After eight years of rule by Democrats, a far-right Republican touting a return to GOP principles was elected. Not just that, but Republicans took control of both houses of government to make a one-party government that could not be stopped by Democrats — only by public pressure. After a series of increasingly right-wing measures, the Republicans began to split over budgetary issues. Soon, it was viewed that the moderates were the sticks in the mud blocking real change. At the midterms, moderates were ousted in favor of those who would hew closer to the Republican in charge's policies. The Republican in charge called for tax reform of the grandest scale. It was trickle-down economics in action: cut taxes for corporations and small businesses drastically, as well as simplifying the tax code. It would mean tax cuts, and who doesn't want tax cuts? Promises were routinely made that if only taxes were lower, the economy would finally be free to boom again. The cries of both moderate Republicans and Democrats that this would prompt massive cuts and not produce results fell on deaf ears. You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't want to see taxes be cut! said those in the Republican in charge's camp.
But the economy never did boom. The effects of those tax cuts was devastating. As opponents said repeatedly warned, the tax cuts caused devastating effects on the budget. There are only two ways to fill holes in the budget: increase revenues (higher taxes) or cuts to services. At first, the Republican said the economic woes were temporary and cut services. He cut from transportation and education. (Around this time, the Republican in charge won a narrow re-election campaign). He cut from them again the next year. He made "changes" to the disability services, but they really amounted to cuts. The same was true for state retirees. He cut services to those who were reliant on services — those who could absorb the cuts the least.
Eventually, he ran out of places to cut. As the economy continued to flail and services were slashed, the voters grew wary of the Republican in charge. The continued to plead for more patience by the public — No, this year it'll work out! All the while, he refused to admit the tax cuts had failed. He vetoed attempts to restore many of the tax cuts that had forced such drastic spending and service cuts. He stood in the face of the mounting failure of his policy and refused to admit defeat. Soon enough, the voters chose for him. They picked moderates and Democrats who would be willing to overturn the tax cuts. They grew tired of the Republican in charge's schtick to the point that he became terribly unpopular, even in areas inclined to trust him. Before the end of his tenure, he declared victory by leaving his job for another. It was not his problem any longer.
The previous three paragraphs are about Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. I was an editor for the first two paragraphs and watched from afar for the third. I interviewed him in person and listened to his campaign speeches. I covered elections and watched the whole thing go down.
I feel like I'm watching the same thing happen. If you replace "The Republican in charge" in the first paragraph with Trump, that's kind of where we're at today. Trump has touted a tax plan still being worked out by the GOP that is an echo of Brownback's tax plan. Maybe lower and middle class families get out a little bit ahead, but those who are incredibly wealthy make out like bandits according to the details available to us. And none of the tax cuts are offset by cuts anywhere else, meaning deficits are likely. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this won't all play out the same. But so far it is, and I just want to get off the train.
Anthem Origins and False Patriotism
I'm really trying to stay out of the NFL/Trump/NBA/"Why won't this story just go away already?" issue. That's because it's like World War I: Everyone's in their trenches and hoping Americans will break the stalemate so we can get on with our lives (topical similes — that's what you came for!). We've been talking ourselves in circles on this issue for more than a year now, but President Trump came in and picked at the scab, re-opening the wound and arguably making it worse.
I made my stance clear last year, and nothing's changed since then. But what I've been surprised about is discovering the origins of the national anthem in football and remembering the origins of Colin Kaepernick's decision to kneel.
Before 2009, players during the day games (noon and 3-ish on Sundays here in Central time) would come out and stand before the anthem. For the primetime games (Sunday and Monday night football), the players came out after the anthem for TV reasons. At any rate, the anthem was rarely a part of telecasts. In 2009, the NFL decided to make it standard: Players are on the field before the anthem. Players back in the 1980s remember being out for the anthem, but it wasn't necessarily standardized until 2009.
This is not to be confused with a different issue during the same time period: paid patriotism by the Department of Defense. In a report filed in 2015 by two Arizona GOP senators — McCain and Flake — the Department of Defense paid the NFL and other leagues millions of dollars for "patriotic tributes" in roughly the same era. It's hard to be specific given that the money was mixed in with other marketing plans. So instead of saying "DOD spent $6.6 million on paid patriotism to the NFL," it's more accurate to say "DOD spent $6.6 million on marketing with the NFL in a 4-year time period, which included displays of paid patriotism." What constitutes paid patriotism? On-field color guard, enlistment/re-enlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, first pitches, welcome home promotions, recognizing Wounded Warriors, etc. The National Guard even paid for military appreciation night. Once this was revealed, the NFL returned nearly $725,000. But this doesn't mean players were paid to be on the field for the anthem — they weren't. But the size of those anthem presentations may have been paid by the federal government.
Alright, now I want to touch on the origins of Colin Kaepernick's sitting/kneeling. He sat on the bench during the anthem for two weeks before anyone noticed. If he wanted to get attention — he was interviewed by the media after each game — he could have brought it up. But he didn't. It was only the third week that someone in the media noticed and asked him about it. He explained why he did it, but the criticism he got was not falling on deaf ears. A Green Beret football player, Nate Boyer, wrote an open letter to Kaepernick, which started a dialogue between the two. They reached a middle ground of how to be respectful to the flag while still protesting. Boyer — remember, a Green Beret/veteran — told him that kneeling is still respectful since soldiers do it at fallen soldiers' graves and while on patrol. Boyer also stood next to Kaepernick at the next home game as Kaepernick knelt.
My point is not to argue that what Kaepernick and others did is the right thing to do. I don't think I'll convince anyone that hasn't already made up their mind. But what I'm trying to say is that Kaepernick did listen to criticism and modified his original protest. He sought out someone with a different point of view and changed his tactics because of that. Isn't that the goal of argument, to make someone change? But it seems the vitriol isn't that he changed, it's that he didn't change enough.
Summary Judgments
Repeat to yourself: This isn't a dystopian future. This isn't a dystopian future. This isn't a dystopian future... Apparently it's a strange reality. • • • Good investigation work by Deadspin's Patrick Redford on an inspiring paraplegic hiker who "hiked" the Pacific Coast Trail. Spoiler: She probably didn't. • • • For the record: Just because you want to make something better doesn't mean you don't appreciate it. I like cookie dough, but suggesting we put oatmeal in it doesn't mean I hate cookie dough. In fact, because I love it enough to want it to be the best it can be. Apply this to whatever you think I'm talking about. • • • I ran my last 4-miler on Saturday. It didn't go as great as I'd hoped because it was pretty hot that day. So of the four 4-mile runs I did this year, it went: snow, the sickest I've been all year, full monsoon, and unseasonably hot. Yuk. My only other race of the year is a 5K on Thanksgiving. • • • We went to a class recently to learn how to better discipline our kids. It was pretty helpful. We've made a lot of changes already and incorporated many lessons. The hardest one was "Kids are a mirror of you." Oh, wait... you mean Evie got in trouble for yelling at people in school because I have yelled at her when she misbehaves? WOOF. This parenting thing is going to take WORK. So in the (two days? Really?) time since then, I haven't yelled at them. I can't keep this up. I'm going to blow like a powder keg. I give it until Sunday night before I turn into The Hulk.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Mueller-ing it Over
We need to start breaking the Mueller investigation into parts, because there's not just one case that they're investigating. "Mueller" is used as shorthand for "anything shady and related to Russia," but there are multiple angles and multiple targets. To my eye, there are five major areas of investigation. So here's a list of separate investigations all wrapped within the Mueller umbrella:
1) Paul Manafort. He seems in the most hot water from the subpoenas, warrants, etc. He's got ties to Russian oligarchs, helped a pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine, he was in the meeting with Trump Jr. and the Russian contacts, ... the list goes on. In short, as the investigation continues to circle around people like buzzards, Manafort's the sickliest deer in the forest.
2) Jared Kushner. Possible business ties to Russia, his company may have some visa issues, met with Sergey Kislyak, clumsily tried to create a secret back channel for Russia-Trump transition team communication, was in that Trump Jr. meeting with Russians, etc. He also was the mind behind a data company that micro-targeted voters (more on this down below). The President can't exactly dismiss his son-in-law or pretend they aren't close. Kushner certainly seems to be a target of investigation, even if it's not as intense as Manafort.
3) Trump Jr. certainly seemed open to getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian source before taking the meeting that dominated coverage this summer. Even if nothing came of it, it shows a desire to pursue possible collusion. Whether that met the legal definition of a crime is up to Mueller's staff.
4) Russian collusion. This was the original point of the investigation. We know Russian sources created false information. We know Russians used Facebook and backed Donald Trump while disparaging Hillary Clinton. We know that the Russians used Facebook ads to target voters, but what we don't know is how they knew who to target. Some are making the connection to Kushner's data company, but I haven't seen anything firm on that. Did the Russians communicate/share information directly with anyone associated with the Trump campaign, and how high up did it go? That seems to be the focus behind some of the newest revelations, involving Facebook (traditionally pretty tight with information) providing documents in response to a subpoena.
5) Obstruction of Justice. Mueller's team is reportedly requesting meetings with... let's save space and say every communication staffer and top staff member in the White House. In particular, that includes those in office — like Sean Spicer — when the first press release about Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians was crafted aboard Air Force One.
6) Others? The other items have gotten most of the attention, because they're the highest-level and closest to the president. We don't know much about Mueller's investigation and what exactly is the "get" here. While the above five issues are on the hot plate, there have been rumors of Russian business ties for President Trump. I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just going to say that I don't believe there's only five areas of focus — just that there are five major areas of focus known to the public.
One thing to remember is that these investigations take time. Mueller's team has been fairly tight-lipped, and we haven't seen much of their work. I doubt we will — they don't want to tip their hand if there is a criminal investigation (though they may have told Manafort to expect an indictment of some sort). Don't expect a flood of information. Instead, we'll get this slow drip-drip of "someone new was interviewed" or "documents were subpoenaed." It buys the GOP time to imagine that their President and his team are not under investigation/try to hold on in the midterms, while the Democrats get time to attack the GOP/fundraise for the midterms against an unpopular president under investigation. A cynical version of me would expect the Mueller investigation to wrap up in December 2018, one month after the midterms.
A Meme That Needs To Die
I've seen two Facebook friends like or link a meme about Trump's electoral wins v. Clinton's. It goes something like this: "There are 3,141 counties in the U.S. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them, Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes..." It goes on to say that, because Clinton won the five boroughs of New York City by about a 2 million vote margin, that the 319 square miles that make up New York City should not decide the president for the rest of the country. Needless to say, smart friends of mine have fallen for this meme, which irritates me.
1) This is false. It's just not true. Clinton won 30 counties in Georgia. She won 27 in Georgia. There's 57 counties right there, and I haven't even gotten to a state that she won. She won California; She won Massachusetts; she won Illinois. She won counties in Florida and Missouri and Kansas and New Mexico and Mississippi. She won a county in North Dakota and West Virginia and Utah. I don't know the actual number, but it's at least 200 instead of 57. FURTHERMORE, the 2 million vote margin is wrong. That was the margin early on election night, but it was far closer to 3 million votes than 2 million. The actual number is just shy of 2.9 million votes.
2) We don't decide anything based on how many counties voted for something. It's a dumb metric. Why? Because the number of counties is completely arbitrary. Kansas has 105 counties. Arizona has 15. But Arizona has nearly 7 million people. Kansas has nearly 3 million people. Missouri has 114 counties! California only has 58 counties. But California has more than six times the number of people that live in Missouri. Counties don't matter in any electoral regard.
3) Let's talk about the vote margin for a second. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes, but to assign that "victory" margin to one particular location is disingenuous. Even if you follow the logic of New York = size of Clinton's popular vote margin, that still only brings you back to even. It means that even if you take out the largest city in the country, the popular vote would have been close to tied. Clinton was just as popular as Trump among people even if you took out New York City.
4) This is the most important point I can make: It's about people/votes and not land. I don't care how many acres are covered by "red counties" and "blue counties." The whole point of the electoral college and our country's voting basis is one-person-one-vote. It means that it doesn't matter how much land you own, you get the same vote as someone in a studio apartment. The electoral college is divided so that states with great population but small size (like Massachusetts) gets a larger influence on the vote than a state with great size but tiny population (like Alaska). I don't care how big a state is or how big the territory covered by a Trump victory. It's about people. If you say that people are less important than square miles, you're saying that land ownership should decide elections. That's just wrong.
Summary Judgments
This story is incredibly sad. It doesn't look good for the cops involved and makes all cops look bad. Was shooting the man necessary? • • • This is the type of long, well-reasoned article I like. It's supposed to be a mea culpa about the GOP embracing personalities rather than policies, but it does make some solid points about the left as well. I don't agree with it entirely — but I feel it's the type of story I can disagree with respectfully and have an intellectual debate about, rather than just be a basis for partisan bickering. • • • I personally don't think Graham-Cassidy is happening. It's got 10 days to happen, and I can't imagine senators who objected to better bills suddenly being OK with this one just because they're desperate. But if you want a short, 4-minute video from someone who knows what they're talking about, look here. • • • Thanks to some ill-timed thunderstorms and more, I didn't get a lot of practice runs in during the last two weeks. In fact, I've only run twice since the 10K. I've got a 4-miler this weekend at the Kansas City Zoo. That should be fine — I've run 4 miles plenty before! But I've also been to the zoo a ton, and looking at the course, it goes over the parts of the zoo that are interminable when you're walking with kids. Suddenly, I'm feeling DAUNTED — the opposite of undaunted. • • • Usually, I end this with a good kid story. But instead, I have a wife story. Alyson needed help for something related to class. Me: "I can help you with that. When is it due?" Alyson: "..." Me: "If you say Friday, I'll --" Alyson: "Friday." /facepalm
1) Paul Manafort. He seems in the most hot water from the subpoenas, warrants, etc. He's got ties to Russian oligarchs, helped a pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine, he was in the meeting with Trump Jr. and the Russian contacts, ... the list goes on. In short, as the investigation continues to circle around people like buzzards, Manafort's the sickliest deer in the forest.
2) Jared Kushner. Possible business ties to Russia, his company may have some visa issues, met with Sergey Kislyak, clumsily tried to create a secret back channel for Russia-Trump transition team communication, was in that Trump Jr. meeting with Russians, etc. He also was the mind behind a data company that micro-targeted voters (more on this down below). The President can't exactly dismiss his son-in-law or pretend they aren't close. Kushner certainly seems to be a target of investigation, even if it's not as intense as Manafort.
3) Trump Jr. certainly seemed open to getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian source before taking the meeting that dominated coverage this summer. Even if nothing came of it, it shows a desire to pursue possible collusion. Whether that met the legal definition of a crime is up to Mueller's staff.
4) Russian collusion. This was the original point of the investigation. We know Russian sources created false information. We know Russians used Facebook and backed Donald Trump while disparaging Hillary Clinton. We know that the Russians used Facebook ads to target voters, but what we don't know is how they knew who to target. Some are making the connection to Kushner's data company, but I haven't seen anything firm on that. Did the Russians communicate/share information directly with anyone associated with the Trump campaign, and how high up did it go? That seems to be the focus behind some of the newest revelations, involving Facebook (traditionally pretty tight with information) providing documents in response to a subpoena.
5) Obstruction of Justice. Mueller's team is reportedly requesting meetings with... let's save space and say every communication staffer and top staff member in the White House. In particular, that includes those in office — like Sean Spicer — when the first press release about Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians was crafted aboard Air Force One.
6) Others? The other items have gotten most of the attention, because they're the highest-level and closest to the president. We don't know much about Mueller's investigation and what exactly is the "get" here. While the above five issues are on the hot plate, there have been rumors of Russian business ties for President Trump. I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just going to say that I don't believe there's only five areas of focus — just that there are five major areas of focus known to the public.
One thing to remember is that these investigations take time. Mueller's team has been fairly tight-lipped, and we haven't seen much of their work. I doubt we will — they don't want to tip their hand if there is a criminal investigation (though they may have told Manafort to expect an indictment of some sort). Don't expect a flood of information. Instead, we'll get this slow drip-drip of "someone new was interviewed" or "documents were subpoenaed." It buys the GOP time to imagine that their President and his team are not under investigation/try to hold on in the midterms, while the Democrats get time to attack the GOP/fundraise for the midterms against an unpopular president under investigation. A cynical version of me would expect the Mueller investigation to wrap up in December 2018, one month after the midterms.
A Meme That Needs To Die
I've seen two Facebook friends like or link a meme about Trump's electoral wins v. Clinton's. It goes something like this: "There are 3,141 counties in the U.S. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them, Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes..." It goes on to say that, because Clinton won the five boroughs of New York City by about a 2 million vote margin, that the 319 square miles that make up New York City should not decide the president for the rest of the country. Needless to say, smart friends of mine have fallen for this meme, which irritates me.
1) This is false. It's just not true. Clinton won 30 counties in Georgia. She won 27 in Georgia. There's 57 counties right there, and I haven't even gotten to a state that she won. She won California; She won Massachusetts; she won Illinois. She won counties in Florida and Missouri and Kansas and New Mexico and Mississippi. She won a county in North Dakota and West Virginia and Utah. I don't know the actual number, but it's at least 200 instead of 57. FURTHERMORE, the 2 million vote margin is wrong. That was the margin early on election night, but it was far closer to 3 million votes than 2 million. The actual number is just shy of 2.9 million votes.
2) We don't decide anything based on how many counties voted for something. It's a dumb metric. Why? Because the number of counties is completely arbitrary. Kansas has 105 counties. Arizona has 15. But Arizona has nearly 7 million people. Kansas has nearly 3 million people. Missouri has 114 counties! California only has 58 counties. But California has more than six times the number of people that live in Missouri. Counties don't matter in any electoral regard.
3) Let's talk about the vote margin for a second. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes, but to assign that "victory" margin to one particular location is disingenuous. Even if you follow the logic of New York = size of Clinton's popular vote margin, that still only brings you back to even. It means that even if you take out the largest city in the country, the popular vote would have been close to tied. Clinton was just as popular as Trump among people even if you took out New York City.
4) This is the most important point I can make: It's about people/votes and not land. I don't care how many acres are covered by "red counties" and "blue counties." The whole point of the electoral college and our country's voting basis is one-person-one-vote. It means that it doesn't matter how much land you own, you get the same vote as someone in a studio apartment. The electoral college is divided so that states with great population but small size (like Massachusetts) gets a larger influence on the vote than a state with great size but tiny population (like Alaska). I don't care how big a state is or how big the territory covered by a Trump victory. It's about people. If you say that people are less important than square miles, you're saying that land ownership should decide elections. That's just wrong.
Summary Judgments
This story is incredibly sad. It doesn't look good for the cops involved and makes all cops look bad. Was shooting the man necessary? • • • This is the type of long, well-reasoned article I like. It's supposed to be a mea culpa about the GOP embracing personalities rather than policies, but it does make some solid points about the left as well. I don't agree with it entirely — but I feel it's the type of story I can disagree with respectfully and have an intellectual debate about, rather than just be a basis for partisan bickering. • • • I personally don't think Graham-Cassidy is happening. It's got 10 days to happen, and I can't imagine senators who objected to better bills suddenly being OK with this one just because they're desperate. But if you want a short, 4-minute video from someone who knows what they're talking about, look here. • • • Thanks to some ill-timed thunderstorms and more, I didn't get a lot of practice runs in during the last two weeks. In fact, I've only run twice since the 10K. I've got a 4-miler this weekend at the Kansas City Zoo. That should be fine — I've run 4 miles plenty before! But I've also been to the zoo a ton, and looking at the course, it goes over the parts of the zoo that are interminable when you're walking with kids. Suddenly, I'm feeling DAUNTED — the opposite of undaunted. • • • Usually, I end this with a good kid story. But instead, I have a wife story. Alyson needed help for something related to class. Me: "I can help you with that. When is it due?" Alyson: "..." Me: "If you say Friday, I'll --" Alyson: "Friday." /facepalm
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Don't Know Much About Know Nothings
Note: Thanks for permitting the one-week break. It was my birthday last week, and I really didn't feel like writing on my birthday. I also wanted to wait until I could dive into something that caught me. Luckily, I've found a few things to latch onto this week.
There was an election several years ago in which I voted for the American Party candidate — I liked none of the available options, and "American Party" sounded like a fun, patriotic group that I could toss my vote to without a care of it mattering. It was a purely wasted vote. I knew nothing about the candidate and nothing about their positions. I knew nothing about the party, which seems appropriate: This is the actual name of a short-lived party that still exists on the fringes called the Know Nothings.
This topic came to mind recently after a friend compared the modern Republican Party, or at least the President Trump-led populist wing of the GOP, to the Know Nothings. I didn't know if that was an appropriate comparison or not, as my mid-1800s short-lived political party knowledge is limited. So let's take a look at the Know Nothings.
Who Were They?
They were a political party in the 1850s, just before the Civil War, that lasted for less than a decade. The two major political parties just before their rise were the Democrats and the Whigs. The Whigs were rapidly falling apart, mostly over the issue of slavery's expansion to the territories. As the Whigs fell apart, it left a political vacuum for some group in opposition to the Democrats. With politics, things rarely happen for just one reason. So it's partly accurate to say that one of the cohesive bonds of the Know Nothings was that they weren't Democrats, as this united people from the big northern cities in Massachusetts and the rural segments of the Deep South to the cause. But the other unifying principle of this group was being anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant.
What's With the Name?
This was a time when secret societies were kind of a rage, and the Know Nothings started in the same vein. So when asked by reporters or outsiders what they were doing or what they stood for, these folks were instructed to say, "I know nothing." They later chose the name American Party at a convention, but Know Nothings stuck as a name.
What Prompted Their Rise?
This chapter in your high school textbook is high on people as a collective making an impact and low on people as individuals making an impact. In the West, you had loads of Chinese and Japanese immigrants coming in. In the East, you had Irish and Italian immigrants coming in. This latter group has something else in common: Catholicism.
What Did They Stand For?
One historian says that some of their ideas were pretty far ahead for their time: expansion of the rights of women, regulation of industry, and labor reforms. He also listed opposition to slavery, but after researching this, I'd call that a mixed bag — slavery was kind of the issue that drove people away from the Know Nothings, either to the nascent Republican Party (anti-slavery) or to the Democrats (pro-slavery). It's clear from history that, when elected, the Know Nothings focused their attention on being anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic, with everything else being secondary. These days, Know Nothing is used as shorthand for anti-immigration people who embrace a lack of knowledge. This shorthand is a little too easy for me, however. *Quick Note: Abraham Lincoln hated the Know Nothings. He was also adrift after the Whigs fell apart, but wrote to his friend a pretty scathing critique of the Know Nothings.
What Happened to Them?
They won a few elections in the midterm elections of 1854, including sweeping to power in Massachusetts state government. They had a very limited national presence, however — think Tea Party-sized presence. They also won some mayorships in large cities, like Chicago and Washington, D.C. But as I said earlier: Things rarely happen in politics for just one reason. The Know Nothings fell apart separately in the North and the South. They were beaten in the South by pro-slavery Democrats tying them to the northern abolitionists. This was a harsh epithet, especially in a South that was only a few years from being a Confederacy. They never really challenged again. In the North, it became an issue of which was a greater priority, being anti-immigrant or being anti-slavery. And as the nation continued to cleave itself in two, being anti-immigrant while also being anti-slavery seemed to be a strange position, with a foot in two seemingly opposing worlds. So, after one prominent Know Nothing left for the Republican Party, so did about 2/3 of the members of the Know Nothings.
Are They a Good Comparison?
Yes and no. The Know Nothings never had the political success of the populist wing of the GOP, which has already won the Presidency and several seats in Congress, so the populist GOP is already a bigger impact, but it hasn't broken away from an existing party -- just an offshoot of an existing party. However, there are some interesting parallels between the words of 1850 and the words just this weekend on 60 Minutes from Steve Bannon. The target of immigration nowadays is more focused on people of color than people of Catholic religion, though there are still some holding onto those ideals (See: Bannon). I also can't imagine modern populist GOP (alt-right, perhaps?) being particularly coy about their stance on immigrants, etc. — they're quite open about them. The Know Nothings rose to power only because of the collapse of another party, while the populist GOP is, by definition, part of an existing party. The Know Nothings also fell apart because bigger problems pushed their issue aside. It's hard to view current events through the eye of history, so I hate to act definitive about "THIS IS HOW THE POPULIST GOP WILL BE DEFINED." Maybe a larger issue will likewise push the anti-immigration, anti-people of color stance to the side like the Know Nothings. Maybe it's more lasting than that because of their ballot box success. I don't know yet, since history hasn't closed the chapter on the populist GOP yet. So while I see some parallels, I hesitate to accept that the populist GOP can fit in such a clean little box.
On Hillary Clinton's New Book
I suggest you don't read anything that starts off with "Hillary blames 2016 loss on [fill in the blank]," Because that is a drastic oversimplification. As stated earlier, things rarely happen for just one reason in politics. Clinton losing in the electoral college was for a multitude of reasons, many of which Clinton correctly identifies in her book, according to one White House correspondent. According to that reporter, Clinton identifies at least 9 causes for her defeat. She also identifies two more later on: Bernie Sanders and his most ardent supporters and her own decisions in the Midwest (which she incorrectly plays down, though there were larger forces at work).
Identifying more than 11 causes for your own defeat is... pretty reasonable, I'd say. FiveThirtyEight's analysis of those causes gives decent support to her arguments: They say that most have some basis in truth, and they have some facts and polling data to prove it. I though this was a pretty decent critique of the book, even if I think it's a touch too sympathetic to Clinton.
I've heard several people on social media griping about Hillary putting out a book. I think it's a baseless argument. We've not required past candidates to go away or stop being a part of the politisphere or to stop writing books. Even Richard Nixon wrote a book after Watergate! I find a lot of the complaints about her to be shallow or weak when compared to other (notably men) people who have run for president and lost. Bernie Sanders didn't have to go away after he lost. Al Gore and Mitt Romney had movies with themselves at the center. John McCain hasn't gone anywhere. Simply put: the same standards have not been applied. There is a hatred of her that I find hard to pinpoint. Misogyny, whether conscious or subconscious, seems to be an underlying current for many of the complaints. Here's an example: "I didn't vote against that bitch because of her policies, not misogyny!" or "She just wants to make money [Rarely a complaint about men.]." There are arguments to make that don't connect to misogyny. However, those arguments are rare and often involve some mental gymnastics in order to avoid misogyny. Again: Not all complaints about Clinton's book are rooted in misogyny, but almost all of the complaints I've seen have had a foot in that water.
Death to DACA?
There's a chasm between words and deeds here that makes me worried. When President Trump decided to end support of DACA, he seemed to indicate that he was doing it so Congress could codify it into law rather than be an executive branch policy. That it was Obama's executive overreach that was the problem and not the policy itself. Or, plainly: "I'm killing this thing so Congress can bring it back to life." He gave Congress 6 months to solve something they haven't solved in years.
I don't expect DACA to pass Congress, let alone Trump to sign anything that emerges. It's already being used as a political negotiation tool rather than being weighed on its own merits. On its own merits, DACA would almost certainly pass both the House and the Senate, as I've seen some counts of more than 60 votes in the Senate in support. DACA is good policy, but Trump's claim that his reasons for rescinding it are not policy-based is false — if it were good policy, leave it in place until Congress passes a law. There may be some movement with the Democrat leaders ("No deal" as of this morning), but I have my doubts.
Summary Judgments
I've got a lot in this category today. • • • This happened in my town this week. Nothing says "I'm not a racist" like being as racist as possible. This is either the guy with four Confederate flags in his yard, or someone else. In the latter case, our town has at least two racists. • • • Democrats are pushing forward with a child care bill. Set aside the headline re: Ivanka Trump. A child care bill is much-needed and you don't need any other motivation than that. • • • I think I've posted it before, but it's a really incredible video: The saddest plate appearance of all time in MLB. A guy who never bats and is trying to strike out v. a guy who only comes in to games when they're out of hand. It goes... surprisingly. • • • Half as Interesting with a completely interesting video about how bird poop is important to claiming new lands for the U.S. Yup, bird poop. • • • Obamacare repeal is dead this year, unless something happens in the next month. That won't happen. But Obamacare is being slashed to death by 1,000 paper cuts, and here's a short video explaining some of all that. • • • Wendover Productions (same guy as Half as Interesting) explains the plane of the future, which doesn't yet exist but may soon. However, it does give me hope that in 10-20 years, air travel may be more affordable — that's encouraging! • • • I had a good 10K run on Sunday. I walked about .3 miles during the 6.2 mile run, and finished slightly behind the median runner of the nearly 2600-person race. I'm proud! It was fun! It was the first race this year in decent weather! And I don't know if I'll do a 10K again. An hour is just a long time to run. My next run, on Sept. 23, is the last of my 4-mile runs this year. My last run of the year will be a 5K on Thanksgiving. • • • So Roland's had a couple of good potty days at day care this week. He's still in diapers, but we're at least working on him now. We're moving him up to pull-ups, and Alyson took him to Target to get some yesterday. The boy loves pink and "girl" things right now. After negotiating him away from princess and Minnie Mouse, they settled on Doc McStuffins pull-ups. Daddy needs to start pushing superheroes and Star Wars (though I think Evie likes Star Wars more than Roland).
There was an election several years ago in which I voted for the American Party candidate — I liked none of the available options, and "American Party" sounded like a fun, patriotic group that I could toss my vote to without a care of it mattering. It was a purely wasted vote. I knew nothing about the candidate and nothing about their positions. I knew nothing about the party, which seems appropriate: This is the actual name of a short-lived party that still exists on the fringes called the Know Nothings.
This topic came to mind recently after a friend compared the modern Republican Party, or at least the President Trump-led populist wing of the GOP, to the Know Nothings. I didn't know if that was an appropriate comparison or not, as my mid-1800s short-lived political party knowledge is limited. So let's take a look at the Know Nothings.
Who Were They?
They were a political party in the 1850s, just before the Civil War, that lasted for less than a decade. The two major political parties just before their rise were the Democrats and the Whigs. The Whigs were rapidly falling apart, mostly over the issue of slavery's expansion to the territories. As the Whigs fell apart, it left a political vacuum for some group in opposition to the Democrats. With politics, things rarely happen for just one reason. So it's partly accurate to say that one of the cohesive bonds of the Know Nothings was that they weren't Democrats, as this united people from the big northern cities in Massachusetts and the rural segments of the Deep South to the cause. But the other unifying principle of this group was being anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant.
What's With the Name?
This was a time when secret societies were kind of a rage, and the Know Nothings started in the same vein. So when asked by reporters or outsiders what they were doing or what they stood for, these folks were instructed to say, "I know nothing." They later chose the name American Party at a convention, but Know Nothings stuck as a name.
What Prompted Their Rise?
This chapter in your high school textbook is high on people as a collective making an impact and low on people as individuals making an impact. In the West, you had loads of Chinese and Japanese immigrants coming in. In the East, you had Irish and Italian immigrants coming in. This latter group has something else in common: Catholicism.
What Did They Stand For?
One historian says that some of their ideas were pretty far ahead for their time: expansion of the rights of women, regulation of industry, and labor reforms. He also listed opposition to slavery, but after researching this, I'd call that a mixed bag — slavery was kind of the issue that drove people away from the Know Nothings, either to the nascent Republican Party (anti-slavery) or to the Democrats (pro-slavery). It's clear from history that, when elected, the Know Nothings focused their attention on being anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic, with everything else being secondary. These days, Know Nothing is used as shorthand for anti-immigration people who embrace a lack of knowledge. This shorthand is a little too easy for me, however. *Quick Note: Abraham Lincoln hated the Know Nothings. He was also adrift after the Whigs fell apart, but wrote to his friend a pretty scathing critique of the Know Nothings.
What Happened to Them?
They won a few elections in the midterm elections of 1854, including sweeping to power in Massachusetts state government. They had a very limited national presence, however — think Tea Party-sized presence. They also won some mayorships in large cities, like Chicago and Washington, D.C. But as I said earlier: Things rarely happen in politics for just one reason. The Know Nothings fell apart separately in the North and the South. They were beaten in the South by pro-slavery Democrats tying them to the northern abolitionists. This was a harsh epithet, especially in a South that was only a few years from being a Confederacy. They never really challenged again. In the North, it became an issue of which was a greater priority, being anti-immigrant or being anti-slavery. And as the nation continued to cleave itself in two, being anti-immigrant while also being anti-slavery seemed to be a strange position, with a foot in two seemingly opposing worlds. So, after one prominent Know Nothing left for the Republican Party, so did about 2/3 of the members of the Know Nothings.
Are They a Good Comparison?
Yes and no. The Know Nothings never had the political success of the populist wing of the GOP, which has already won the Presidency and several seats in Congress, so the populist GOP is already a bigger impact, but it hasn't broken away from an existing party -- just an offshoot of an existing party. However, there are some interesting parallels between the words of 1850 and the words just this weekend on 60 Minutes from Steve Bannon. The target of immigration nowadays is more focused on people of color than people of Catholic religion, though there are still some holding onto those ideals (See: Bannon). I also can't imagine modern populist GOP (alt-right, perhaps?) being particularly coy about their stance on immigrants, etc. — they're quite open about them. The Know Nothings rose to power only because of the collapse of another party, while the populist GOP is, by definition, part of an existing party. The Know Nothings also fell apart because bigger problems pushed their issue aside. It's hard to view current events through the eye of history, so I hate to act definitive about "THIS IS HOW THE POPULIST GOP WILL BE DEFINED." Maybe a larger issue will likewise push the anti-immigration, anti-people of color stance to the side like the Know Nothings. Maybe it's more lasting than that because of their ballot box success. I don't know yet, since history hasn't closed the chapter on the populist GOP yet. So while I see some parallels, I hesitate to accept that the populist GOP can fit in such a clean little box.
On Hillary Clinton's New Book
I suggest you don't read anything that starts off with "Hillary blames 2016 loss on [fill in the blank]," Because that is a drastic oversimplification. As stated earlier, things rarely happen for just one reason in politics. Clinton losing in the electoral college was for a multitude of reasons, many of which Clinton correctly identifies in her book, according to one White House correspondent. According to that reporter, Clinton identifies at least 9 causes for her defeat. She also identifies two more later on: Bernie Sanders and his most ardent supporters and her own decisions in the Midwest (which she incorrectly plays down, though there were larger forces at work).
Identifying more than 11 causes for your own defeat is... pretty reasonable, I'd say. FiveThirtyEight's analysis of those causes gives decent support to her arguments: They say that most have some basis in truth, and they have some facts and polling data to prove it. I though this was a pretty decent critique of the book, even if I think it's a touch too sympathetic to Clinton.
I've heard several people on social media griping about Hillary putting out a book. I think it's a baseless argument. We've not required past candidates to go away or stop being a part of the politisphere or to stop writing books. Even Richard Nixon wrote a book after Watergate! I find a lot of the complaints about her to be shallow or weak when compared to other (notably men) people who have run for president and lost. Bernie Sanders didn't have to go away after he lost. Al Gore and Mitt Romney had movies with themselves at the center. John McCain hasn't gone anywhere. Simply put: the same standards have not been applied. There is a hatred of her that I find hard to pinpoint. Misogyny, whether conscious or subconscious, seems to be an underlying current for many of the complaints. Here's an example: "I didn't vote against that bitch because of her policies, not misogyny!" or "She just wants to make money [Rarely a complaint about men.]." There are arguments to make that don't connect to misogyny. However, those arguments are rare and often involve some mental gymnastics in order to avoid misogyny. Again: Not all complaints about Clinton's book are rooted in misogyny, but almost all of the complaints I've seen have had a foot in that water.
Death to DACA?
There's a chasm between words and deeds here that makes me worried. When President Trump decided to end support of DACA, he seemed to indicate that he was doing it so Congress could codify it into law rather than be an executive branch policy. That it was Obama's executive overreach that was the problem and not the policy itself. Or, plainly: "I'm killing this thing so Congress can bring it back to life." He gave Congress 6 months to solve something they haven't solved in years.
I don't expect DACA to pass Congress, let alone Trump to sign anything that emerges. It's already being used as a political negotiation tool rather than being weighed on its own merits. On its own merits, DACA would almost certainly pass both the House and the Senate, as I've seen some counts of more than 60 votes in the Senate in support. DACA is good policy, but Trump's claim that his reasons for rescinding it are not policy-based is false — if it were good policy, leave it in place until Congress passes a law. There may be some movement with the Democrat leaders ("No deal" as of this morning), but I have my doubts.
Summary Judgments
I've got a lot in this category today. • • • This happened in my town this week. Nothing says "I'm not a racist" like being as racist as possible. This is either the guy with four Confederate flags in his yard, or someone else. In the latter case, our town has at least two racists. • • • Democrats are pushing forward with a child care bill. Set aside the headline re: Ivanka Trump. A child care bill is much-needed and you don't need any other motivation than that. • • • I think I've posted it before, but it's a really incredible video: The saddest plate appearance of all time in MLB. A guy who never bats and is trying to strike out v. a guy who only comes in to games when they're out of hand. It goes... surprisingly. • • • Half as Interesting with a completely interesting video about how bird poop is important to claiming new lands for the U.S. Yup, bird poop. • • • Obamacare repeal is dead this year, unless something happens in the next month. That won't happen. But Obamacare is being slashed to death by 1,000 paper cuts, and here's a short video explaining some of all that. • • • Wendover Productions (same guy as Half as Interesting) explains the plane of the future, which doesn't yet exist but may soon. However, it does give me hope that in 10-20 years, air travel may be more affordable — that's encouraging! • • • I had a good 10K run on Sunday. I walked about .3 miles during the 6.2 mile run, and finished slightly behind the median runner of the nearly 2600-person race. I'm proud! It was fun! It was the first race this year in decent weather! And I don't know if I'll do a 10K again. An hour is just a long time to run. My next run, on Sept. 23, is the last of my 4-mile runs this year. My last run of the year will be a 5K on Thanksgiving. • • • So Roland's had a couple of good potty days at day care this week. He's still in diapers, but we're at least working on him now. We're moving him up to pull-ups, and Alyson took him to Target to get some yesterday. The boy loves pink and "girl" things right now. After negotiating him away from princess and Minnie Mouse, they settled on Doc McStuffins pull-ups. Daddy needs to start pushing superheroes and Star Wars (though I think Evie likes Star Wars more than Roland).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)