Civility From Thee, But Not From Me

Civility.

There's been a lot of calls for more of it in political discourse lately, with very good reason.  In the past several days, someone targeted about a dozen prominent political figures with homemade bombs.  As far as political violence goes, that's a huge damn deal.  Civility seems like a pretty important commodity right now, don't you think? Who would be against that?

Who, indeed? Well, as it turns out, it's some of the people being the loudest in calling for more civility.

Every political ideology has a certain percentage of adherents that see violence as a legitimate tool for achieving their goals or expressing their beliefs, whether it's pounding a metal rod in a tree due to be logged, blowing up an abortion clinic, shooting up a Congressional softball game, or sending homemade bombs through the mail.  They fall all along the political spectrum, and no amount of civil discourse will temper their fanaticism because they don't possess a radical thought process.

Traditional political rhetoric reaches these people in a different way.  Where a rational person hears a politican's call to action as a cue to volunteer, contact their elected officials, or some other form of political activism, these people interpret the message as a command to destroy property or harm people. That's an unintended consequence of political rhetoric, and there's not much that can be done about it.

However, one of America's two major political parties has been issuing increasingly incendiary rhetoric for months now.  From subtle dog whistles like "globalist" and "placeholder" to obvious phrases like "left-wing mob" to ridiculous conspiracy theories.  And it's having a measurable effect. Yet if the response to the homemade bombs is any indication, that party doesn't show any signs of changing its rhetoric.  President Trump's response to a reporter's question about whether he planned to tone down his rhetoric in the wake of the attempted bombings was basically "LOL, nah." So was Sean Hannity's. Tucker Carlson spun a false equivalency fairy tale. Meanwhile, some right-wing pundits have been aggressively promoting a "false flag" narrative, that the Democrats are behind the homemade bombs.

To put it mildly, this is a disgrace.

Do we need more civility in our political discourse? Someone just tried to assassinate a dozen or so political figures with homemade bombs, so hell yes we do. But I'm sick of hearing any calls for civility coming from the GOP or anyone in the right-wing media. They've been fanning the flames of paranoia and hostility literally for years.  With Birtherism. With Benghazi. With Clinton's emails.  With Pizzagate. With Seth Rich and Vince Foster conspiracy theories. With discriminatory and needlessly cruel policies.  All the while, they cast themselves as the victims and refused to take responsibility for their rhetoric or their actions. To them, "civility" is a unilateral cease-fire, where the other side shuts up and they get to say whatever they want.

I'll take Republican calls for civility seriously when Trump, his minions, and all of Fox News get their own houses in order. When they stop peddling conspiracy theories and outright lies, and stop spewing inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes their political opposition. Their hateful rhetoric is already responsible for one person's death, and there's a good chance we'll see more bloodshed if this continues.  As long as they keep fanning the flames, I'll respond to their calls for "civility" with a polite but firm "Go fuck yourselves."

If they want civility, they can show a little first.

The Blogger Who Cried "Wolf"

What if I'm wrong? That question has crossed my mind more than once.  Suppose all my fears about Trump's authoritarianism turn out to be unfounded, and it turns out to be part of his shtick all this time - to "own the libs," or whatever.  Man, won't I look foolish, what with all the squawking I've done about how he's a wanna-be autocrat, how he's a threat to democracy, and so on.

It's not like this is unprecedented, after all. Nixon privately wished he could assassinate a nosy journalist, and Obama aggressively prosecuted whistle-blowers and their journalist sources.  The US government has done business with undemocratic regimes in the past, on several occasions. Government crackdowns on protests in the 1960s were significantly more frequent and brutal.  Yet the US hasn't slid into authoritarianism itself, despite having frequent brushes with other authoritarian nations, and even our own elected officials who possess anti-democratic leanings.

And honestly, how much has life changed for the average person since January 2017? Probably not much, for most people.  We still have a free press.  We don't have to worry about the FBI showing up at our door because we participated in a march or voiced our opinion on social media.  We can still vote.  (And yes, there are many cases of voter suppression, but - and I'm not trying to downplay it here - it's another thing that has been going on for years, if not decades.)

So maybe I'm overreacting, and the things I've been pointing out are just "politics as usual." Maybe 2021 arrives, and my worst fear about Trump not stepping down turns out to be unfounded.  If that's the case, my credibility takes a big hit. Not only was I wrong in a big way, I panicked over nothing. I might have even made a handful of other people panic.  If I do end up being wrong, I'll dial back how much I talk about politics and current events substantially. (I'll never shut up completely, though. You're all stuck with me.) I'll also take a hard look at my preconceived notions, to figure out how and why I was so wrong.

But the way I see it, we're not "fine" even if the worst-case scenario never happens.  I compare it to a patient who refuses to make lifestyle changes after a major health scare.  Even if Trump's actions turn out to be an act for whatever reason, they still had the effect of chipping away at the country's democratic institutions.  It will take time and effort to repair them.  And that's the best-case scenario.  What if we don't get that best-case scenario? I'd rather overreact and be wrong, because prevention is easier than reversing the process.









I guess we'll find out in a few years.  In the meantime, I'll keep squawking about it, loudly and often.

Trump's Ongoing War on the Freedom of the Press

So it's been a while since my last post.  I never meant to let it lapse for this long, but sometimes things come up and you know how life goes.  Anyway. . .

There's a video circulating around showing how the news anchors for many Sinclair Broadcast Group outlets regurgitating a nearly-identical news piece.  Somebody took the time to splice a bunch of clips together, and that's the video that's been making the internet rounds.  (Or one of many videos.  I think there could be a few different ones.) Go watch this video here - it's disturbing as hell.

Imagine if you could only get your news from one source.  Even if you agreed with that source, it still presents a lot of problems. For one, you're getting all your information filtered through the outlet's preferences: the stories it deems important, the ideological slant it wants to put on it, the bits of data it chooses to emphasize or downplay, and so on.  Information is vital to a democracy: people need it to make informed decisions at the ballot box, among other things.  If one company, or a handful of companies, control a huge number of news agencies, how do you think those news sites will cover a political candidate that the company favors? Do you think voters will get a complete picture of that candidate, or will they only hear about the good stuff?

Which brings us to Donald Trump.  The Sinclair Group's "newscast" I linked to centered on the problem of "biased and false news" being shared on social media.  Now, that was a newsworthy story, so what's the big deal, right? Well, it's a big deal because this is the full script, courtesy of CNN:

"I'm [we are] extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [name of local station] produces. But I'm [we are] concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.  The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. I [we] understand truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."

Do you see how the news anchors try to convince you that their news affiliate is the only trustworthy source of news? Like how Fox News uses the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is anything but that.  Also, the script's wording, specifically its use of the term "biased and false news", reminds you of a certain President's catch phrase, doesn't it? I doubt that's a coincidence, since the Sinclair Group is in the middle of some business dealings that Trump Administration officials are overseeing.

Obviously, the Sinclair Group executives are doing this to get on Trump's good side. Unfortunately, this is taking place at the same time while a steady flow of damning information is coming out about Trump's obstruction of justice, his ties to the Russian government, and his cabinet's unethical and possibly illegal actions.  What would happen if a number of local news stations began undercutting the Mueller investigation, peddling the "deep state" conspiracy nonsense, or distracting their viewers with whataboutism? Fox News and the right-wing media still get a lot of traction among their viewers with their fawning, pro-Trump coverage; if these outlets started parroting that message, it adds fuel to the fire.  On top of that, Trump's position to influence the Sinclair deals gives him a measure of control over the company.  We're already seeing that influence how the company operates, and the deals are still in progress.  If the Trump Administration decides in Sinclair's favor, it will be beholden to him and his cronies for as long as they serve in office.

This would effectively mean that Trump's attacks on the press are moving beyond his "brain vomit" Tweets, and could potentially be disseminated by news agencies with actual credibility, not just a BS-spewing network like Fox.  Trump's attacks on the so-called "fake news" were never in jest.  He means it when he says he wants to make them register, or censor them.  He wants to control the media and its message, and thanks to the Sinclair Group's ass-kissing, Trump could soon have an effective tool to help him with that.  That should terrify you.  It terrifies me.

Shutdown Winners & Losers

The US government has shut down for who knows how long, so I thought I'd do a post-shutdown recap of the last 24-48 hours.  I'll look at the key parties one by one, and give my $.02 on how they fared.

President Trump: Trump would have gotten a boost if he had allowed Congress to do its job, but (like he has before) he shot himself in the foot.  He nearly had a bipartisan deal ready to go, but his "shithole" fiasco threw a wrench into that.  Now, instead of a modest legislative victory and a probable popularity boost, Trump has a shutdown taking place on his watch.  He also has done very little to resolve this issue, other than rant on Twitter. So this becomes another item on his list of failures and screw-ups as President, but it won't cost him much in terms of popularity: he's gone about as low as he possibly can, and his remaining supporters are unshakeable.

House of Representatives: On one hand, the House passed the measures necessary to keep the government running.  That's a plus.  On the other hand, House Republicans tried to force a choice between CHIP (health insurance for children) and DACA (a provision allowing children of immigrants to remain in the United States.) There's a special place in hell for any group of politicians who try to force this kind of Sophie's Choice.  People don't expect much from House Reps anymore, though.  The House lost a bit of prestige, but not much.

Senate Republicans: Moderate losses for the Senate GOP over this shutdown.  They, along with Trump, precipitated this crisis - first, by defunding CHIP in September for use as a bargaining chip in the future, and spiking the pre-shutdown negotiations by adding several last-minute provisions to the deal. Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will be occupying that perch in hell, next to the House Republicans. Besides being unspeakably immoral, it was also bad politics on McConnell's part.  He tried to create a false dilemma that would cause the Democrats to fold, and it backfired badly.  Maybe he should have been tending to his own party members, because four Senate Republicans voted against the bill; those four would not have been enough to pass the bill, but they do make it harder for Trump and the GOP to lay blame entirely on the Democrats.  Harder, but not impossible - because they are already making that case in the court of public opinion. It's not entirely unexpected, since they tried it before when public opinion turned against them after the last shutdown. However, they do have an easy time framing negative stories in ways that cast them in a positive light.

Democrats: They aren't entirely blameless because they were playing a game of brinkmanship over DACA; however, as I already stated, it takes two to tango.  The GOP is culpable for how they framed the DACA vote, and Trump takes some responsibility for derailing a bipartisan deal.  While I personally approve of renewing both CHIP and DACA, I don't approve of the Democratic Party's methods; they're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.  And while I would like to see the Dems play hardball more often, I think what they're doing now sets a bad precedent.  We already have one major party that obstructs and employs scorched earth tactics.  We don't need two.

In the final analysis, I put the bulk of the blame on Trump and the GOP.  I think 70% to them, and 30% to the Democrats is a fair distribution.  A lot of this hinges on whose policies are taking a hit.  As I already stated, I support both DACA and CHIP, so part of me wants to see the Dems dig in and fight.  I also don't agree with how the GOP has governed, so I enjoy seeing them be on the receiving end of the same tactics they used.  I know it's corrosive for the country in the long run, though. The 2013 shutdown cost the country a lot, in terms of both treasure and prestige.  This one could do the same if it continues for very long, and at this point it's anyone's guess as to how it ends.  It also makes undoing the climate of hyper-polarization harder.