The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[beantownbubba]

What happens if two sides get so far apart they don't even share an Overton window? If the far edges of what the two sides accept as reasonable opinion leave a great big gap between them?

Aren't we there, or very close to it? If we're not, I'd hate to see what that actually looks like.

[tinnitus photography]

i think it depends on whether the R party goes full batshit crazy/MGT/Boebert/Trump. they get closer every day.

[Flea]

Dana Milbank's column in today's WaPo focuses on the work of Professor Barbara F. Walter of the UCSD who is part of a CIA working group called the Political Instability Task Force that rates the likelihood of civil disturbance erupting in countries around the world (except for the US, because as we know the CIA never operates in the US). Applying the same criteria to the US, she finds us dangerously close to civil war, about halfway on her indicator scale and already closer to authoritarian than democratic. Milbank also noted that "The Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance put the United States on a list of “backsliding democracies” in a report last month. “The United States, the bastion of global democracy, fell victim to authoritarian tendencies itself," the report said."

Troubled, troubling times.

Not that it really matters, but Dana Milbank is a male.

[John A Arkansawyer]

What happens if two sides get so far apart they don't even share an Overton window? If the far edges of what the two sides accept as reasonable opinion leave a great big gap between them?

Aren't we there, or very close to it? If we're not, I'd hate to see what that actually looks like.

I took a look at the Wikipedia article and am left unconsoled:



So when the window splits, there's a big gap in the middle where compromise policy goes from sensible to radical to unthinkable, on both sides, This is the opposite of the U-shape canard about extremes growing alike--this is about the moderate edges of two sides growing alike in their apartness.

[beantownbubba]

Not that it really matters, but Dana Milbank is a male.

No, it doesn't really matter but I do know that. But Prof Walter is a person of the female persuasion and I believe the "she" in the sentence grammatically and genderly properly refers to the Professor. But diagramming sentences has never been my strong suit, so I could be wrong.

[Flea]

Not that it really matters, but Dana Milbank is a male.

No, it doesn't really matter but I do know that. But Prof Walter is a person of the female persuasion and I believe the "she" in the sentence grammatically and genderly properly refers to the Professor. But diagramming sentences has never been my strong suit, so I could be wrong.

Ah! Ok. Just seemed a bit ambiguous in the structure.

[beantownbubba]

That Joe Manchin. What a kidder.

[Flea]

That Joe Manchin. What a flaming corrupt asshole.

Fixed it for you.

[beantownbubba]

A different take on some old discussion points. I don't claim to have any insight into evangelical Christianity but the people she quotes seem to. And if she/they are right, the implications seem to be far-reaching for both the evangelical movement and the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b56be59d38

[beantownbubba]

From Jennifer Rubin's WaPo column suggesting "resolutions" for politicians, the media and other thought leaders:

"Americans need to be better citizens. Citizenship requires more than voting. It requires a good-faith effort to discern readily accessible facts from reliable sources; tolerance and decency toward fellow Americans; basic civic and media literacy; and a set of rational expectations about government. We should expect governors to not deliberately sabotage vaccination and mask requirements; we cannot expect the president to overcome the willful refusal of tens of millions of Americans to get vaccinated. We should expect lawmakers to try to solve problems (not performing on right-wing media to scare and befuddle the electorate); we cannot expect perfect remedies to emerge overnight to solve complex problems over which government has limited control."

For anyone interested, I posted her related comments on covid in the DBT homecoming thread.

[beantownbubba]

The subtleties of the Ukraine situation are beyond my grasp but the current state of affairs sounds scary in the old fashioned Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis sense. It's hard to see this ending well.

[beantownbubba]

It is the official policy of the State of Arizona that it should be allowed to knowingly kill innocent citizens. This shocks me to my very core and upends pretty much everything I believe, about human beings, government, democracy, justice and the meaning of life. I mean, seriously, this is unbelievable to me at a fundamental level that goes way beyond outrageous sound bites, culture wars and the other stuff of which daily life is made these days. I can't even say this is medieval. Justice at that time was uncertain at best and in the discretion of one or a few nobles, and there were plenty of superstitions and irrational beliefs that led to horrible outcomes (like proving one's innocence by drowning) but I do not believe it was ever the policy of even the most draconian regimes to intentionally kill innocents. You know where this is going and as much as I hate to say it, the only regimes of which I'm aware that intentionally killed innocents were the Third Reich and other regimes or wannabe regimes that intentionally engaged in genocide where innocence was irrelevant. I just can't believe this nor do I understand why this is not a cause celebre on the "front page" of every media source in the country. I basically came across this by accident in the linked story from not the New York Times. What the actual fuck?

https://theintercept.com/2021/12/30/bar ... eme-court/

[tinnitus photography]

wow.

The justices are effectively deciding whether new evidence — like that presented at Jones’s 2017 evidentiary hearing — should be ignored by the federal courts, even when it exposes a wrongful conviction.

i mean, if they choose to ignore it, how can they be called justices?!


i watched West Of Memphis the other night, having had viewed the three Paradise Lost films a few years back. it's insane to think that a jury convicted those kids, but then it got me to thinking how easily people are persuaded to think about things (the last year or two has some glaring examples).

[Flea]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ, what is WRONG with our governmental systems? I am beginning to think like the Insurrectionists: burn it all down, it's only benefitting those with money and power.

[beantownbubba]

Political polarization has, in the usual fashion, been so overused that by now it is just another part of the scenery, a given in most any analysis or discussion that requires very little thought. There are reasons for that and I'm not disputing them. But still, it's helpful to think about why and how we got here and how we might get to somewhere better (the latter being, as always, the weaker part of the argument). Worth reading for the big picture stuff, whatever one thinks of the details.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022 ... rc=bounceX

[beantownbubba]

Ultimately these losers will be a footnote to a footnote of history but this inevitable denouement is perfectly representative of the nuttiness and madness that currently rules our public discourse. As always, I'm sorry for the rank and file employees who have lost jobs because they depended on the truthfulness and competence of charlatans parading as leaders, although at some point there is a valid argument that people are responsible for drinking their own Kool-Aid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/us/c ... 029039208a

[beantownbubba]

The subtleties of the Ukraine situation are beyond my grasp but the current state of affairs sounds scary in the old fashioned Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis sense. It's hard to see this ending well.

This is kind of what I meant by my original post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 14d7e66875

[pearlbeer]

Looking like an old fashioned standoff. Troops on three fronts, heavy sanctions threatened. Just what we need right now. “Shall we play a game?”

[beantownbubba]

Ross Douthat is never an easy read, he's kind of a plodding essayist even when he's right, so I apologize to an extent for posting this, but in this case I think it's worth the effort.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/opin ... 029039208a

His observation that the Democrats' answer to so many questions of "let the experts handle it" is deeply anti-democratic and disquieting. The cognitive dissonance this creates for "the party saving democracy" is significant and fundamentally undercuts the Democrats attempts at messaging and positioning.

[305 Engine]

Regarding Ukraine, this is a really good piece which doesn't necessarily explain everything but I think sums up whats at stake.

Looking at Russian behaviour over the past few years, it just rings true. There's not necessarily an end goal in sight but for Putin helping to create distrust and division outside his borders is it's own reward.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cy/621465/

[beantownbubba]

Regarding Ukraine, this is a really good piece which doesn't necessarily explain everything but I think sums up whats at stake.

Looking at Russian behaviour over the past few years, it just rings true. There's not necessarily an end goal in sight but for Putin helping to create distrust and division outside his borders is it's own reward.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... cy/621465/

As a general rule, one can't go wrong w/ Anne Applebaum writing about Eastern Europe.

I'm not sure if it's semantic or meaningful but it seems to me that Putin is an unreconstructed Cold Warrior, which she chooses to call an imperialist and some others would call nationalist, all of which to my mind come down to the same thing: He considers the loss of the Soviet empire to be a world historical level disaster, he truly hates the west and sees it as the literal (not "just" ideological) enemy, and considers politics to be a zero sum game (if the west loses, he wins and vice versa). Put in your terms, 305, that means distrust and division outside his borders is not "merely" its own reward; he sees it as a win for him and for the Soviets [term used intentionally] and a loss for the ancient and ongoing enemy, i.e. the West.

I think many in the west do not take seriously the idea that a NATO-affiliated Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia, but I actually think Putin believes that, which to me explains a lot of what he's doing. Applebaum also talks about Putin's duality of extreme strength on a foundation of extreme weakness (or precariousness) which I think is right but which I would put in different terms: A lot of international maneuvering by most countries and leaders is intended to play to the home audience as much as or more than to the obvious audience of competing, enemy or threatened countries. In this case that means that Putin believes that a majority (or at least a powerful minority) of Russians share his views on Ukraine/NATO as an existential threat, so that's the audience he's playing to and wanting to win points from.

[John A Arkansawyer]

I myself am not as trusting as the distrustful Doug Muder:

Often in this blog, I encourage people to trust the experts. Unless you have some really solid reason not to, listen to the CDC about Covid, and to the climate scientists about global warming. If a bipartisan election commission certifies your state’s results, believe them. And so on.

Defense and foreign policy, though, is one place where I get skeptical. I don’t usually characterize national-security-state insiders as villains, but I also don’t always believe what they say. I remember how they misled us into the Iraq invasion, and how victory in our 20-year Afghan War was always just a few months away. I also remember how easily respected news platforms like The New York Times and The Washington Post let themselves be used to spread Iraq-invasion propaganda.

So now the experts are warning us that Russia might invade Ukraine at any moment, and they could be right. I certainly have no reason to think Putin is on the side of the angels, or that he was satisfied by the chunks of Ukraine he stole away in 2014.

But still. This is one of the hidden costs of the Iraq deception: The Pentagon and the State Department have lost a lot of credibility with Americans like me. It’s going to take a long time to win it back, if in fact they deserve to win it back — which they might not.

So who do we believe in all this?

[beantownbubba]

I myself am not as trusting as the distrustful Doug Muder:

Often in this blog, I encourage people to trust the experts. Unless you have some really solid reason not to, listen to the CDC about Covid, and to the climate scientists about global warming. If a bipartisan election commission certifies your state’s results, believe them. And so on.

Defense and foreign policy, though, is one place where I get skeptical. I don’t usually characterize national-security-state insiders as villains, but I also don’t always believe what they say. I remember how they misled us into the Iraq invasion, and how victory in our 20-year Afghan War was always just a few months away. I also remember how easily respected news platforms like The New York Times and The Washington Post let themselves be used to spread Iraq-invasion propaganda.

So now the experts are warning us that Russia might invade Ukraine at any moment, and they could be right. I certainly have no reason to think Putin is on the side of the angels, or that he was satisfied by the chunks of Ukraine he stole away in 2014.

But still. This is one of the hidden costs of the Iraq deception: The Pentagon and the State Department have lost a lot of credibility with Americans like me. It’s going to take a long time to win it back, if in fact they deserve to win it back — which they might not.

So who do we believe in all this?

An interesting parallel development in light of the above from a WaPo newsletter (imbedded tweets did not survive the cut & paste process):

"There are plenty of reasons for reporters to doubt the U.S. military's assessments

Two days after America’s Aug. 29 drone attack in Kabul, the Pentagon was boasting of a “righteous strike” that thwarted a terrorist plot. By Sept. 17, the U.S. military was calling the same operation a “horrible mistake” and apologizing for killing 10 civilians, including seven children.

Keep that in mind as you consider how the White House suggested Thursday that skepticism of U.S. accounts of how civilians died in an overnight U.S. Special Operations raid that killed the leader of the Islamic State might be equivalent to taking the terrorist group’s word over America’s.

Press secretary Jen Psaki expressed disbelief that people could be “skeptical of the U.S. military's assessment when they went and took out the leader of ISIS? That they are not providing accurate information, and ISIS is providing accurate information?”

Psaki went on to say the Pentagon would conduct an “extensive” review to determine exactly what had transpired in Syria. “Given these events just happened less than 24 hours ago, we're going to give them time to make a final assessment,” she told reporters on Air Force One.

Keep the Kabul strike in mind also as you consider what State Department spokesman Ned Price told veteran reporter (and friend of The Daily 202) Matt Lee, who was pressing him for evidence of a supposed Russian scheme to stage an attack as a pretext to further invade Ukraine.

“If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government, of the British government, of other governments, and want to find solace in information that the Russians are putting out that is for you to do,” Price said.


Later, on Twitter, Price contritely tweeted he had reached out to Matt:


The simple fact is reporters cannot be in the business of reflexively accepting U.S. officials’ word — not just because they can lie or be lied to by their colleagues in government, but also because they can simply get things wrong, especially in the fog of war clouding reports of military operations.

For Pete’s sake: Pat Tillman? Jessica Lynch? Colin Powell? This airstrike in Syria? The global drone war, more broadly? The entire 20-year history of the war in Afghanistan? And, of course, the Aug. 29 Kabul strike.

In fact, as Psaki’s observation about a review shows, the assumption the official version might change is built into the way the officials described the U.S. Special Operations raid in northwestern Syria, where Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, the leader of the Islamic State militant group, was killed..."

Yes, it is always better to take official pronouncement with many grains of salt, but for purposes of discussion we have to start somewhere. The well known saying that "truth is the first casualty of war" is equally applicable to diplomacy, defense and foreign policy. In that regard, I'm surprised neither Muder nor the WaPo piece I quote cites Vietnam as a major source of distrust of the political/military/diplomatic establishment.

[beantownbubba]

So, 305 or any other Brits out there, is BoJo going to survive this time?

And while I'm at it, what's the scoop on Brexit at this point? How much extra money has gone to the NHS so far? I assume w/out knowing that some boosters are claiming that the pandemic has made it impossible to fairly judge the impact, but I also assume there's a lot more being said.

[305 Engine]

So, 305 or any other Brits out there, is BoJo going to survive this time?

And while I'm at it, what's the scoop on Brexit at this point? How much extra money has gone to the NHS so far? I assume w/out knowing that some boosters are claiming that the pandemic has made it impossible to fairly judge the impact, but I also assume there's a lot more being said.

He'll drag on for a while longer.

Other Prime Ministers would have resigned by now, because they'd be able to see that they've damaged their own party and the constant soap opera was distracting from running the country. But he's not that sort of guy.

So he can only be removed if enough Conservative politicians ask for a vote of no confidence. And not enough have. Probably because if they do, it would end up triggering a General Election, and they may well lose. Or at least many of them would lose their seats in Parliament.

So it'll remain a messy stalemate for a while. Unless there are more revelations.

Brexit is a clusterfuck. You're right that to some extent the pandemic provides a bit of a smokescreen. Issues related to Brexit can be blamed on covid by the people who swore Brexit would lead to a new golden era. But polling indicates that the majority can see that Brexit was a mistake. Unfortunately it'll take years to reverse.

[beantownbubba]

^^^ Thanks.

But he's not that sort of guy.

In the dictionary under "classic British understatement."

How much of Johnson's ability to hang is related to the Labor Party not offering much in the way of an attractive alternative? That's a third hand characterization of what I read about the Labor Party so I guess I'm also asking whether that's even true, but it is what I hear/read.

[305 Engine]

^^^ Thanks.

But he's not that sort of guy.

In the dictionary under "classic British understatement."

How much of Johnson's ability to hang is related to the Labor Party not offering much in the way of an attractive alternative? That's a third hand characterization of what I read about the Labor Party so I guess I'm also asking whether that's even true, but it is what I hear/read.

It was true around the time of the last election. But that's changed dramatically in the past year or so and Labour are currently ahead in opinion polls.

But in a crazy way, that actually helps Johnson stay on.

In the UK, elections have to be held every five years but a government can call a "snap" election whenever it wants. They do this if they think their popularity means they can win more seats in parliament.

When a Prime Minister leaves mid term, the replacement is under pressure to hold a snap election. Because otherwise, the opposition parties will keep reminding everyone that they have no democratic mandate. The last time a replacement PM didn't call a snap election it worked out badly for them.

But if this happens now, the replacement would be under pressure to call that election with their party unpopular and the Labour party looking serious and reliable in a time of crisis.

So bizarrely, poor opinion polls and the Labour party looking competent is actually saving Johnson.

[beantownbubba]

^^^ Thanks.

But he's not that sort of guy.

In the dictionary under "classic British understatement."

How much of Johnson's ability to hang is related to the Labor Party not offering much in the way of an attractive alternative? That's a third hand characterization of what I read about the Labor Party so I guess I'm also asking whether that's even true, but it is what I hear/read.

It was true around the time of the last election. But that's changed dramatically in the past year or so and Labour are currently ahead in opinion polls.

But in a crazy way, that actually helps Johnson stay on.

In the UK, elections have to be held every five years but a government can call a "snap" election whenever it wants. They do this if they think their popularity means they can win more seats in parliament.

When a Prime Minister leaves mid term, the replacement is under pressure to hold a snap election. Because otherwise, the opposition parties will keep reminding everyone that they have no democratic mandate. The last time a replacement PM didn't call a snap election it worked out badly for them.

But if this happens now, the replacement would be under pressure to call that election with their party unpopular and the Labour party looking serious and reliable in a time of crisis.

So bizarrely, poor opinion polls and the Labour party looking competent is actually saving Johnson.

Great explanation. Thanks.

[pearlbeer]

^^^ Thanks.



In the dictionary under "classic British understatement."

How much of Johnson's ability to hang is related to the Labor Party not offering much in the way of an attractive alternative? That's a third hand characterization of what I read about the Labor Party so I guess I'm also asking whether that's even true, but it is what I hear/read.

It was true around the time of the last election. But that's changed dramatically in the past year or so and Labour are currently ahead in opinion polls.

But in a crazy way, that actually helps Johnson stay on.

In the UK, elections have to be held every five years but a government can call a "snap" election whenever it wants. They do this if they think their popularity means they can win more seats in parliament.

When a Prime Minister leaves mid term, the replacement is under pressure to hold a snap election. Because otherwise, the opposition parties will keep reminding everyone that they have no democratic mandate. The last time a replacement PM didn't call a snap election it worked out badly for them.

But if this happens now, the replacement would be under pressure to call that election with their party unpopular and the Labour party looking serious and reliable in a time of crisis.

So bizarrely, poor opinion polls and the Labour party looking competent is actually saving Johnson.

Great explanation. Thanks.

So in the UK, one (or both) parties can remain in power by simply refusing to govern, driving popular opinion and thus expectations down. What a terrible system! It also sounds oddly familiar.

[305 Engine]

So in the UK, one (or both) parties can remain in power by simply refusing to govern, driving popular opinion and thus expectations down. What a terrible system! It also sounds oddly familiar.

It's more like, they can't dare take responsibility for their actions because they may end up losing their jobs this year instead of in 3 years time.

Self interest. Refusal to be accountable. The usual things you associate with politicians I guess.