Amused by the News

FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS

We are a group of educated sophisticates whose ethos demands we view with pathos the inanity of the human condition, appealing to logos to offer a critique of said condition.

A little less pompously, we are professionals in various fields who find humor in the way people seek to make sense of life.

Okay, the bottom line is that we laugh at people. And at ourselves.

Care to join us?

Senator Graham, you made me weep

Senator Lindsey Graham’s impassioned speech (or temper tantrum, depending on your view) at the hearings for Judge Kavanaugh changed the focus and momentum of those hearings at a key and crucial point. Whatever his intentions, and guessing them has become a sport in the media, Senator Graham fired up the Republican base and gave Republican Senators, particularly those on the fence from more moderate states, enough wiggle room to vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh and have a plausible explanation for voters back home. For those from conservative states, he made it almost impossible to not vote to confirm, lest those senators face the ire of the Republican base in the next primary.

It was pure political theater and genius, and it made me weep. The weeping was not for Judge Kavanaugh. It was not for Dr. Blasey Ford. It was not for improperly accused men or sexual assault victims whose stories are not believed. All of those are separate issues that merit separate consideration and appropriate weeping.

I wept because I was disappointed in what has become of the senatorial mandate to “advise and consent” on presidential nominations to the Supreme Court.

Any pretense that these nominations and all the tactics used to push them forward or to stop them are not ideologically motivated now qualifies as nonsense, as a review of the last two nominees clearly shows.

Let’s start with the last nominee. The worst thing Neil Gorsuch was accused of, outside of his ideology, was plagiarism. Even though Democrats opposed his ideology, he should have been, and was, confirmed, even with continued Democratic opposition (though I believe three Democrats voted for him). I did not like him as a choice because I think there are a slew of more qualified candidates who would give each case a fair hearing, but there were no grounds on which to oppose him, except for ideology.

Judge Merrick Garland, nominated by President Obama a year before he left office, was a centrist. Just days before he was nominated, Senator Orrin Hatch suggested he would be a good nominee. It didn’t matter. The goals of the Republican far-right could not tolerate a centrist. They wanted a judge that they could count on to side with conservative ideology every time. Some previously reasonable Republicans, afraid of losing influence or their seats in the next primary, joined in the argument put forth that basically said that Judge Garland’s nomination was held up because the election cycle had begun and the voters should have a say. That was pure BS. Presidents are elected for four years. The voters already had their say. Judge Garland was the oldest judge nominated since the 1970s, and his judicial qualifications were impeccable. That didn’t matter. The Republicans have the majority and stoped the nomination. The base demanded it, and it happened.

There is no doubt that the initial Democratic opposition to Judge Kavanaugh was based on ideology. None. Just as Republicans left no doubt that the nomination of Judge Garland was never voted upon because of ideology, the Democrats made that clear in their public statements and initial questioning.

However, in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, serious accusations must be taken seriously. When the American Bar Association, the Dean of Yale Law School, and other legal experts say that a more thorough investigation of the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh is needed, I don’t think that should be passed over for partisan reasons.

I think Senator Graham saw that coming. I think he felt the Republicans were losing the battle of public opinion that day. I think that, though he has often worked on a bipartisan level, he decided it was time to take one for the team. Maybe he just got pissed off, as he has indicated. It doesn’t matter. His message reached the Republican base and they approved. Whatever the motivation, the result is the same. Republican Senators have now been given every reason to vote to confirm Kavanaugh or face the ire of the Republican base.

It is strange political theater, as the more extreme elements of the Republican base have never been kind to Senator Graham. In South Carolina, where I live, much of the base says he is “too liberal” for our state. Laughable. They say he is RINO every time he participates in bipartisan negotiations, because to the hard-core South Carolina Republican base that is the same thing as participating in ritual sacrifice to Satan. They even questioned his masculinity and sexual orientation.

I voted for Senator Graham because I think our state needs a senior Senator representing it in Washington. I don’t agree with Senator Graham’s positions on many issues, but sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. I didn’t vote for President Trump - I just couldn’t do that. In the 80s I was a Regan Republican. I now consider myself a moderate, slightly left of center (but in today’s political climate, particularly in South Carolina, that would make me a flaming liberal). I am not an ideologue. Voting for Senator Graham did not conflict with my realistic approach to politics and governance.

However, I will have a hard time voting for Senator Graham again. I think a lot of moderates who voted for him, Democrats and Republicans, will also. The extreme right Republican base tried their damnedest to defeat Senator Graham in the last primary, and it was moderates from both parties that counteracted their efforts. I doubt the opposition from the Republican right will subside. They are not the forgiving type, and they have already pegged Senator Graham unworthy. 

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next primary. Many won’t remember. I will. Forgiveness will be hard earned.

Does anyone know what a moderate is?

Ok, everyone get out your dictionaries, It's time to reacquaint American politics with a quickly vanishing term: moderate.

No, it doesn't mean wishy-washy. It doesn't mean cowardly. It doesn't men undecided. It is not a synonym of appeasement. Two of the definitions found in Merriam-Webster apply to moderate as used in politics. Moderate:

  • avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits
  • professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme

So why isn't the term used more frequently? Why don't political tests designate more people as moderates? Why is the political spectrum dominated by conservative vs liberal? Why are there so few moderates in Congress?

Well, it's because the moderate viewpoint has been slowly edged out of the current political debate, particularly in the United States. There are three primary reasons:

  1. Much of the base of each party is made up of the most zealous and ideologically-minded people. They are the ones who volunteer, do the legwork, get out voters, and make the party machine run. You can count on these voters to be at the polls in primary elections. That zealotry does not come from casual interest. It comes from the feeling that something of value is at stake. It comes from the fear that losing will cause them and/or their loved ones personal loss or harm. So, naturally to win their support you must represent their views. All of them. There are a number of different groups who are zealous on different issues: the environment, reproductive rights, religious freedom, guns, taxes, social welfare, and so on. This drives candidates towards the extreme pole of their party on ll test position. It exaggerates differences rather than focusing on common ground.
  2. Focusing on extremes makes politics easier. Fear is a great motivator. Portraying your opponent's policies, or your opponent, as dangerous makes is the quickest way to get people on your side. It creates black and white positions that are easy to explain in soundbites, negating the need for details or debate. It gives people one of two choices, and their ideology makes the choice obvious without thinking. That, my friend, is political gold.
  3. Focusing on extremes is good for the media business. Calm, reasoned discourse on complex issues is boring and takes too much time. Audiences don't have the patience for it. Moderation does not get people riled up and coming back for more. Moderation is not a good lead in for TV viewers. Moderation is not good click bait. Dangerous extremist positions are.

That is why you don't hear much about moderates. It is why moderate candidates have a hard time winning elections. It is why moderate viewpoints are not heard in political debates or on the news. It is why the term moderate is discounted by pollsters.

I have taken tests before that are supposed to determine your political position, primarily for my own amusement. Many have proved faulty or biased, more aimed at convincing a person they re libertarian or some other ideology. I recently took the 8 Values test. The publishers admitted that the political ideology match was a work in progress, and asked for feedback to make it better. Good for them. They are going to get it.

Below are the results of my test:

8value.jpg

Now in what universe does someone who is moderate on three out of four issues and only slightly leaning progressive on the fourth automatically become a liberal?

  • Economic Axis; Centrist
  • Diplomatic Axis: Balanced
  • Civil Axis: Moderate
  • Societal Axis: Progressive

If anyone should be labeled as a moderate, it is someone whose most divergent view is about 60/40. 

Lest you think that the test is taking into account the much different views of classic liberalism from the 1800s, it's not. The economic results would disqualify me from being a classic liberal. No, it seems that in the current political atmosphere I'm a liberal, even though I'm a moderate!

What are liberals and conservatives fighting for?

I recently answered this question on Quora:

I don't think some of them really know, especially in the United States.

In principle, each side is expressing their political opinion and supporting candidates to represent them in government.

In reality, there are elements in both political parties that have morphed into hyper-ideological zealots who view their opposition as un-American traitors. The opposition is the enemy and they must be stopped at any cost. Some of this is the result of a hyper-partisan, two-party system and those who prey upon the primal fears of voters. Some is because of revisionist history that espouses a very narrow view of what it means to be a true American and patriot.

If you describe yourself as a moderate today many people don't know what you are talking about or think that you are a coward, noncommittal, or just ill informed.

Political anger is now a sport. Political compromise is now a shameful sign of weakness. Is it any wonder that people cheer obstructionist politics?

no.jpg

From: How social media bubbles are driving political anger

Political anger is also big business. On both sides, commentators and bloggers keep their audience by getting them angry and making them fearful.

anger-as-a-political-emotion-bournemouth-7-638-copy_orig.jpg

From Rational Review

There are entire websites and hundreds of blogs and articles dedicated to the topics “how to piss off a liberal” and “how to piss off a conservative.”

happiness-is-pissing-off-a-liberal-~ss-12479813.jpg
pissoff.jpg

Imgflip

So, you have constant attacks and battles as true believers on each side embrace the anger and view absolute defeat of the enemy as the only way to win, motivated by politicians and pundits who are more concerned with power than governance. Stoked by emotion, these zealots always view politics as a win/lose situation and never entertain the idea of political compromise leading to a win/win situation. The general public often follows, basing their political opinions on that of the loudest zealot who wins their attention by appealing to their fears. In our quick-info, 24 hour news, social-media-dominated world we have not taken time to logically reason through the implications of these political policies. Most just pick one side or the other. Most don’t understand the game that is played or know how to sort through the information to determine real issues and reasonable solutions.

I am not saying that politics should never get you emotional. I am not saying that politics should never get you angry. Political disagreement and debate is healthy. Blinding hyper-partisanship that prevents compromise and progress is not.

Republican Primary 2020: WTF will happen?

So, will any Republican challenge President Trump in the 2020 presidential primary? Do they dare, lest they get dismissed from relevance like a flunky on The Apprentice with a scowling "You're fired!" from the Bully in Chief? Can any moderate Republican capture the vote of the right wing base to win the primary and still appeal to the independent and moderate voters who are sure to decide the 2020 general election?

Right now, the Republican base is dominated by Evangelicals, the Tea Party, the anti-government crowd, and the new breed of Trump loyalists. Fifty percent of Republican primary voters identify as white Evangelicals and fifty three percent of all Republicans are sympathetic to the Tea Party. The anti-government Second-Amendment-solutions crowd feels more at home than ever, and the new breed of Trump loyalists will not go away. Not a good sign for moderates.

The two former primary candidates who lasted the longest were Governor John Kasich and Senator Ted Cruz. In my estimation they are non-starters for 2020. Ted Cruz is certainly no moderate and would have the most appeal to the base, but I think even the base is growing weary of his condescending, oh-too-serious, pseudo-intellectual style. As a general election candidate, he would suck. Not many independents will warm to his particular politics or his, uh, personality.

Governor Kasich gained a following of younger, moderate Republicans but failed to capture much of the far right base. Now known as an upbeat moderate, he has changed his image since his time at Fox News and his pugnacious governor days. Though at first he said he wouldn't run again, he is now open to 2020 and already garnering support. Still, I do not see the current Republican base abandoning Trump and flocking to him.

Senator Marco Rubio, is definitely not a moderate, but has become a favorite of the Party establishment in 2016 (which to me shows just how far right the party has moved in order to please its base). But will the base still trust him? They certainly did not take to him in 2016.

Governor Jeb Bush would have to completely reinvent himself to be accepted by the base and practically anyone else. I don't think there is a formula for that.

Plus there is a yada, yada list of others who might have potential, such as Cory Gardner and Ben Sasse. Under normal circumstances such candidates might challenge an incumbent for the exposure for a future run, but who wants to be thrown into the gladiatorial arena with an opponent like President Trump? If he feels threatened the the President is likely to so savagely maul his opponent that they would be politically incapacitated in the future. As of now, 2020 is a great year for hopeful Republicans to sit on the sidelines.

Which brings me to the most electable Republican candidate I see on the horizon, Ambassador Nikki Haley. As the former Governor of South Carolina she has deep conservative roots, opposing and opting out of Obamacare and standing staunchly on lower taxes, anti-regulation, and pro-business policies. However, I think she is too politically savvy to challenge an incumbent President Trump in 2020. In 2024, as a minority woman (her parents are from India) she would be an ideal Republican candidate, and could even be the first woman president, which would be a political coup d'état for Republicans. Democrats would never live it down.

So, unless President Trump alienates a large portion of the Republican base or decides not to run, at this point no Republican on the horizon would have much of a chance in the 2020 primary election. The true rising stars should sit this one out.

However, if the backlash against President Trump swings the pendulum far enough, the Democrats have a real chance to take back the White House 2020. In that scenario becomes evident, the Republican leadership has three options:

  1. Back Trump and lose, setting their sites on 2024
  2. Challenge Trump and divide the party and possibly lose
  3. Find a candidate so bright and popular that the Republican base will support him or her in the primaries and independent voters will flock to the candidate in the general election.

Yeah, right. If Trump is not viable, there are only two options.

Coming soon: WTF will the Democrats do in 2020?

 

Amused by the News, Copyright 2014-2018, Thomas E. Buczkowski. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright symbol2.png