We Have to Accept the Facts: The Republicans are Hostile to Reality, Reason, and the Foundational Ideals of American Democracy!

Lots has taken place in the last several months, most notably the election and seemingly the end of a national nightmare/embarrassment, though Trump and his minions are still attacking our institutions and our democracy. But, we did avoid greater damage by making him the biggest loser, and by exposing him for what he is--an immature, petulant, malignant, dangerous autocrat, and most indecent person.

Yet, we have a problem. Not only such a person was able to back into the presidency, but there are so many Americans who are so divorced from reality that think he's great, and that he's been cheated out of a second term! This is in the face of reason and evidence. But, this is the product of a long cultivation of the Republican party's base that has turned people into cultists. The party itself, since Ronald Reagan (1980s), has been hostile to science,the environment, education, and reason! There's no wonder why so many Americans openly wear their ignorance and prejudice as badges of honor!

A second attribute of the "GOP" is its disdain of democratic values--what the American experiment in government aspired to be: of, for, by the people! The main core, base and leadership, of the Republican party has turned into a fanatical cult, which holds that those who have opposite views are "un-American" traitors, and that the Democratic party is does not have legitimacy to hold power, even if voters actually prefer it. The Republicans have been challenging the legitimacy of every single Democratic president or presidential candidate starting with Bill Clinton! 

I hope that the Biden-Harris team realizes this, and that they fight fire with fire. They should not have to plead for acceptance; they must assert and exhibit it. I'm tired of hearing "we have to reach across the aisle"! I do want cooperation and exchange of ideas, where debate is based on reason and facts. But, how can you reason with people who have "alternative facts" and think you're not even legitimate to sit at the table with them? 

Here's a great NYT Op-Ed, Dec. 16th, 2020:

By Paul Krugman

Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Republicans spent most of 2020 rejecting science in the face of a runaway pandemic; now they’re rejecting democracy in the face of a clear election loss.

What do these rejections have in common? In each case, one of America’s two major parties simply refused to accept facts it didn’t like.

I’m not sure it’s right to say Republicans “believe” that, say, wearing face masks is useless or that there was widespread voter fraud. Framing the issue as one of belief suggests that some kind of evidence might change party loyalists’ minds.

In reality, what Republicans say they believe flows from what they want to do, whether it’s ignore a deadly disease or stay in power despite the voters’ verdict.

In other words, the point isn’t that the G.O.P. believes untrue things. It is, rather, that the party has become hostile to the very idea that there’s an objective reality that might conflict with its political goals.

Notice, by the way, that I’m not including qualifiers, like saying “some” Republicans. We’re talking about most of the party here. The Texas lawsuit calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the election was both absurd and deeply un-American, but more than 60 percent of Republicans in the House signed a brief supporting it, and only a handful of elected Republicans denounced the suit.

At this point, you aren’t considered a proper Republican unless you hate facts.

But when and how did the G.O.P. get that way? If you think it started with Donald Trump and will end when he leaves the scene (if he ever does), you’re naïve.

Republicans have been heading in this direction for decades. I’m not sure whether we can pinpoint the moment when the party began its descent into malignant madness, but the trajectory that led to this moment probably became irreversible under Ronald Reagan.

Republicans have, of course, turned Reagan into an icon, portraying him as the savior of a desperate, declining nation. Mostly, however, this is just propaganda. You’d never know from the legend that economic growth under Reagan was only slightly faster than it had been under Jimmy Carter, and slower than it would be under Bill Clinton.

And rapidly rising income inequality meant that a disproportionate share of the benefits from economic growth went to a small elite, with only a bit trickling down to most of the population. Poverty, measured properly, was higher in 1989 than it had been a decade earlier.

Anyway, gross domestic product isn’t the same thing as well-being. Other measures suggest that we were already veering off course.

For example, in 1980 life expectancy in America was similar to that in other wealthy nations; but the Reagan years mark the beginning of the great mortality divergence of the United States from the rest of the advanced world. Today, Americans can, on average, expect to live almost four fewer years than their counterparts in comparable countries.

The main point, however, is that under Reagan, irrationality and hatred for facts began to take over the G.O.P.

There has always been a conspiracy-theorizing, science-hating, anti-democratic faction in America. Before Reagan, however, mainstream conservatives and the Republican establishment refused to make alliance with that faction, keeping it on the political fringe.

Reagan, by contrast, brought the crazies inside the tent.

Many people are, I think, aware that Reagan embraced a crank economic doctrine — belief in the magical power of tax cuts. I’m not sure how many remember that the Reagan administration was also remarkably hostile to science.

Reagan’s ability to act on this hostility was limited by Democratic control of the House and the fact that the Senate still contained a number of genuinely moderate Republicans. Still, Reagan and his officials spent years denying the threat from acid rain while insisting that evolution was just a theory and promoting the teaching of creationism in schools.

This rejection of science partly reflected deference to special interests that didn’t want science-based regulation. Even more important, however, was the influence of the religious right, which first became a major political force under Reagan, has become ever more central to the Republican coalition and is now a major driver of the party’s rejection of facts — and democracy.

For rejecting facts comes naturally to people who insist that they’re acting on behalf of God. So does refusing to accept election results that don’t go their way. After all, if liberals are servants of Satan trying to destroy America’s soul, they shouldn’t be allowed to exercise power even if they should happen to win more votes.

Sure enough, a few days ago the televangelist Pat Robertson — who first became politically influential under Reagan — pronounced the Texas lawsuit a “miracle,” an intervention by God that would keep Trump in office.

The point is that the G.O.P. rejection of facts that has been so conspicuous this year wasn’t an aberration. What we’re seeing is the culmination of a degradation that began a long time ago and is almost surely irreversible.

The Relation Between Radicals, Moderates, and Conservatives

 NYT columnist David Brooks explains, in this OpEd,  that the "radicals" don't bring change; it's the moderates that do.

What is it that makes a person "conservative"? I think it's personality, it's the go-to, default, setting for the individual. Brooks has been a conservative, and as he says in his piece, over the years he moved right on certain issues that are more emotional (family, country, etc), and moved left on issues that can be rationally analyzed, like social programs, justice, etc.   For the same reason I don't like religion, I don't like conservatives..... and, I came to this by thinking and learning. The more I did the more ..radical I became in opposing conservatism and religion. They're both go hand in hand, most of the time, and they both want to hold progress back. By progress I mean positive change, not destructive radicalism.

Brooks says, " The people who come in their wake and actually make change are conservative radicals. They believe in many of the radicals’ goals, but know how to work within the democratic framework to achieve them."  He calls "radicals" those who aren't really radicals but are more vocal advocating for a sensible, more just society--which is already in place elsewhere. That's not ..radicalism, unless you compare it to a big mass in the US that is very conservative.  In this sense it's the ..perceived moderates (like Biden) or the "conservative radicals" as Brooks labels them, that facilitate change, because of the big mass who's afraid of "socialism".  But, yes, the envelope has to be pushed by the radicals in order for the moderates to have a chance of implementing reform.

Voting by itself is not enough. Activism and movements are necessary to stir up the status quo and usher new choices. These assaults on the status quo may be seen inconvenient or even threatening to many Americans, but they're important in accelerating change.

Biden's VP Choice Won't Change the Dynamics of the 2020 Election. Any Sensible Adult is Preferrable to the Dangerous, Incompetent, Most-Indecent Current President

 

Biden will announce his VP choice this week, after months of speculation and "advice", which advice is mostly what the "adviser" wants but not based on any evidence that such choice is a "must" or "will bring more votes to the ticket." There's no evidence to suggest that VPs bring any significant boost. They're part of the narrative about the main actor, and even that it's mostly discussed among the elites.

I'm mostly annoyed by those people who proclaim they won't vote for Biden because their preference (Sanders, Warren, or whomever else) didn't get the nomination. Above all, if they are not sufficiently motivated to vote to remove the most dangerous and unqualified president, then they're part of the problem, every problem they want to solve through politics. I question the judgment of such people, especially when they want to talk politics or analyze a situation.

If you're not motivated enough to vote this vile president out of office, along with his kakistocracy regime, then I don't care about your concerns. This is not normal times, and we shouldn't normalize Trump's behavior as another flavor of politics; he's so far out. And, to those who argued, in 2016, the DJT and HRC were more or less the same, you should refrain from making important political decisions. Also, if you don't vote to throw this spoiled child out, then you are NOT a progressive, for you're setting the country to continue sliding backward.

 

Now, I don't think there are many people who will not vote because of a VP choice, as they aren't that many who do vote for a ticket because someone is the VP-designee. I'm talking about significant numbers who can swing a national election, or even a state. I'm not saying it's impossible, but there isn't evidence that this has happened in the last 100 years.

For me, Biden's VP will be the next president, and therefore I want to see a competent person, who has political experience, preferably executive, someone who has won a serious election. My first choice would be Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan, and, secondly, Kamala Harris.  But, the bottom line is that I'd vote for Biden, even if he was in a comma, and his VP choice was any sensible adult.

When Credulity, Uncritical Mind, and Perverted Love are Desirable Qualities

 

It's a sad day when Biden has to put out a statement re-affirming his faith (credulity, uncritical mind, ignorance on display), because some moron (DJT) made a gibberish statement that Biden has " no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt guns, hurt God..."

So, in a village where so many people are infected with a virus of the mind, proclaiming blindness, ignorance, and love for someone whom you fear, is considered an obligatory statement and positive attribute for any politician who wants to lead.... tsk. We're still so backward and primitive.

If Only We Had a Clue that Trump Would be so Bad.... (just kidding). Fortunately, We Have a Choice What to Do

How much more do you need to see in order to reject Trump as unfit to hold public office, that he doesn't have the temperament, maturity, sense of duty, expertise, leadership qualities, and just about everything a president of the US should have? And, how much more do you need to see to realize how unkind, uncaring, obtuse, vindictive, megalomaniac, egotistical, and destructive Trump is?

Even though it's good to see more and more Republicans denounce him, but with a few exceptions--those conservatives or Republicans who opposed him when he was a candidate and after he won the GOP nomination (indeed, very few)--everyone who voted and became an apologists for him shares part of the blame for this awful situation we're in today as a country. These supporters and apologists did not want to see; they were willfully ignorant, because the signs, the facts were there well before the election.

Yes, we need all the votes and voices in opposition to Trump and his cohorts, but we have to examine why this childish malevolent actor became president of the US. It's a systemic problem, especially with the Republican party, which also gave us another worst president, GW Bush in recent years.  Trump's political trajectory was made possible by a party that supported the worst kind of populism, myths, vile leaders, and has an ideology fit for the Dark Ages.

I'd like to think that the majority of Republicans aren't racists, but if someone is a racist, his party is the Republican party. There is a reason why the tea parties appeared after the first black president was elected. There is a reason why many white voters left the Democratic party after Obama was elected. There is a reason why Trump's racist rhetoric has agitated and mobilized individuals and groups who are white supremacists, xenophobes, and bigots of all stripes.

So, we have some systemic problems in our society. From the way we elect the president (Electoral College, not the majority of the voters), to the racial and economic divisions within our country, to the way the law and its instruments of power operates.  Some myths die hard--like the American dream--even if there's proof that many are illusions, or mass delusions.

Understandably many Americans are stressed, and have various degrees of financial insecurity. Our democracy, and most of our institutions--the glue that keeps our society together--have been losing legitimacy. Our social safety net needs to be expanded and strengthened. Perhaps COVID19 exposed the holes and weaknesses of our system and there will demands (and actual policies) to improve on the quality of life for the average American. We were, still are pioneers in many ways, but we've fallen behind other western democracies in terms of quality of life.

Only ideal candidates need apply, or, how some people help bring bad outcomes

The output of a very disturbed mind

Meanwhile on the progressive side of the political spectrum, there are those who are exhibiting Trump-like petulance: my way or the ..highway. These persons fail to understand--as they did in 2016--progress in life doesn't exist in an ideal form.

There are many forces, actors, and ideas that oppose progress. There always have been. These forces also vote, hold public offices, and have financial interests. It's prudent that we realize this, be realistic about it.

We have to examine the practical, and how close it is to our values. Of course I realize that sometimes there are only awful choices. Yet, this is not the case this year, nor it was in 2016, in my opinion.  Remember, that the ideal shouldn't be the enemy of the practical. I will vote for Joe Biden because it'll be good for the country--far better than the alternative.

There are those, like some "Bernie or bust" people, who are contemplating sitting out this election or waste their votes, again, on a minor party. The fact is that the next president will either be a Dem or a Repub. Likewise, our representatives in the Congress (House and Senate) will be Dems or Repubs. No minor parties are represented in Congress; same for state legislatures. This is the system we have, at least for now.

He may not have been my first choice among those who ran, but Joe Biden will probably be one of the most progressive presidents we've ever had. The party and key constituents have moved to further to the left and will influence his policies. He will restore dignity in the presidency. He will be a leader working with other heads of state not praise dictators while trying to emulate them.

He will have competent people in his administration. Science and the scientific approach/methodology will be officially supported and advanced. There will be no crime family at the White House to use the country as an emolument platform. The Attorney General will not be the president's personal lawyer, and there will be progressive judges appointed. I could go on and on, but the point is, don't reject someone because he is not perfect, or he has not attained perfection like you... especially when the choice is between your non-ideal but far better candidate and four more years of Trump along with the withering of our republic/democracy.

It Shouldn't Have Taken COVID19 to Show Presidential Leadership it's about Life and Death Matters

Unless there's a divine plan with lots of death and suffering

Most Americans don't understand the meaning of labels like social democracy, but, surprise-surprise, they like "social" policies. Nowadays in this pandemic they are more ..socialistic! They want the government to protect them from something real that affects their lives. They're asking about health tests, treatment, sick pay leave, etc. 

When the people in charge are guided by incompetence, egoism, delusions, and pettiness, things get worse, people die. Trump may have been able to bullshit through many crisis but this is very real and he can't get out of it by lying or relying on his moronic base. It's not a Dem hoax when the whole world is taking this very seriously. 

Sure, it's political. It's political when we see an incompetent gov hurting us. It's political when the president's incompetence and malice are on full display because he was elected to that position. We all have to take stock in what the political process gave us. Those "damn emails" and strong dislike of HRC--the most qualified candidate--seemed more important than electing a kakistocracy regime--rule by the worst of the worst! And, please don't tell me, that this is a surprise! We all knew who Trump, his cohorts, and the Republican party were...