extension of Unemployment Benefits”; “Republicans Demonize Homosexuals and Deny Them Rights”; “Republicans Call Climate Change a Hoax and Refuse to Stop Greenhouse Gases”? No, you don’t remember, because no MSM paper printed them and no MSM network broadcast them. Instead, the media behaved as if extremism were business as usual.

 

I don’t think the media would deny their indifference. They would say they don’t take sides. They’re neutral. They just report. Partisanship is for Fox News and MSNBC.

 

Of course, this is utter nonsense. Accurate reporting means taking sides when one side is spouting falsehoods. I am still waiting for the media to correct the GOP pronouncements that Obamacare has cost us jobs and sent health care costs skyrocketing – both of which are screamingly false. I am not holding my breath.

[blackshoe]

I know exactly what he means, even though he always prefers to be vague. He faults Harry Truman for stopping McArthur from invading China. He faults Dwight Eisenhower for launching the interstate highway system and for appointing Earl Warren as the Chief Justice. In his mind, those three events started the ball rolling toward the destruction of the US. Everything before 1950 was great...

Bullshit.

[mike777]

There are strong arguments that say Truman was a pretty lousy President. At the very least it is an interesting historical discussion.

 

I Understand as of today Truman is regarded as far above average in the History books.

[kenberg]

There are strong arguments that say Truman was a pretty lousy President. At the very least it is an interesting historical discussion.

 

I Understand as of today Truman is regarded as far above average in the History books.

 

Those were exciting times. And nobody would accuse Truman of being indecisive. The Berlin airlift, the attempt to take over the steel mills during the Korean war, the firing of Douglas MacArthur, the integration of the armed forces, and, of course the use of the atomic bomb in WWII. Among many other things.

 

Limited wars with limited objectives are common these days. In the early 1950s they were not. I recall Korea being described as the first war in history that was fought in terms of pleasing the enemy. And with regard to the use of atomic weapons, Truman once commented on Oppenheimer "What's he whining about? He only built it, I'm the guy who decided to drop it". His civil rights efforts were advanced for the time, but when King was planning his march on Washington he spoke against it, saying that they would lose every friend that they had. Or so I recall.

 

Passive he wasn't.

 

And, for comic(?) relief, there is the well known story about his response to Paul Hume. I take this from the Wikipedia:

 

 

On December 6, 1950, music critic Paul Hume wrote a critical review of a concert by the president's daughter Margaret Truman:

 

Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality ... [she] cannot sing very well ... is flat a good deal of the time—more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years ... has not improved in the years we have heard her ... [and] still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish.

 

 

Harry Truman wrote a scathing response:

 

I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.' It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

[y66]

From What Liberals Can Learn From The N.R.A. by David Cole

 

VILIFYING the National Rifle Association’s tactics has long been standard practice among liberals. In October, Hillary Clinton compared dealing with the N.R.A. to “negotiating with the Iranians or the Communists.” In January, President Obama accused the gun lobby of “holding Congress hostage.” The New York Daily News recently called Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s chief executive, a “terrorist.”

 

The passion underlying such condemnations may be understandable, especially in the wake of the horrific mass shootings that often prompt them. But this rhetoric does little to change the gun debate, and most likely reinforces gun owners’ worst fears about how liberals see them. Rather than demonize the N.R.A.’s strategies, liberals should emulate them. The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today.

 

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias. In 1990, the retired Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger, a Nixon nominee, dismissed the idea as a “fraud.” Yet in 2008, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the individual right to bear arms was no fraud, but a constitutional right.

 

How did the N.R.A. do it? It did not litigate Heller itself. But its efforts over three decades paved the way for the court’s decision.

 

The story begins in 1977, when hard-line members of the N.R.A. took charge at its annual convention and formally committed the group to defending the right to bear arms. The N.R.A. first focused on the states, lobbying to change state constitutions and laws to protect the right to possess and carry guns. The organization realized that most gun laws were enacted by states, not the federal government, and that it could win substantial victories there, in part by mobilizing its members, in part by working with the local affiliates it had in every state, and in part because opposition at the state level was largely absent. (Gun-control advocates tended to focus unproductively on Congress.)

 

The strategy paid off: By the time the Supreme Court took up Heller, most state constitutions protected an individual right to bear arms; nearly all states afforded citizens a right to carry concealed weapons unless they were specifically disqualified from doing so; gun makers enjoyed immunity from tort liability for illegal use of their guns; and the right to self-defense had been strengthened — all at the urging of the N.R.A. These changes made it much easier for the Supreme Court to recognize a federal right to bear arms, because for all practical purposes such a right already existed in so much of the country.

 

The N.R.A. also enlisted the academy. Beginning in the 1980s, it offered grants and prizes designed to encourage scholarship that buttressed its view of the Second Amendment. With N.R.A. assistance, legal scholars transformed the academic understanding of the Second Amendment, so that by the time the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, the dominant view in the legal literature supported an individual right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion closely tracked that scholarship.

 

In addition, the N.R.A. succeeded in getting both Congress and the executive branch on record as endorsing the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

[PassedOut]

Looks like Trump is serious

 

Repeatedly underestimated as a court jester or silly showman, Mr. Trump muscled his way into the Republican elite by force of will. He badgered a skittish Mitt Romney into accepting his endorsement on national television, and became a celebrity fixture at conservative gatherings. He abandoned his tightfisted inclinations and cut five- and six-figure checks in a bid for clout as a political donor. He courted conservative media leaders as deftly as he had the New York tabloids.

 

At every stage, members of the Republican establishment wagered that they could go along with Mr. Trump just enough to keep him quiet or make him go away. But what party leaders viewed as generous ceremonial gestures or ego stroking of Mr. Trump — speaking spots at gatherings, meetings with prospective candidates and appearances alongside Republican heavyweights — he used to elevate his position and, eventually, to establish himself as a formidable figure for 2016.

 

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he had encountered many who doubted or dismissed him as a political force before now. “I realized that unless I actually ran, I wouldn’t be taken seriously,” he said. But he denied having been troubled by Mr. Obama’s derision.

 

“I loved that dinner,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “I can handle criticism.”

If this actually turns out to be performance art intended to expose the US electorate, I'll say "Well done." But I'm starting to doubt that more and more.

:)

[kenberg]

Looks like Trump is serious

 

 

If this actually turns out to be performance art intended to expose the US electorate, I'll say "Well done." But I'm starting to doubt that more and more.

:)

 

The dinner being referred to can be seen at

 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Trump uses it as a recruiting tool.

 

They used to, and maybe still do, show a video at Yellowstone about why it is a bad idea to torment the buffalo.

[Winstonm]

The problem is not Donald Trump - the problem is there are so many truly stupid American voters willing to support him.

[kenberg]

The problem is not Donald Trump - the problem is there are so many truly stupid American voters are willing to support him.

 

Basically, yes. But I would refine it a little. Some people are beyond reach. I suspect that this is more emotional than lack of intelligence. But not everyone is beyond reach.

 

Becky and I were talking a bit about this this morning. We had both watched Race for the White House, I mentioned it before. It's a somewhat superficial re-telling of various races, and the first one was about Kennedy/Nixon, 1960. There was a large group of Protestant ministers who were very anti Kennedy, largely based on his Catholicism. He did not write them off as stupid bigots. He arranged for a large meeting and addressed their concerns. He was very successful.

 

It is a truism that the country has become very divided. Is there a solution? Maybe, maybe not. But if there is, then it surely will come from speaking to and listening to people who see things differently.

 

Here is a personal experience. I got married for the first time in 1960. Sometime before the wedding we went up to introduce me to the future in-laws. Northern Miinnesota, iron mining country. My future father- in-law had been a miner until heart problems arose, he was currently a bartender. We went out to the bar with his friends. Fact about norther Minnesota in 1960. There were no black people there. But these guys had opinions. Everyone has opinions. I called nobody stupid or racist, but I stuck to my own views. And, importantly, I matched them drink for drink and I was still standing. Well, sitting, but I could stand if I wanted to. By the end of the evening, at least some of these guys thought maybe I was not totally crazy. Maybe the cure wore off, but maybe not completely.

 

Whatever you make of this, I think we change minds at a personal level, one mind at a time. And, just maybe, we learn something ourselves.

 

Sermon is now over, there are cookies in the chapel.

[Winstonm]

I heard a reporter tonight, I think CBS news, say that there is a large faction of Republicans who are angry at their own party and feel they have been lied to and marginalized. I think this is correct. The trouble comes when they cannot make the continued turn of thinking to point some of those fingers of blame at themselves for believing in lies. Instead, they point the finger at "thems": illegal immigrants, unions, Washington insiders, liberals, yada, yada, yadi.

 

The problem is that they have bought into a failed ideology. Faith will not resurrect a dead 1950s. Reagan was not a great President; he was a second-rate actor who believed in fairly tales, and we all went along with him because it was easier than hearing the truth.

 

We have met the enemy and he is us - all of us, myself included. I wised up. I hope others do the same in time to save the country. Fascism and rampant nationalism are not the solution.

[mike777]

Those were exciting times. And nobody would accuse Truman of being indecisive. The Berlin airlift, the attempt to take over the steel mills during the Korean war, the firing of Douglas MacArthur, the integration of the armed forces, and, of course the use of the atomic bomb in WWII. Among many other things.

 

Limited wars with limited objectives are common these days. In the early 1950s they were not. I recall Korea being described as the first war in history that was fought in terms of pleasing the enemy. And with regard to the use of atomic weapons, Truman once commented on Oppenheimer "What's he whining about? He only built it, I'm the guy who decided to drop it". His civil rights efforts were advanced for the time, but when King was planning his march on Washington he spoke against it, saying that they would lose every friend that they had. Or so I recall.

 

Passive he wasn't.

 

And, for comic(?) relief, there is the well known story about his response to Paul Hume. I take this from the Wikipedia:

 

YOu make fair points but there is another side to the discussion. Among many issues I include three:

 

1) Truman botched the cold war

2) botched Korea

3) botched the whole issue regarding commies and the blacklists.

 

 

My main point is history today regards Truman above average, this may be overly generous extremely so.

[mike777]

As Far as Trump goes depending on what media I read and watch:

 

1)trump=Nazi brownshirts

2) those who try to deny Trump speaking=Nazi brownshirts.

 

you may read more of the history here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

[kenberg]

YOu make fair points but there is another side to the discussion. Among many issues I include three:

 

1) Truman botched the cold war

2) botched Korea

3) botched the whole issue regarding commies and the blacklists.

 

 

My main point is history today regards Truman above average, this may be overly generous extremely so.

 

Truman was the first president I was really aware of, Roosevelt died when I was 5. Eisenhower won in 1952 when I was 13 and took office when i was 14. The point being that while I was interested in what was going on in those years, for example I still recall the headlines announcing the Inchon landing, I was pretty young. And I have made no study of it. I did buy David McCullough's book, but I never got very far in it. The only person I know who finished it was a Republican. He liked it a lot.

 

So my knowledge is mostly from the events as seen by a youngster. I am not much prepared to engage in serious debate on the merits of Truman or lack thereof.

 

I do think that the Korean war was some sort of turning point in our history, starting with the fact that we called it a police action, somehow allowing a massive military effort without a formal declaration of war. Of course now the idea of having Congress declare war before we send troops seems like some quaint historical formality. In 1950, it was seen as unusual.

 

In 1952 I proudly wore the campaign button: I Go Pogo.

 

Anyway, I think history matters and I am interested in Truman, but my knowledge is too limited for me to say much more than I already have.

[kenberg]

I'll take another (a last?) shot at what I think is going on. I take an excerpt from WaPo in today's paper.

 

"They talk to us like we are stupid," said Henderhan, a retired detective. "I don't have a 200 IQ, but I have a college degree and 30 years in law enforcement. I watch MSNBC. I watch Fox and CNN. It's insulting the way they talk down to us."

 

Exactly. There is a fair sized group that long ago decided that the Democrats had written them off, and they are now deciding that the Republicans have also lost interest in them. I am not so sure that they are wrong about this. The standard line is that these people are so stupid that it is not worth taking the trouble to talk to them. This might be a mistake.

[Winstonm]

I'll take another (a last?) shot at what I think is going on. I take an excerpt from WaPoon in today's paper.

 

 

 

Exactly. There is a fair sized group that long ago decided that the Democrats had written them off, and they are now deciding that the Republicans have also lost interest in them. I am not so sure that they are wrong about this. The standard line is that these people are so stupid that it is not worth taking the trouble to talk to them. This might be a mistake.

 

 

I am convinced it is much more complicated than angry feelings. The blame lies with Samuel Morse.

 

Samuel Morse changed the way the nation received news. With the passage of time and increased sophistication of information exchanges, the populace became more and more dependent upon news sources to edit and fact-check news. When the Reagan revolution introduced its Rand-influenced reduction of government oversights, news changed from information centers to entertainment organizations, and in some cases, political agents. During the century plus that the change from only localized information availability to worldwide instantaneous information feeds we went from a population who deeply understood the issues to a people who relied on feelings, personal experience, and Oprah, et al, to tell us what our problems were and what we should think about them.

 

The difficulty comes because there is no simple and quick way to explain how Reagan and Reaganomics were such a disastrous failure - how it is impossibly ignorant to turn sand into glass because some people worldwide hate us - how continuous wealth disparity leads to less democracy - so most people don't even know it. To them, Reagan was a great President because Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Marco Rubio keep saying he was a great President, much to be emulated. They hear that if we just "put boots on the ground" our enemies will disappear or that "tax cuts" cure all problems. There is no curiosity to investigate those claims - and no quick, sound byte way to refute them.

 

This, IMO, is the Democrats big problem - those Republicans disaffected by their own party think "Washington" has failed them when in truth what has failed them is their own ideology - but there is no easy way to show them how this is so, and Samuel Morse has made it impossible to hope they may look deeply into it themselves.

 

We have met the enemy; he is us; and we are screwed.

[PassedOut]

Still, for all the anger whipped up by politicians and the propaganda machine in the US, I see that the US went up from 15th to 13th in the latest happiness rankings: Denmark Recovers Top Spot on World Happiness Ranking

 

LONDON — Denmark has reclaimed its place as the world’s happiest country, while Burundi ranks as the least happy nation, according to the fourth World Happiness Report, released on Wednesday.

 

The report found that inequality was strongly associated with unhappiness — a stark finding for rich countries like the United States, where rising disparities in income, wealth, health and well-being have fueled political discontent.

 

Denmark topped the list in the first report, in 2012, and again in 2013, but it was displaced by Switzerland last year. In this year’s ranking, Denmark was back at No. 1, followed by Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden. Most are fairly homogeneous nations with strong social safety nets.

Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

[kenberg]

 

Of course, the US might have gone up because some folks enjoy being angry...

 

This strikes me as a very real possibility.

However I am happy to see that we have all become happier. What, me worry?

 

Added: I see that the first six are Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada. Maybe there is something about the North. With Norwegian genes and growing up in Minnesota, that thought pleases me.