Monday, September 25, 2017

Misogyny Among White Married Women Helped Elect Trump

Married white women in large numbers went along with their men and rejected Hillary Clinton. The why of this has been hard to determine because it’s difficult to look inside people’s minds. Most of the white women who voted for the Russian backed serial bankrupt assaulter of women and insulter of all races and ethnicities said they did so because they admired him and honestly believed she was a crook and a liar and unpatriotic. (Hillary has often remained seated on the sofa while the national anthem played during the TV broadcast of NFL games.)

My own belief, based on nothing, and roundly rejected by everyone I spoke with, was that women whose husbands or partners loved Trump and hated Hillary simply didn’t want to spend four or eight years being subjected to abuse and ridicule and blame if the first woman president ever did anything wrong. And women are likelier than men to understand that leaders sometimes make mistakes. Maybe some of them or a lot of them trusted the polls and believed Hillary would win anyway, and if bad stuff happened their partners would abuse Hillary but wouldn’t abuse them. Possible? It would be hard to get a woman to admit it.

It was very hard on white male egos to have eight years of embarrassment under a white male Republican president followed by eight non-catastrophic years under a black male president who didn’t blow the budget with a trillion dollar unnecessary and disastrous war and trigger a massive economic crisis. (It was extra humiliating that the black guy rescued the economy from what the white guy fucked up.) But to follow the very competent and cool black guy with a woman was simply too too humiliating for white men. They couldn’t bear it. I am sure their spouses and partners could tell that it would set them off in unpleasant directions for the next four, possibly eight, years. Violence against people of color rose dramatically during the Obama presidency. Would violence against women skyrocket during the first female presidency? And you can bet, just as Republicans swore to block everything Obama tried to accomplish, and the faithful in thousands of white superchristian churches prayed fervently for him to fail, that all the Republicans would do their damnedest to make sure Hillary failed. Because she made every Republican man and lots of Democratic men feel like a failure. Not only had a black man jumped the queue but now a woman had. The natural order of things was being upset. It upset people, especially white people, especially white people with dicks, but also the women who were married to them. So white women joined the Dickish Party. (It didn't hurt Trump's electability that thousands of Russian trolls and bots were pushing this same misogyny and race-worry at white voters in swing states.)

This new study doesn’t make this point but it does explain the pressure, both economic and political, that shaped the Trump vote among white married women. Deference is an old-fashioned idea some women still subscribe to. Maybe it's out of self-defense. Self interest is pretty human; people vote their pocket book. This study combines the two because it says deference to the man’s income shaped the vote of married white women; they voted against women’s economic interests to support their subservience to the man’s economic interests.

The study is reported on in the Guardian.

It’s worth looking at the unfairness at the root of all this. There is a double standard. Women are required to be perfect and at the same time deferential to their male counterparts even if those males are far less perfect than the women. Because failing to be deferential makes the males feel diminished. Some probably feel a greater need for male enhancement products if they are compared unfavorably with a woman, and that male dysfunction is contagious: when one man experiences it all men start to go flaccid and angry. Women may love their men in spite of their faults but men tend to feel uncomfortable around women who outperform them. A ultra competent woman is less attractive than a man who fucks up.

But her emails!

Last fall Newsweek published a story about how many emails George W Bush and Dick Cheney managed to lose to avoid having their Iraq War motives scrutinized. W lost 22 million emails, but nobody minded.

"According to the Boston social media analytics firm Crimson Hexagon, which ran a study for Newsweek, there have been 560,397 articles mentioning Clinton’s emails between March 2015 and September 1, 2016.”

W and his boss Cheney spent trillions on an unnecessary war based on phony reasoning and what we would today call “fake news” and they covered up their machinations by “losing” 22 million emails. That’s million with an M, almost a thousand times more emails than Hillary allegedly lost. (Full disclosure: I delete emails every month, which I suppose makes me a suspicious character.)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 07, 2016

Have We No Sense of Decency At Long Last?

“One cannot really love Jesus and wish to follow him and also vote for a person who so clearly embodies the opposite of everything Christ taught, died for and demands of us.”

The Christian view expressed in the Dallas Morning News

"Listen: it is not politics as usual when one camp continually threatens the other with imprisonment and death, screaming female-specific vulgarities, painting her face on targets, hoisting her effigy being hanged. No candidate in the history of the US, Barack Obama included, has been subjected to so much jubilant violation.
I suffer these humiliations as my own and can’t understand why voters stand by with arms crossed, assessing her stamina and valour while Clinton is taking it on the chin. How have we not exploded into a new civil rights movement with women and men together rushing on to the streets to demand that female humanity matters? Where is our primal scream against being bullied, dismissed, reviled for the misdeeds of others and witch-hunted for the crime of being competent while female?"

In the Guardian, Barbara Kingsolver invites us to repudiate Trump and his vile bullying.

The Republicans have wrapped themselves in Trumpism because, at the end of 35 years, Reaganomics itself is being revealed as a long con. Probably the most successful and enduring scam in our history.

The Long Con from Reagan to Trump, in the Guardian.

The Hillary hate is a dangerous poison fabricated out of fringe ideas and carefully cultivated insecurities. Ever noticed how Trump takes the things he’s accused of and thrown them back on his opponents? The irony is deeper than that. The cause of the insecurities that fuel the right wing anger can be found in their own movement. It was Reaganomics that destroyed working incomes and working class prosperity. Reagan plus Gingrich plus W and Cheney equals Trump. The long long con game has come home to roost and they have learned to worship it.

CNN sorts through the paranoid fringe of Hillary haters.

Two wrongly debunked ideas have re-emerged and may yet prove themselves right.

1. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary cited decades ago, which was laughed at then, is so visibly and tangibly real today it’s amazing no journalists have admitted it’s real and reported on it. Maybe because they hesitate to prove her right. (That would be “bias”.) Pulitzers are won by telling the truth people have avoided hearing.

2. The Silent Majority. Nixon’s favorite hatchet man, Pat Buchanan, slipped the phrase to him in 1969 and both Nixon and Agnew used it to powerful effect. But Creedence also invoked it in their song Effigy, released the day before Nixon used in his November 1969 speech, so maybe it’s their line. But the phrase goes further back than Nixon and the sixties. The point I’m getting at is a belief that there are a lot more Americans who are lining up against Trumpism than we are hearing about in the polls. A silent majority. The polls have seesawed as news came out favoring one or the other because news that benefits one side or the other encourages people to voice that opinion to poll takers. I’m convinced most Americans are simply keeping their opinions to themselves because the Republicans have poisoned the public conversation where such opinions are voiced. A silent majority.

I get back to what Joseph Welch said to Senator Joe McCarthy, which finally took the wind out of the malign gasbag: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

This should be addressed at the entire Republican Party, not just to Donald Trump and his surrogates.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 05, 2016

The Case For And Against Hillary

LeBron James tells why he’s voting Hillary. (Let’s hope it tips Ohio.)

Via Business Insider

The Nation (America’s progressive magazine) states the strong progressive case for Hillary Clinton

And why failing to vote for her risks electing Trump. (The presidency cannot be ordered a la carte.)

Where did this Hillary hatred come from? It’s a thirty year-old industry. (I guess if she’s elected those are jobs that won’t be going away.)

The ugly history of hating the Clintons via the Daily Beast.

A former Hillary hater says she changed her mind after reading Hillary’s emails. There was no scandal there.

Via Blue Nation Review

Snopes, the leading debunker of lies and rumors, debunks one that the Right is throwing around about the Clinton Foundation.

One of the guys whose resumé was built upon his career as an anti-Hillary witch hunter in the 90s now says it would be dangerous NOT to vote for her.

Via Bloomberg.

The Politifact measure of truth gives Hillary a huge edge in honesty. Most of what Trump has said this year is untrue.

Columbia Journalism Review discusses the apparatus that sold us the birther lie

The LATimes endorsement of Hillary is worth reading. Most newspapers have endorsed her. Most have also condemned Trump as a danger to this country.

In a year when millions are hoping to elect a deranged con man to the White House, you can understand why this writer might feel a bit angry.

Via GQ

A quick summary of the VP debate via Twitter. Some viewers thought Tim Kaine was impolite to point out Trump’s lies. They thought Pence was very polite when he lied to cover them up.

The summary via Twitter.

The case against Hillary? I guess if you are determined to trade our democracy for a fascist state run by con men and brownshirts nothing is going to change your mind. Trump and Pence are the goons you want.






Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Trump's Big Lie––The Birther Myth

Trump began to work the Big Lie about the first black President of the United States in 2011 as the Republican field was assembling to run against the Democratic incumbent. Trump began the libel casually but cagily with “I wonder” and “maybe.” “I’m starting to think he wasn’t born here."

Which is the way FoxNews newsreaders and talking heads slide into their various falsehoods, with “People are saying.” It’s the way cons work. This vagueness smudges authorship but sounds authentic, like you’re not the only one saying this. It’s better than an anonymous source because it’s real people. Or so we’re meant to think. The liars aren’t owning the lie but fabricating some kind of magic consensus on the street where real people live and discuss what is true and right. For five years Trump has ridden the cred he gained with the alt right and the racists and the right wingers, cred based on this lie which he told over and over in various ways from various cagey angles.

Then yesterday he invited the networks to a Major Announcement on this topic.

Trump said he would renounce his birtherism on national TV. The networks, obedient as they’ve been to Trump whenever he whistles, were there, cameras rolling.

First they carried a rambling half hour ad lib Trump promo for his new Washington DC hotel. They stayed with him live because Trump had promised them this Big Something. Trump had never admitted error before and now he was promising to do it on national TV. The long Trump Hotel promo seemed weird though. Was this politics? Was this news?

At some point during a carnival like the Trump campaign when things get boring people get restless and distracted. They begin to notice the bad smell. Maybe it’s the circus animals’ manure or maybe it’s the sweat of the con man. I believe everyone began to smell it during Trump’s Big Broadcast. Even the journalists serving in attendance. (Trump has outfitted them with special brooms and dustpans for cleaning up the manure he spreads, and they are very helpful.)

People seemed puzzled and suspicious finally at the part where he couldn’t really drop the birther lie after all. He couldn’t apologize or admit he’d been wrong all along. Instead he smeared it on somebody new. He said somebody else had told it to him, meaning he’d been tricked too. (Trump the Victim!) He’d smeared our first black president for five years. His sniping attacks helped undermine and delegitimize Obamas presidency among his (Trump’s) white fan base, which is not small, and all across the FoxNews and talk radio universe, a crowd which was always hungry for ways to smear and undermine President Obama. Now Trump wanted to transfer that smear onto Hillary Clinton, his opponent.

So Trump said that it was Hillary who’d been the first one to question Obama’s birth in this country. He said the birther issue was invented by Hillary. (Which sounds sort of like how he said President Obama had invented ISIS.)

And, suddenly, after long months of playing along, the American news media rediscovered their integrity.

News correspondents covering Trump’s Big Tell began calling Trump's new smearing of Hillary Clinton a lie. They stated it carefully, but clearly, much the way I heard in on NPR’s All Things Considered in their news summary: “Trump falsely stated that Hillary Clinton was the first to question Obama’s birth in this country."
And there seemed to be a consensus, not magical like FoxNews’s “some people are saying” but clear and distinct reporting of fact. Someone posted this reprise of the coverage and the push back. American broadcast journalists had gotten tired of playing along with so much dishonesty.

****
CNN -- John Berman: "Hillary Clinton and her campaign never, ever pushed the birther issue.”

... Kate Bolduan: "Donald Trump, from 2011, he made this his signature issue. No one has gone as far as Donald Trump on the birther issue.”

... John King: "[Trump] did the country a great disservice by becoming the chief cheerleader for a fraud, a birther movement trying to delegitimize the sitting United States President.”

... Jake Tapper: "Those are two factually false statements.... [Hillary Clinton] and her campaign never started the birther issue. ... Donald Trump did not end the birther issue."

FOX -- Jenna Lee (to Trump surrogate Boris Epshteyn, who claimed the birther issue "was born out of the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign"): "Ok, but it wasn't. It wasn't. No, it wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. This is not true. It's not true. It's not true. It's not true. It's not true."

NYT -- Headline 1: "Unwinding a Lie: Trump's Long Embrace of Birtherism" ... Headline 2: "Trump Drops Claim but Falsely Accuses Clinton of Starting It" ... Headline 3: "Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic"

WaPo -- Breaking News Alert: "Trump admits Obama was born in U.S. but falsely blames Hillary Clinton for starting rumors"

CNN and MSNBC more than matched Trump's 20 minutes with hours of airtime for his critics, including CNN's live interview with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid; a live broadcast of the Congressional Black Caucus press conference; and a live broadcast of First Lady Michelle Obama's speech. All of them hammered Trump.

CNN and MSNBC spent the majority of the day revisiting Trump's history of fueling the birther conspiracy theory and drawing attention to his false claims.

****

At the New York Times the news analysis called out the birther story one more time for the lie it was. They explained in a more detailed way how carefully Trump had played it out and exploited the attention it gained him, and leveraged the harm it did to the president. But the Times analyst did not address Trump’s deliberate transfer of his libel directing at his opponent. That came in the broadcast coverage.

Here’s hoping the label of LIAR is pinned to Trump’s tail more thoroughly in the next few days, and the careful long form reporting makes it harder for him to dispute it. And maybe enough of the American public will stop laughing, will stop enjoying, the Trump carnival.

This wasn’t the first time Trump had blamed Hillary for starting the birther hoax. He did that almost exactly a year ago on Sep. 22, 2015.

Politifact quickly debunked this. Hillary never had anything to do with the birther myth. Politifact also fleshed out the life history of the rumor itself. Some accounts said that the first birther rumor may have been started by a Clinton supporter (not anyone associated with the campaign) who was angry that Obama was likely to be the nominee. This is the sort of thing no responsible campaign likes. And Hillary had quickly repudiated the notion. John McCain did his best to dissuade one of his own supporters who said Obama was a Muslim during a town meeting in 2008. Hillary didn’t begin the birther myth and immediately squashed it when she heard about it. But Trump liked it. It glittered. He didn’t think it up, even though he does concoct most of his free-form, subconscious ranting. (Who could script that stuff?) Trump does overhear stuff and repurpose it. If he found a handgun on the sidewalk he’d begin looking for someone to shoot.

Even if Trump didn’t invent the birther lie, he filed the trademark on it and made it his own property. Did he know it was a lie? Did he really believe it? Does Trump really believe anything? For more than a few minutes, probably not. His mind wanders, the way his talk wanders. An hour or a day after he says things he denies he’s said them. I suspect the dishonesty of it pleased him. The truth of what he says doesn’t matter to him; it’s the harm he can do by saying these things that matters.

And the attention it gains him. He seems unable to care when a false statement has harmed him or discredited him, all he cares about is the attention and the satisfaction that attention gives him. It’s like the immediate pleasure sought by people who commit mass shootings; they do it for the attention more than any hatred of the people they’ve killed. It’s the pleasure of doing harm, the pleasure of destroying someone else. Trump is a fast firing machine, fully automatic, with an endless supply of bullets fed to him from his subconscious. The bullets are real enough. They’re not phonies. The damage is real too. True or false doesn’t matter, it’s the destruction he likes.

It will be interesting to see whether a firmer consensus forms around Trump’s tendency to lie. And his tendency to lie Big. To promote the Big Lie, which is something we’ve not seen much of in American politics. The Big Lie being a lie that is so outrageous that it gains its own momentum. The thing about the Big Lie is the irresistible urge people feel to spread it and become part of it. A large part of Trump’s mob (I think we can call it a mob) is made up of people who have joined the Big Lie. It’s like a religion. Once you are part of it you belong to it. Hitler knew this. He coined the term The Big Lie in his book Mein Kampf.

Trump is a more prolific liar. A gymnast among liars. A mass producer of falsehoods. A shape shifter who lies one way on Tuesday and the opposite way on Wednesday, then on Thursday denies he said either lie at all. Is this the “telling it like it is” his fans admire?

TruthOut places Trump's lying in the context of other authoritarian Big Lie strategies.

New York Magazine details the lineage of the birther myth and Trump's ownership of it.

That didn’t end Trump’s tomfoolery today.

After a few days of pretending to be within the spectrum of sane people, Trump darted back to a microphone and suggested disarming Hillary Clinton’s Secret Service detail and let her be gunned down.

Reported at VOX.

This isn’t the first time he’s fantasized about the death of Hillary Clinton.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 16, 2016

The Ugly Mob Hunting Hillary

From last year, a veteran Clinton reporter reveals the way journalists cover the Clintons. The Hillary coverage has turned out exactly this way.

From the Washington Post: Trump's corruption is mind-boggling and the Clinton Foundation gets the highest ratings from charity watchdogs. Why is Hillary the focus? Why is Trump always let off the hook?

From The Observer, Hillary is dogged, fearless, untiring and hard-working for things we need to be done. Why does the media go so negative about her? With women, is great not good enough?

A commentator's observations about the Clinton Foundation witch hunt.

Plenty of witchcraft going on at the Trump Foundation but never mind. Ignore that. Go after the woman.

(The pending investigations of the Trump Foundation, reported at Fortune magazine.)

Trump is provably, palpably dangerous, irresponsible, corrupt, dishonest, irrational, etc.

The list is long. Too long to report fully, so the news media doesn’t report it.

They’re too busy looking for small things about Hillary that they can blow up into big things. (The anti-Hillary bias this past year has been extreme.) Ordinary unobjectionable qualities they can spin into flaws.

Better yet, invent things, distort things. Imply things that aren’t there. Spread rumor. Cause alarm. Throw out weird speculations and spin stories from that. Throw mud and see what sticks. Clickbait.

(I remember this kind of girl-hating/woman-hating mentality from junior high. You never saw the same kind of pack mentality targeting a boy––unless he was suspected of being gay.)

Make America angry and afraid and they’ll buy newspapers and watch cable news every hour for the next five weeks.

“There’s no smoke without fire” says the reporter with the lit match.

If you try to point out the many dangerous and evil things about Trump they shrug.

Reporters covering Trump gently and helpfully now are imagining the Pulitzers they’ll win covering his White House.

For decades Republicans have worked to make government as dysfunctional as possible. Has the news media joined them? Do they hate the idea of functioning government that does things people want and enacts policies people need? Is it too boring for them?

Is this why the drumbeat of the political press is sounding "Trump! Trump! Trump!”?

God save us from these woman haters, these haters of calm competence. They want bonfires and mob violence. They wish they were Edward R. Murrow broadcasting from London as the bombs fall. But where does that leave the rest of us? The news media set fire to our house because they want something exciting to cover.

Labels: , , , ,