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, October 31, 2016

A Stark Choice Between Good And Evil, Competent and Incompetent, Moderate/Progressive and Extreme Right

We have a choice in this election. A man who brags about assaulting women, who incites violence against minorities, who doesn’t pay the people he hires, who has reaped many millions by bankrupting companies and violating contracts, who promises to imprison his opponent, who has no relevant experience for the job, very limited understanding of the issues, and an unstable personality and hair trigger. The list is almost endless… Why is Donald Trump still supported by as many people as he is. To quote a famous song title: It Smells Like Team Spirit. He can be a monster but he’s their monster. By the way, Donald Trump will be brought into court on multiple fraud charges in November, and child rape charges in December.

The other candidate, Hillary Clinton is being questioned about her managing of an email account. Why is this an issue? Because the Republicans could find no other issue to attack her on. Ever Since Nixon the Republican strategy has been to attack the Democrats’ strongest candidate and tear them apart. They’ve done that and found nothing to attack but her womanhood and her use of email. Her strengths are obvious and many. Her weaknesses have all been attacked to death and she is still standing, a remarkable testament to her fiber and courage.

The Email issue is not a scandal, it's a witch hunt. SLATE asks why we're still talking about it with all that's at stake.

Trump meanwhile promises a dangerous sea change unlike anything we’ve ever seen.

Donald Trump’s thirst for revenge is almost as great as his thirst for power and money

NBCNews reports on Donald Trump's vengeful world view. Once in power he will use that power to punish and destroy his opponents.

The GOP is now the authoritarian party angry white men have been dreaming about

New York Magazine has this analysis of the extremist authoritarian angry white man's party the GOP has become.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 29, 2016

The Email Flap About Nothing May Give Us Our First Fascist President

The emails in question, a mere handful, are not to or from Clinton.

Reported in the LATimes

"Comey wrote in a letter to Congress that the newly discovered messages could be relevant to questions of whether Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while she was secretary of State. The emails were not to or from Clinton, and contained information that appeared to be more of what agents had already uncovered, the official said, but in an abundance of caution, they felt they needed to further scrutinize them.”

An abundance of caution designed to be quickly misinterpreted by the voting public is not cautious, it is cynical and manipulative, it is a corruption of the electoral process by a Republican in a key position to do so. It ranks with Nixon’s sabotage of the Vietnam peace process in 1968 which won him the presidency.

Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek

This article at SLATE explains why this latest flap is a nothing about nothing.

At this point will it matter what the truth is?

At the end of his term as a Republican appointed to a post of trust in a Democratic administration, Comey appears to have seized this crucial moment to score for his team. Partisan politics has no place in law enforcement. When it’s wrapped in pious phrases about principle and “abundance of caution” it’s especially sickening.

Jane Mayer reports on how Comey decided to violate all FBI and DOJ procedure to win one for the GOP team.

Comey gives every appearance of wanting to steer this election from his post at the FBI.

He seems to be signaling that he’d very much like to be the top policeman in President Trump’s new police state.

In case anyone has forgotten what a real email scandal looks like, there's the case of the 22 million emails the Bush/Cheney White House destroyed while under investigation for firing US Attorneys across the country.

Reported in Newsweek

That was not prosecuted or investigated by the Obama White House because that is against American tradition to prosecute political opponents.

Of course Trump has been promising for months that he will immediately imprison Hillary Clinton if he is elected. It’s what dictators do. And a lot of Americans like the idea.

If Americans are rational and intelligent this will backfire on Comey and the witch hunters in Congress.

Are Americans rational?

I’ve been hearing from Americans who are willing to accept a fascist president because Hillary Clinton is a moderate and not lefty enough.

I’ve been hearing from Americans who are willing to elect a president who denies climate science because Hillary Clinton didn’t lie down in front of the pipeline bulldozers in North Dakota.

I hope we regain our reason.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 08, 2016

What's All This About Hillary?

Hillary has been the object of constant scrutiny for the past 25 years, ever since she and Bill entered the public eye. Most of the scrutiny has been antagonistic. Politicians attract enemies when they try to do things. It's almost as bad as the resentment politicians get from not doing things exactly as each individual voter wanted.

The greatest danger to our nation in recent years is running for president at the top of the Republican ticket. And yet there are still people who feel uncomfortable voting for the only viable alternative. Casting a pure vote is an irrational and dangerous hobby. Voting is not a hobby, it needs to be an act of reason and compromise. Noam Chomsky is not a great fan of Hillary Clinton, but he explains why it's vitally important that reasonable and intelligent voters on the liberal side unite behind her.

This article is from DemocracyNow, which isn't a centrist or neoliberal news organization.

Hillary is being accused of dishonesty. Actually she is the most honest politician in the race this year.

Jill Abramson explains why this is so.

An interesting interview explaining what liberal communitarians stand for. Hillary is one.

It's weird some of the things Hillary is attacked for. Last week she was attacked for putting her hand over her heart...

This article from the Boston Globe is about how any woman running for president must be perfect in every way.

And Americans aren't too keen on people who are too perfect. Actually, if you are a woman and too perfect they really hate you.

This writer hated Hillary, until she sat down and read the emails Hillary is being hounded over.

This article is about the many sexist questions Hillary has had to answer (politely) for the past several decades.

Meanwhile, from the LATimes, we have Trump rallies where small children are applauded for screaming obscenities about Hillary Clinton.

So... what's all this about Benghazi?

What Hillary's values are.

From MEDIUM.

Hillary's convictions about social progress, from The Tablet.

What happened to the feminist excitement that surrounded Hillary in 2008? From SLATE.

Thinking about voting for Jill Stein?

Prominent ethicists are saying voting your conscience on a minor party candidate in an election like this one is actually immoral.

And by the way, in case you are still angry Bernie didn't win, NO the DNC email leaks do not contain evidence the system was rigged against Bernie. I was and am as big a Bernie supporter as anyone, and a Bernie fan of longer standing, and I am expressing that by putting all my support behind Hillary Clinton. As Bernie has done.

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

Thursday, July 07, 2016

One Lawman's Idea of Due Process

The head of the FBI was on television the other day and he accomplished a remarkable thing. He made both political parties angry. He announced the FBI was not recommending the DOJ file criminal charges against Hillary Clinton because there was no evidence of a crime. But he expanded into a long dissertation on what he, as a lawman, saw as Hillary Clinton's misdeeds. Law officers are not supposed to announce that a person is not being prosecuted and then explain why they wish they could go ahead and hang the accused. How, if this were a properly run country, they'd be able to do just that.

The Washington Post published a pretty fair explanation of how FBI Director Comey's performance was unprofessional.

The FBI Director's press conference did not unfold in this way. But the message was a bit like this.

“We are not pressing charges,” the lawman said. “But that doesn’t mean this person isn’t a lowdown, dirty skunk who should be strung up by the nearest lamppost. We found no evidence of wrongdoing, but we’re pretty sure there was plenty. Just by looking at her we figure that she’s guilty as sin. She’s just lucky we didn’t find anything. This time. What I mean to say is she’s probably a serious criminal, or at the very least recklessly incompetent while being simultaneously devilishly cunning in the way she covers up her wrongdoing, which must be why we didn’t find any evidence of any crime. Still, since I still have a microphone, we’re pretty sure there was some sort of crime committed here and we wouldn’t be doing our job if we ignored Congressman Issa’s and Congressman Malfoy’s hunches and admitted there wasn’t. Just because we didn’t find any crime doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, and probably lots of ‘em. I suspect the defendant would probably have gone on a terrific crime spree if thousands of lawmen with reliably conservative hunches hadn’t spent the past 30 years investigating every part of her public and private life."

“Sometimes you got to be a little cute, a little smarter than they are, to catch these folks, especially when it’s a criminal thing other people do all the time without being arrested or “nailed” as we lawmen like to say. What we have to do in these gray areas,” said the lawman, “is to say it’s OK to talk about stuff, and then after certain people have talked about it to then go in and make it Top Secret at this point. Then we got ‘em. We've got them red handed for committing a crime but only because it wasn’t actually a crime when they did it. Again, I am a lawman and know how this works: it doesn’t matter that it happened before it was a crime. For all we know they were plotting to wait until it was criminal and then commit the crime. We kind of know which people are criminals, that’s why we’re professionals. But we have to be quick enough to catch them, which means jumping in before the thing is actually a crime. We did this by having the crime in our pocket, ready made, to fix them up with. For instance, that’s how we catch traitors. Because traitors are especially cunning about this, pretending to be just as patriotic as you or me. Sometimes if we can’t do it this way, it can work just as well to go in and stamp random shit Top Secret. The folks we want to nail are bound to say something or other and then we can tie them in to the stuff that’s been made Top Secret Ex Post Facto.”

Reporter: “Wouldn’t that make a lot of innocent people into criminals?”

“No, sir. Not everybody. Not people we like. Just the ones we got our eyes on. Regular folks don’t need to worry. That is unless they do something we don’t like, in which case they have only themselves to blame. What this method allows us to do is keep a huge log of crimes in our inventory that we can pull off the rack, so to speak, and fix on people if and when the need arises. So those of you out there who feel worried about being caught. Well, that’s good. You should be worried. Everybody should watch their step at all times because we’re always hunting for people to lock up. That’s called doing our job. How do we know someone is guilty? Here’s how you tell. You accuse them of a crime and if they look guilty they definitely are. We could probably lock up two thirds of the U.S. population if we wanted to. Actually we’d like to but we’re undermanned and underfunded, mostly because of Democrats who criminally refuse to raise our budgets the way we ask. Fortunately lawmen and prosecutors are given a great deal of discretion about who to go after and who to let alone. All you got to do is look at which political party they belong to.”

Which is apparently what goes on in some law enforcement circles. It was more egregious during the Bush years, when the Bush White House fired a number of federal prosecutors for not being team players, for being insufficiently zealous in going after Democrats.

Remember: FBI Director Comey is a Republican. He was appointed by a Democratic president to show that law enforcement in this administration would be impartial, would keep out of partisan witch hunting. (And in the grim aftermath of a disastrous Republican eight years there were a lot of witches to be hunted.) Comey's performance rubbishing Clinton must have been done to save his Republican reputation for team play, which, on that side of the aisle, means his highest priority is scoring points for the Republican team. Justice is a low priority. Due process is not a priority at all, more of an inconvenience, an embarrassment.

Various political analysts have done their work and explained why this firestorm about Hillary Clinton's emails is bullshit because the guidelines she followed were the guidelines followed by her Republican predecessors.

Most notably in Newsweek.

And the New York Times.

It's also been pointed out that the Bush administration deleted many thousands of emails. No uproar over that. Deleting emails only became a sin on the inauguration of Barack Obama.

And isn't it ironic: the thousands of Bush White House emails were deleted during their coverup of the political firings of U.S. Attorneys...

Also, there's evidence that the classified labels stamped on Secretary Clinton's cellphone and email utterances were done so in error.

The lawman finished up his candid off-the-record remarks by saying it’s been a very tough eight years. He came close to tears enumerating the difficulties law officers have had to deal with. "Having to follow the letter of the law has caused law officers a great deal of unnecessary stress. They’ve felt inhibited in the exercise of their duties. Having to always be worrying about this guy’s rights and that guy’s rights has taken their eye off the ball and tied their hands. That will change, hopefully, after this year’s election, if we get a president who’s serious about good old fashioned law and order. A guy who'll let the police and the FBI off the leash so they can do their jobs. So they can bust heads the way they like to. So they can shoot first and ask questions later. So they can cook up good persuasive evidence when they really want a conviction. So they can fit people up and jail them and throw away the key, without the Bill of Rights getting in their way. We’d like a president who restores our God-given right to use thumbscrews and water torture and old fashioned beatings when guilty parties lie and tell us they’re innocent. We’d like a president who’ll give us back the death penalty, because the only thing that makes our convictions safe is when a convicted man is dead and gone. Then you’d start seeing a 100% conviction rate like you used to see in the former East Germany and Iraq, and you still see in well-run countries like Russia and Kazakstan and North Korea and Syria.”

The lawman's wish list for Dear Leader of this country has one name on it right now. Donald Trump.

Of course when the lawman assumes the role of judge and prosecutor, this happens.

And America becomes a police state. It already feels like a police state to some people.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 17, 2015

Fact Avoidance as Republican Policy

The people worked up about Planned Parenthood’s policies regarding fetal tissue don’t seem concerned about the fetal tissue that fertility clinics donate to science on a routine basis.

The Washington Post reported on this double standard.

The people worked up about Hillary possibly deleting emails do not get worked up about the 22 million White House emails deleted at the order of Karl Rove...

Pensito Review reported on this double standard.

What makes this difficult for the thinking half of the population is this. These people who are getting selectively worked up are not being intentionally dishonest. They are lying to themselves, you are just in the way.

“…One of the most frustrating things about attempting to engage "a Republican argument" is precisely how often the arguments seem disingenuous. It is not as if rank-and-file activists are actively lying about their motives. It is that they have never questioned them themselves. They have simply heard and regurgitated the talking points so often that they believe their own bullshit and are beyond questioning it. The frustrating thing is not that they are lying to you. It is that in effect (to borrow a Colbert construction), they are lying to themselves at you."

Digby's Blog reported on this interesting and useful gift of self-deception.

Trying to persuade them of the truth is dangerous the way trying to rescue a drowning person will sometimes drown the rescuer. A friend of mine once pointed out that the more you point out the truth to people the less they will believe it.

What are we supposed to do? Wouldn’t you think an advanced society would have mechanisms for revealing and destroying this kind of malicious bullshit? Because it’s all intentional, whether the people know they are being fooled or not.

That corrective mechanism is supposed to be journalism. When Karl Rove explained that the truth about Iraq didn’t really matter because “we create our own reality” it was a journalist who reported that. A lot of us thought the cat was out of the bag, but it wasn’t, because half of America took Mr. Rove at his word about George Bush being able to create new realities. A useful godlike ability, that. Why didn’t that revelation sink the Bush White House?

Journalism Professor Blog discusses the weird reality bending powers of Karl Rove here.

Too often the reporting class just reports, just repeats the bullshit. By reporting the bullshit it becomes news and most people figure news and fact are the same. They have a problem telling bullshit from fact. If it’s reported by a newspaper or a news channel it’s assumed to be fact. Just as Mr. O’Reilly declaring his program is a “no spin zone” means he would never spin a story. Ever. Because he says this with incredible force and conviction makes it even truer. And because Fox viewers are spinning at the same speed as O’Reilly is himself it begins to seem like the spin isn’t spin at all.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,