Showing posts sorted by date for query Remember the past. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Remember the past. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, July 27, 2026

Our Dangerous Shave and a Haircut Politics.



If you are unfamiliar with the immortal William Shakespeare's "The Tragedie of Roger Rabbit and the Framing Thereof" then you might as well move along. But if you are hip to the tale of the Rabbit, then attend! Attend!

It all begins with a well-known, know-it-all Never Trumper lecturing us po' dumb Democrats on how Real Grown-Up Politics works.

A consistent mistake (imo) that Democrats have made for *decades* is not understanding the thermostatic nature of politics: "I don't like this party being extreme" means "I want moderation," not *the other extreme* /2x

— Tom Nichols (@radiofreetom.bsky.social) July 23, 2026 at 2:49 PM
Now, this is the sort of thing that sounds very wise if you start from the assumption that both parties are basically interchangeable institutions that occasionally wander too far from the golden mean.

By the way, this is the same well-known, know-it-all Never Trumper who ignored all the dire warnings by some of us po' dumb Democrats that his Republican party was becoming a fascist shithole until it was far too late. Then, when caught flat-footed by the aforementioned Republican party becoming a fascist shithole, reacted with the cheap, dishonest, and automatic bothsiderist reflex which is every Never Trumpers' last line of defense against self-reflection.  This Tweet has since mysteriously disappeared from X/Twitter but lives on in a plain-text form on this here blog of mine:

You will get no such contrition, because I think your party had plenty of matches and lighter fluid and is not free of responsibility here.

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) July 14, 2019

Notice what is missing here: not an admission that the Republican Party created the conditions for Trump, but a quick escape hatch in which everyone gets a share of the blame.

Then, as is also endemic among Never Trumpers, Tom went on to present himself as one of the few Never Trump voices who saw all of this coming, which is why Trump Republicans resent them so.  Which is why, the Bulwark, MSNOW and The Atlantic all looked at his concatenation of arrogant certainty that proved catastrophically wrong, followed by reflexive, defensive false equivalence, followed by sheer puffery about his predictive abilities and all said, we gotta get this guy on staff!

You wanna bring someone on to opine about the threats and probable future trajectory of the Soviet Union during the 1980s?  Tom is your guy.  But given his record, why anyone would seek this Cold War relic's counsel about American politics of the recent past and the here and now is, well, to be honest, bog standards legacy media stuff.  He tells the tale they want told.

So, back to Roger Rabbit and lecturing us po' dumb Dems.

First, let us breeze past ol' Tom's obvious false equivalence which was immediately and effectively booed off the stage by Blue Sky commenters, one small sample of which is here:



Second, if you want to read a much longer (Two Parts!) discussion of how modern politics really works, links are here and here.  The shorter version is this...

As all true Roger Rabbit fans know, there is a certain sequence and cadence of words which all Toons find irresistible.  And when the phrase is left uncompleted they feel an uncontrollable compulsion to finish it, even when doing so will put them in life-threatening peril.


Psychologists have a name because of course they do.  It's called the Ovsiankina Effect, named after  Russian-German-American psychologist Maria Arsenjevna Rickers-Ovsiankina.  In psychology, this effect describes an innate human urge to finish unfinished tasks.  Our brains like order and clear endings. When things are left open or undone -- "Shave and a Hair Cut..." -- this creates stress.  When you finish whatever-it-is -- "...Two Bits!!!" -- our brains reward us with a quick dopamine hit, making you want to cross things off a list. 

(Bonus Info!  Because apparently even psychological concepts need their own spin-off franchise, Ovsiankina Effect should not be confused with the closely-related Zeigarnik Effect, named after Lithuanian-Soviet psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik, and which is more about the tendency of people remember unfinished or interrupted tasks better than completed tasks.)

Because what is politics, if not a giant collection of unfinished mental patterns competing for closure?

Which brings us to the particular unfinished phrase our national brain has been trained to complete. For a long time now -- decades -- our politics has been overtaken by a very specific form of Ovsiankina Effect.  And you clever dogs already know what it is, because you've read about on this blog thousands of times already.

What the legacy media has pulled off -- in plain view and with the consent of way too many of our fellow citizens -- one of the most successful propaganda campaign in American history.  One that dwarfs the Right Wing's Fox News/Hate Radio "Liberals are Murrica-hating, terrorist-loving, commie baby killers" propaganda campaign and, in the long run, has been far more destructive.  


From The Washington Post, before it went completely to shit:
“The Politico model of insider coverage and savvy style of analysis is premised on conditions in politics that became less true over time, which then undermined the model,” said New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen. “Conditions like two roughly similar parties obeying democratic norms, with similar establishments in both parties and competing for swing voters.”

The coverage of the 2016 campaign in particular was abysmal. The focus on Hillary Clinton’s emails stemmed from the media’s reflexive both sides-ism, and an obsession with feuds among Donald Trump's staffers reflected an insider-focused approach to politics gone too far. More deeply, the press went out of its way to suggest that the people supporting a candidate who campaigned on banning Muslims from the country and building a wall between the United States and Mexico were expressing “economic anxiety” or a desire for an outsider politician. 

The Guardian, September 6, 2024:
The media is still pursuing the appearance of fairness by treating true and false, normal and outrageous, as equally valid

The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.

Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.

Last winter, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has a Nobel prize in economics, told Greg Sargent on the latter’s Daily Blast podcast that when he writes positive pieces about the Biden economy, his editor asks “don’t you want to qualify” it; “aren’t people upset by X, Y and Z and shouldn’t you be acknowledging that?”

Meanwhile in an accusatory piece about Kamala Harris headlined When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, a Washington Post columnist declares in another case of bothsiderism: “Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.” The evidence that corporations have jacked up prices and are reaping huge profits is easy to find, but facts don’t matter much in this kind of opining.

From PressWatch, July 31, 2020

In a seminal tweet early this summer, during the battle over a particularly abhorrent op-ed, journalist Wesley Lowery set down a marker:

American view-from-nowhere, “objectivity”-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity

— Wesley (@WesleyLowery) June 4, 2020

Some have depicted this view as radical, demanding some sort of uniform view on all issues. But what Lowery and others (including myself) are arguing for is not moral conformity, just clarity.

From Breaking the NewsOctober 23, 2022:
Margaret Sullivan has some proposals in her book. So do scores of other organizations and people all scrambling to create a different news ecosystem to replace what seems unchangeable in our current one. So will I, upcoming, in this space.

Significantly, nearly all of these ideas involve less of what Margaret Sullivan has being doing in her columns, and what I have done over the decades, and what many others have emphasized as well: pointing out what is not working in the current media models.

-That seems less and less worth it.

-If critiques were going to stop “both-sides-ism,” that would already have occurred.

And this next bit takes us where we're going next.  From News Literacy Matters, October 21, 2022 
What’s wrong with bothsidesism?

...a knee-jerk response to include both sides in a story can lead to what is now known as bothsidesism. This misguided pursuit of balance sets up a false equivalence, a form of specious reasoning in which two sides are treated as the same when they are not.

Part of the problem is that the public both expects and wants bothsidesism, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Three-quarters of people surveyed say journalists should always strive to give all sides equal coverage, while more than half of all journalists think the opposite.

And there -- right there -- is why our politics is no longer reliably thermostatic.  Because for decades the general public has been enveloped in a media bubble where comforting Both Siderist false equivalences are delivered every hour of every day on the house by Savvy Media Experts from America's most prominent and influential media corporations.   

And because of this relentless conditioning from trusted sources, the public has developed a reflexive Ovsiankinan response to every Republican act of depravity and treason.   To get rid of their nearly subliminal sense of disquiet and anxiety, and to get that nice little bump of Dopamine, when confronted with any news of Republican perfidy, they will automatically balance out an equation which their nagging  subconscious is telling them is unbalanced with "...but the Democrats" or ...and the Democrats" or "Sure, but, y'know, Both Sides".

This legacy media propaganda is so much more insidious and toxic than Fox News/Hate Radio propaganda because in comes disguised as "fairness" and "impartiality" which, in different country along a different timeline, would be admirable traits.  But here and now, it's just propaganda which both prevents the general public from actually fairly adjudicating the vast moral and policy differences between the two sides, and provides an all-purpose, every-occasion alibi for Republicans who are sick of Trump and MAGA but could never in a million years bring themselves to vote for an Murrica-hating, terrorist-loving, commie baby killers.

Of course, that's just my two-bits worth.  You are free to leave your support, or rebuttal in the comment section.

I Am The Liberal Media

Friday, June 19, 2026

The Dogmas of the Quiet Past


I was pleased and proud to have this man as my president.  Pleased and proud to have his family as our First Family.  I was proud to vote for him for senator once and for president twice.  I was proud to have been one of the panelists who vetted him when he was still a relatively obscure state senator during his ultimately failed primary bid for the U.S. House of Representatives against incumbent Bobby Rush. In fact, I still have my ticket stub from his "Barack the Vote" fundraiser.  

However, as pleased and proud as I was to have Barack Obama as my president, it is also worth remembering the environment in which Obama governed, including taking a moment to remember much furious shit we Obama supporters took from our "allies" on the left.  In case you'd forgotten, here's a sample from a now-deadlinked post on Common Dreams from May, 2013.  I have an archive full of this stuff: 

When Obama finally declares martial law and announces the new Fascist States of American, O-bots like Maddow will eagerly put on their Nazi armbands -- cute little pastel hope & change swastikas, of course -- and join the goose-stepping parade. She's nothing but a propagandist and has absolutely no scruples whatsoever, just like the corporation that pays her, just like the "commander-in-chief" she props up with her lies and half-truths...

That kind of rhetoric was not unusual at the time: over-the-top rage from the whole Conservative media machine and from the dirtbag Left.  And in that environment, the Obama administration constituted a grand social experiment in offering the Republican party base -- which had been trained by Republican leadership and Conservative media to automatically loathe Democrats with an almost unhinged ferocity -- a different option.  Offering them compromise, thoughtfulness, dignity and respect, as well as policies that materially benefited them.

And that grand social experiment failed spectacularly.  Which is why it is worth our time and attention to diagnose why that experiment failed.  But to do that we'd have to journey into the past further back than 2016, which is something that pundits, the consulting class and our Never Trump "allies" almost all categorically refuse to do. 

That is because to examine the state of our union prior to 2016 makes the pundits, the consulting class and our Never Trump "allies" either look like arrogant idiots whose opinions should never be trusted again...or ambitious fools who were complicit in creating the ideal conditions for a monster like Trump to emerge...or both.  And since pundits, the consulting class and our Never Trump "allies" now dominate any media conversation about politics, that once again leaves it to dirty, disreputable outsiders like us to do the work of explaining why everything went to hell.  

To start with, President Barack Obama might as well have been built in a Centrist/Moderate/Both Siderist lab by the New York Times editorial board. He was everything the pundits and the consultant class said would be the "solve" for what was dividing America. 

This is from me 16 years ago, in 2010:

For his entire adult life, Barack Obama has succeeded by offering himself as the perfect midpoint between others. As a mathematical function, not a leader. As an averaging equation, not a true believer.

Since he showed up on the political radar, he has marketed himself relentlessly as

Half black and half white...
Half American urbanite, half world-citizen...
Half wonk, half preacher...
Half Harvard Yard, half Back o' the Yards...
Half red and half blue...

And this bone-deep reflex -- plus his formidable intellect and ability to rise to the rhetorical occasion -- would have prepared him perfectly for the Presidency...if this were 1960.

But it is not 1960 -- nor is he dealing with Harvard Conservatives pals or Springfield Republican pols -- and being a results-agnostic "process guy" when the process is utterly broken no longer works.

Instead, the ideologically-lockstepping Right led by Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers have found in Obama their perfect patsy: the Democrat who seems constitutionally incapable of counter-punching, who can only feel comfortable while suspended between two opposing positions and who will, therefore, find a compromise between opposites even when he has to invent wholly fictional opposing views to which he can cede half the playing field.

In order to avoid wasting his presidency, squandering the opportunity we have given him, and letting the country spiral into a permanent corporate feudal pest-hole, Barack Obama must do the hardest thing of all: he must exceed his design specifications. This is not unprecedented, but like Franklin Roosevelt the capitalist-turned-social-Democrat or Abraham Lincoln the compromiser-turned-Emancipator, Obama must let go of a central pillar of his identity and embrace the brutal fact that our modern house divided against itself cannot stand.

That we cannot endure permanently half-Fox and half-free.

That we will become all one thing, or all the other.

And that this is your fight, President Obama.

This burden has fallen to you: it cannot be shirked and cannot be delegated.

If you take up this challenge, millions of us will have your back, Mr. President.

But if you cannot summon the inner strength to evolve past your reflexive need to compromise with people who want to destroy you, then we are all well and truly fucked.

Because in 2008, Democrats took a chance on an outsider conjured out of their best hopes, but by 2010 it was clear to anyone with eyes to see that the Republican party and Conservative media were too far gone to be saved.  That by now there was too much power and too much profit trafficking in racism and conspiracy mongering and hatred for them to change.  That they viewed compromise, thoughtfulness, dignity and respect as weakness, and Obama as a patsy for continuing to offer calm, civility and concessions over and over again.  

That what the nation needed in that moment was a president who took to the bully pulpit every day to beat the shit out of GOP in the Truman style:

“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.” 

And to go after the working men and women who voted against their own interests in the same manner:


But that never happened.  And the reaction from Republicans to this decent, honorable, thoughtful man who begged them to work with him solve our common problems was an eight-year-long, racist primal scream and the to nominate and elect the personification of their most dangerously ignorant, racist fears. 

The King of the Birthers. 

Then they renominated him again in 2020.

Then, when he lost, they attempted a coup to overthrow the government, and spent the next four years screaming that the election had been stolen.

Then they renominated him yet again in 2024, re-elected him, and here we are.  And by now it should be plain enough for even the punditocracy to see that the problem was never Trump.  The problem has always been the bigots and imbeciles of the Republican base who manifested Trump, and the Conservative media which continues to belt-feed the most lurid red-meat lies to that base, which eagerly gobbles it up and asks for seconds.   

So, to quote another president from Illinois whose presidential library and museum are also here, 

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow-citizens, we can not escape history. We of this Congress and this Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it...

 And to repeat what I shamelessly stole from Lincoln 16 years ago and modified to fit our times:

That we cannot endure permanently half-Fox and half-free.

That we will become all one thing, or all the other.


 


Burn The Lifeboats


Wednesday, June 17, 2026

PBS Steel Cage Death Match...

...are words no sensible person would ever hammer together into a sentence.  But you good people get a sneak peek at the reason for that sentence, which we will be covering in greater length on the 1000th episode of the Professional Left Podcast on Thursday (weather permitting.) 

The reason that sentence makes no sense is because anyone who has watched PBS panels for more than a minute can identify their unique set of cultural expectations.  Avoid profanity.  No muttering asides about what a dumbfuck so-and-so is.  No reality teevee 'confessionals" after the panel where a participant can really cut loose.  Always be collegial, even when your "colleague" is lying their ass off.  

And above all, no shouting.  Business must be conducted in the proper tone -- interactions kept within the 50 to 60 decibel "quiet conversation" range.  Maybe jump it up to 65 when propping up someone's lame joke with some PBS-brand jolly laughter.  

But however hard they work to sand down any differences, then pack those differences in the cotton batting of PBS-speak, there are moments more and more frequently when it's clear that the Left side of the panel would very much like to call the Right side of the panel out for being a lying sumbitch. 

So this banal exchange is about as close as you're going to get to PBS News Hour panelists rasslin'.

From The PBS News Hour, June 12...

This is the exchange on PBS Friday between Mr. David Brooks and Mr. Jonathan Capehart, with emphasis added:

David Brooks:  ... The Trump thing is just weird. He's just -- he appoints Bill Pulte, who's clearly not even close, within a Pacific Ocean, of being qualified for this job. And then he turns around, and to make the permanent acting, not acting, but the permanent director of DNI, Jay Clayton, who's totally like superstar level by Trump's standards.

So how does the same guy pick two people, one with such radically different qualifications? The one thing I should add is that I don't like what the Democrats are doing here. I understand you don't like Bill Pulte. I understand you think he should not have been appointed. And that, you're absolutely 100 percent correct.

But the FISA program works well. We are now -- as Speaker Johnson made the point, we're now -- we got the World Cup here. We got the Iranian thing going on. We need all the intelligence I can get. And that FISA program supplies, I'm told, half the president's daily intelligence brief.

That's a lot of information and valuable information. It's a very well-working program. And the Democrats are not repeal -- or not renewing it sort of in my view out of spite, but they're making us less safe.  

The moderator then turns to Jonathan Capehart, who asks an obvious question

Jonathan Capehart:   How this became the Democrats' fault is curious to me.

One -- a couple of things to keep in mind. One, even though the law has expired, it was reauthorized by a FISA court in March of 2026', this past March, which goes through March of 27. So Congress has time to come back and reauthorize it, do whatever they need to do, because it's not just Democrats who have concerns about the law. It's Republicans as well.

So I just don't think it's right to say it's all the Democrats' fault, especially when they're not even in the majority in either house.  

After which the moderator, Geoff Bennett, immediately changes the subject, which is what the moderator always does whenever there is the slightest danger of David Brooks being made a fool of by someone who came armed with facts.  

So, rather than pursuing the question of, hey, why the hell are you blaming Democrats when they don’t control anything, we get, "In the time that remains, David, do your Sunday night plans involve being at the White House for a UFC match, by chance?"

Ha ha ha.  Potential unpleasantness averted.  Collegiality restored.  Audience soothed.    

Trivial, right?  Hardly worth mentioning, right?  And I wouldn’t have mentioned it were it not for the fact that it is one more example of an unholy ritual performed over and over again on that set, involving the same people, operating according to the same assumptions.

For example, you will undoubtedly remember that, one day after one of Trump’s ICE goons murdered Rene Good in cold blood on camera, the same Messer's. Brooks and Capehart were invited to share their opinions about that murder.

And Brooks did his thing like a man dispatched from Centrist Thought HQ with a very important mission: whatever the question is, the answer must always be “both sides are basically the same kind of confused, noble, tragic souls squinting at reality through fogged-up moral lenses.”

And in this case, the prompt is not subtle. It’s a video of a woman being shot in Minnesota. A real-world, immediate, ugly, concrete thing. The sort of thing that, historically speaking, usually calls for at least a directional opinion.

Instead, Brooks doesn’t just bend over backward – he gave it the full Cirque du Soleil routine of intellectual contortion, folding himself across multiple dimensions just to avoid saying, plainly, what he thinks of what people just saw.

And you can almost hear the gears turning: how do I not take a position, but still sound like I am wisely refusing to take a position?

So he doesn’t say “I’m not taking a side.” No. That would be too simple. Too honest. Instead, he goes searching through the attic of American memory and drags down a dusty old artifact: a 1951 football game film.   A filmed college football game where both teams watched it afterward and each concluded the refs had screwed them differently. Which, apparently, is now the master key to understanding modern political violence.

And the argument emerges in its full Brooksian foulness: people interpret reality through bias, everyone sees what they want to see, therefore everything is politics, therefore no interpretation is more grounded than any other, therefore the wise posture is… eternal suspended judgment.

It’s the same fucking column he’s been writing for 24 years. Different props, same stage play. Swap in Iraq, swap in Trump, swap in a shooting in Minnesota—doesn’t matter. The conclusion is always hovering in a nonexistent middle ground.  

Meanwhile, sitting across from him was Jonathan Capehart, doing that very modern cable-news thing where you are professionally required to witness something grotesque and surreal and respond with PBS impassivity.

You can see the “are you hearing this shit?” energy radiating off him. The body language of someone who is one sentence away from standing up and walking off set, but is restrained by the invisible PBS leash that says: we will discuss your feelings, but only in approved tonal ranges.

And he tries to steer it back toward something resembling the actual subject. Because the question was not “what does 1951 college football teach us about epistemology.” The question was: what do you think about this shooting?


Brooks, however, has already made track for Centerville.  He’s back in his seminar on the Sociology of Perception mode, concluding that all humans are basically trapped in interpretive fog banks and therefore—surprise—we should be very cautious about concluding anything at all.

Which is how you end up in that very familiar elite media cul-de-sac where:

Something happens in the real world

It is immediately translated into a meditation on perception

The meditation conveniently avoids any judgment about the thing that happened

And the absence of judgment is reframed as wisdom

And the segment lands where it always lands: in that posture of cultivated detachment that looks, from the outside, less like intellectual humility and more like refusal to face reality. 

You will also remember these same people on this same stage back in August of last year.  Brooks "Both Sidesed" Trump ordering Texas to gerrymander him five new congressional seats out of thin air, and Gavin Newsom fighting back with the only weapon he has.  

He also bitched that "no one is marching in the streets" over this shit because apparently from the Acela corridor quiet car he can't see the millions who have been out in the streets in all kinds of weather for all kinds of marches.  Or maybe he's just a legacy media troll who shoulda been given the hook 20 years ago.

You see, it’s not any one of these examples – and there are dozens more on PBS alone.  Hundreds more from Brooks over the years.  And hundreds of thousands more across all legacy media platforms over the decades.  

It is the collective weight of all of them.  The relentless repetition of variations of this one lie that has incepted that lie as an axiomatic truth in the subconscious of millions and millions of our fellow citizens.  

That's when you get the 10,000th iteration of garbage like this.  From Wake Up To Politics:
Could There Be a Third Party for Moderates?
It turns out, Americans agree on an awful lot.





Burn The Lifeboats


Thursday, May 28, 2026

Dubya Walked So Trump Could Run: Part 1003.



As you read this, please note that this NBC headline is not from last week.

It's from 20 years ago.  NBC, August 8, 2006:
Administration seeks to weaken war crimes law

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments...
Bush regime panic was triggered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which ruled that the Bush regime's existing military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees violated both U.S. military law and parts of the Geneva Conventions.

The Bush Regime's reaction to that ruling was on par with General Saito's reaction to the Conventions in The Bridge on the River Kwai



Since it was pretty clear Republicans were widely expected to get their asses kicked in the 2006 midterms and lose control of one or both houses of Congress (sound familiar?) with Republicans facing the likely end of four years of unified control of Washington.  Before that happened the Bush regime hurry-up-quick rammed through the  Military Commissions Act.

Remember: it authorized new military tribunals, drastically narrowed the definition of punishable war crimes under U.S. law, gave the president broader authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions, and attempted to block detainees from challenging their detention through habeas corpus petitions in federal court. 

There was little debate or somber reflection of what this might mean.

Instead it flew through the Republican-controlled Senate on September 28, 2006.  The vote was, Republicans: 53 despicably predictable yesses, 1 no, 1 absent,  Democrats: 12 shameful yesses, 32 no, and Independent: 0 yes, 1 no.

Then it flew through the Republican-controlled House the very next day, September 29, 2006.  The vote was, Republicans: 218 despicably predictable yesses, 7 no, 5 not voting, Democrats: 32 shameful yesses, 162 no, 7 not voting,  Independent: 0 yes, 1 no 

Then George W. Bush signed it into law on October 17, 2006.  But in 2008, the Supreme Court (No kidding!  Guess you had to be there!) ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the law’s attempt to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights was unconstitutional.   The court was split 5-4, and it will surprise absolutely no one that the four Republican-appointed dissenters were John Roberts,  Nino Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

You see kids, the depraved values and trajectory of the Republican party were there for anyone to see who cared to look with honest eyes.  A Republican president and his blood-thirsty regent who believed the president should be able to rule as an emperor (as long as he was a Republican.)  A Republican Congress eager to let the president do it (as long as he was a Republican.)  And a slim Republicans minority on the court -- two appointed by Dubya, one appointed by Dubya's daddy, and one appointed by Dubya's daddy's boss -- willing to bless that unholy Republican aspiration.   

I keep 20 or 30 of these examples in my back pocket for when our Never Trump supervisors figuratively put their feet up on our coffee table, swill our good beer and begin to wax nostalgic about the "good old days" of the GOP before Trump.

I usually get through three or four examples before they block me and stomp away.  Which is weird, 'cause didn't you want to talk about the past?


Burn The Lifeboats



Wednesday, May 06, 2026

Quantum Entanglement Politics Part 1.

Today we're going to take a break from the daily barrage of life-and-death lies pushed by fascists and talk about the importance of scale.

Not vibes. Not anecdotes. Scale.

Because one of the things the last decade has taught us—over and over and over again—is that if you don’t understand scale, you don’t understand propaganda. And if you don’t understand propaganda, you’re already losing.

The subject of scale -- or, rather, the conspicuous avoidance of the subject of scale -- glided quietly past during one of the Pod Save lads’ daily recitations of the “Why Democrats Suck” rosary—Kamala was a bad candidate, Joe Biden is history’s greatest villain, etc.

Anyway, then there was this (with emphasis added)

Jon Favreau:  Yeah. I mean to the ... to the broader question of that Lakshya [Jain] raises in that in that Argument piece about like why Democrats aren't gaining on the generic ballot by as much as Trump's approval is falling. I do think there's a probably a number of reasons. 

Jon Lovett:  Oh, definitely. 

Before we move on, a quick side quest into a subject these people never discuss in depth... and which I have been writing about on this blog since these gentlemen were fresh outta college, Kerry campaign volunteers.  

Both Siderism.

Let's start with how most people have traditionally understood politics for a long time.  The idea that politics behaves like a thermostat.   From Good Authority:

Good to Know: The public is a thermostat

Why there is a never-ending cycle of governments doing something and the public wanting the opposite.

...one of the most enduring puzzles of democracy [is that] governments, no matter what they do, often seem unable to satisfy voters. When governments take action, the public often seems to want the opposite. Push policies left, and opinions shift right. Increase spending, and people want cuts. 

This phenomenon – where public preferences shift in the opposite direction of government action – is known as thermostatic politics.

The thermostatic model, first formalized by political scientist Christopher Wlezien in 1995, describes the public’s reaction to government policies as akin to a thermostat adjusting a room’s temperature. Just as a thermostat signals when to cool down or warm up based on current conditions, public opinion signals to policymakers when to increase or decrease policy activity. 

A little like Newtonian physics, right? Push and pull.  Action, and equal and opposite reaction.

But that Newtonian model is broken.  Broken by 40+ years of Both Sides Do It bullshit from America's Very Serious pundits and professional opinion-havers.  Despite the fact that America's two major parties are almost exactly diametrically opposed on almost every issue, thanks to the daily barrage of media Both Siderism, for millions of voters, that Newtonian model of action and reaction has been replaced by a kind of Einstein/Schrödinger quantum politics, with the parties becoming "entangled" in the public mind regardless of how distant and different they are from each other.

By now you all know how this entanglement shows up in the everyday language of way too many American voters.  For example, a few months ago we talked "Steve" who was one of the subjects of a Vox article titled, "Meet the newly uninsured --  Millions of Americans will soon go without insurance. We spoke with some of them."

"Steve" is a retiree. who had insurance through his wife's job.  But then the company shut down her division, so she decided to retire, and off they went to the exchange to shop for new coverage.  His story is tragic and, with minor variations, is being experienced by millions of American families including ours.

But when you hit that last sentence, remember that "Steve" is saying this in the Fall of 2025, living in the rubble of a full decade of felonies, conspiracy mongering, corruption, lying, bigotry, treason, insurrection, fascism and assorted other catastrophes that a Trump-led Republican party has left in its wake.  

Up until last year, his family of three was covered by his wife’s insurance, provided by the large corporation for which she worked. It was $500 a month with a low deductible. But then, the company shut down her division, she decided to retire, and the couple and their son enrolled in the same plan on the state’s ACA marketplaces.

They couldn’t get such a great deal, but they found something usable: about $1,000 per month — pricey, but they were able to keep all of their doctors, who were in network. Their deductible was about $4,600.

But next year, their current plan would cost $2,700 every month to keep, and their deductible would be higher — up to $5,300. They could consider dropping their college-aged son off the plan, but he would struggle to afford health insurance on his own, and it would only save his parents $300 a month.

Steven says he feels trapped. Given their age, he and his wife don’t feel they can afford to go without insurance. But they’re now going to have to pull money out of their retirement accounts to cover the cost of their health plan.

“We cannot wing it and not have health insurance,” Steven said. “I’m spending a lot of money that I really do not have on health care.”

He’s done the math. If he kept his same plan, paid all of the premiums, and paid the maximum out-of-pocket costs, he could spend $50,000 on health care out of pocket — even with a health insurance plan.

“It kinda seems like the two political parties want to be right and not care about people,” he told me.


Even when the stakes are life and death -- and even when proof of who is right and wrong is at everyone’s fingertips -- allocating blame correctly feels literally unthinkable to tens of millions of citizens who have come to believe the “Both Sides Do It” lie as gospel.

So, when Republican corruption, lies and policies fuck them over, in order to make the quantum entanglement between the two parties balance out, somehow, in some mysterious way, these people hold as irrefutably true that Democrats must be equally to blame.  

Every time you hear another "undecided" or "independent" or "centrist" or "unhappy Trump voter" bitching about "Congress" or "politicians in Washington"  or "both sides of the aisle" in the the face of a Republican party which has devolved into a mob of violent bigots and imbeciles, fueled by lurid, home-grown fascist propaganda masquerading as news, and ruled by monsters and demagogues...you are seeing the effect of 40+ years of Both Sides Do It media curb-stomping thermostatic politics and replacing it with quantum entanglement politics.

And even at the cost of our democracy, the legacy media would rather go right on pumping that narcotic lie into our politics than risk the wrath of the MAGA mob and the loss of revenue that would surely accompany telling the masses the simple, ugly truth.

But this was just supposed to be a side-quest, wasn't it?

Damn.

Well, let's pick it up in Part 2, which I'll get to later today or tomorrow when we get back to the subject of "scale" in what I am sure will end up being a TL;DR post.

See you all in a bit.



I Am The Liberal Media




Thursday, April 16, 2026

And on His Headstone Shall Read These, His Final Words: “...But the Democrats”

Whenever you hear Never Trumpers musing about the good old days of the Before Time, it sounds like something between Greek myth and a road company production of Camelot.   Heroes and giants walking the Earth.  Mighty deeds being done by mighty men.  The snow never slushed upon the hillside, and by 9 p.m. the moonlight was required to appear.

And so forth.

And I'm sure that many of them do remember it that way, seeing as they weren't the ones being slandered and demonized every day by the Conservative Media Hate Machine.   They were, in fact, the ones who were profiting handsomely from the Hate Machine.  But as I warned 20 fucking years ago... 

And yet to build this electoral dynamo the Republican Party has had to completely sell out any vestige of principles or soul it once had for dominion over the divided and bitter land it has created. And because of that, there is no “Plan B” if you are a GOP candidate for national office.

Your Party Masters have burned your bridges and salted the Earth behind you, and now there is nothing left for you to do but desperately tunnel deeper into the Hell you have built for yourself.

Which is why John McCain now publicly grovels and kisses the poxy asses of the men who service and steer the Pretty Hate Machine indifferently past the bodies of the dead and dying of NOLA, and gleefully down the blood-tarred, bone-macadamed streets of Iraq. Men who went right after his family -- his wife and children -- and his honorable national service without a second thought when it suited their despicable purposes.

Because the Pretty Hate Machine does not come with a conscience, and it now casts its depraved shadow over their entire Party.

And over the entire nation that Party has seized.

And over the entire world that Party has polluted.

It has become all Means and no Ends but More Power, and as with all power, it comes with a steep price...

Well, the GOP's 2008 candidate for president, John McCain, is gone now.  His daughter married one of the Hate Machine's operating engineers and has disappeared down the MAGA rat hole.  And his 2008 running mate -- Sarah Palin, the Scintilla from Wasilla, MAGA 1.0 -- had her bullshit libel suit thrown out and was a big, big Trump supporter until he went all AI Jebus and now appears to have joined the crowded field of third tier wingnut influencers slow-fast walking to the pier to look for a lifeboat.  

Safe to say, John McCain's political legacy in is ashes.  

But what of the next sterling man of character that was offered up to the general public as a candidate for president?  Their 2012 candidate, Willard "Mittens" Romney?  

You remember him, right?   

He's the guy who was gonna herd the MAGA mob safely back into the corporate/neocon pen.  I wrote a whole thing about it back when it was a thing ("Hokum's Heroes") whence I salvaged these rare curios from that now nearly-forgotten past.







Yeah, it turned out they were just as wrong about Mittens as they were about everything else, which is why after that last, humiliating display of hilarious political naivete, no one ever heard from David Frum, or Bill Kristol, or Michael Steele ever again :-)

"So why bring him up now?" you ask.

Fair question. 

It's because, speaking of things said and done 20 years ago, this week is the 20th anniversary of then-governor Mitt Romney signing Romneycare into law in Massachusetts, and The Bulwark sent Jonathan Cohn to, well, not "interview" him really.  To just nod and transcribe whatever the Great Man said.

And oh my goodness, does Mittens show himself to be every bit the clueless, obsolete, Republican cipher we lefties knew him to be back when all your favorite Never Trumpers were, well, trumpeting his praises and hailing him as the savior of the Republican party.  

A "savior" who has been assembled out of spare parts salvaged from all their previous failures.  Because in the interview, Romney happily parrots just about every MAGA culture war lie on the checklist --
Romney:  I think today it's the culture stupid. I think, my own view is Democrats have staked out some positions -- or a number of Democrats have -- that don't make a lot of sense to everyday Americans. Defund the police.  It's like are you kidding? You think that's going to sell in cities? Defund the police. Uh biological males competing in girl sports. Like that doesn't make any sense at all. uh open borders, people flooding into the country, people saying, "What in the world are you doing?" Democrats were doing some absolutely, in my opinion, just crazy stuff, right?  And that caused a lot of everyday Americans to say, you know, I used to be a Democrat, but I can't put up with that stuff. And they became they became Republicans. And uh and I mean, I think the Democratic Party is in a world of hurt uh in part because of their posture on so many of these social issues.

-- slathered with a big ol' helping "Both Sides Do It".
Romney:  I think both parties have uh have sown the seeds of defeat uh in part by taking some positions which I think are out of the mainstream.
And: 
Romney:  I think at politics maybe more today even than them which is if it's an idea raised by a Republican Republicans like it. If it's idea raised by a Democrat um Republicans hate it and vice you know vice versa. 
And:
Cohn:  And what about the Republican party? Do you feel like that where they are?

Romney:  I mean do you feel like on immigration on there's a lot of policies where people would say, you know, they are extreme in their own way and does that well we're both parties are creating their own problems. 

Romney:  I think what the president did to secure our border is wisely uh done and very popular. I think some of the ICE uh actions throughout Minnesota and other places is seen by people as being unnecessarily brutal um and is and has hurt the president's popularity. Um, so some things I think the president has done that make a lot of sense that are politically attractive. Other things I think are more harmful. I look, I have a list of things where I agree with President Trump and it's a good long list. Then I have a list of things where I disagree with him, but I understand his logic and  say, you know, he may be right, I may be wrong. I'm not right on everything. 

Scary trans males in women's sports?  Check!  "Open borders"?  Check!  "Defund the police"?  Check.

If you want virtually any shitty MAGA talking point repeated by a bland technocrat loser, Romney's your man.  

Because Romney was never the cure for what ails the Trump Republican Party.  

Instead, Romney was just another respectable, Beltway-approved carrier of the disease that made the rise of Trump possible.   

And he still is. 


I Am The Liberal Media




Sunday, March 29, 2026

The Zombie Dance of JD Vance.

 "The world we knew is gone, but keeping our humanity? That's a choice."  -- Dale Horvath, The Walking Dead
I know some of you are not podcast listeners and prefer your words on a page arranged in neat little rows.  So, for you, and for anyone looking for a much tidied-up version of our last podcast, herewith you will find some of what my wife and I discussed.

We start with that quote from the character of Dale Horvath, because that question is the central question of our time, and it comes down to how we understand two separate ideas.  

But first, we need to take a very brief tour of the end of the world as it’s portrayed in science fiction, beginning with the 1983 made-for-TV movie that gave people of a certain age nightmares and apparently freaked Ronald Reagan out so badly that he started talking seriously about nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union.  That would be “The Day After”, which more than 100 million people watched when it first aired on ABC on November 20, 1983. and in a 2009 Nielsen TV Ratings list was one of the highest-rated television films in US history.

[Fun Fact:  The film was broadcast on Soviet state television in 1987 during the negotiations on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.   And the producers demanded that the Russian translation conform to the original script and that the broadcast not be interrupted by commentary.]

The film was about nuclear war and its aftermath, which focused much less on the explosions themselves and more on what happens in the days and weeks that follow.  Communities across Kansas and Missouri are left devastated. Infrastructure collapses: power grids fail, hospitals are overwhelmed, communication breaks down, and government authority slowly erodes. The film portrays how ordinary people like farmers, students, doctors, and families struggle to understand what’s happened while radiation sickness, shortages of food and medicine, and social disorganization steadily worsen.

This is what made “The Day After” especially unsettling – its depiction of slow societal breakdown rather than immediate annihilation. Survivors initially try to maintain normal routines and institutions, but each passing day systems and institutions that we largely take for granted -- the medical profession, the food supply, law and order – starts to fall apart. By focusing on this gradual unraveling of society, the film emphasizes that the real horror of nuclear war is not just the blasts but the prolonged collapse of social order and the suffering that follows.

 You’ll find this same plot structure in almost every story, movie or TV series in the science fiction sub-genre of post-apocalypse/dystopian fiction.  The Stand.  World War Z.  Station Eleven.  The Last of Us. It's a very long list and every fan of the genre has their favorite.  I, for, one an a big fan of A Canticle for Liebowitz, in which the inciting incident happened so long ago that no one really remembers what caused it.  

Great book.  Highly recommended.

There is always an inciting incident – could be a lab leak, a nuclear exchange, tainted food, or a virus that comes out of nowhere – followed by disbelief, followed by panic, followed by attempts at containment that grow progressively more desperate and violent while at the same time there are increasingly desperate attempts at finding a way to mitigate the growing damage or cure the spreading disease.

So, getting back to the quote from The Walking Dead "The world we knew is gone, but keeping our humanity? That's a choice." – in every story about post-apocalyptic confusion and panic, some people begin to figure out that, whatever comes next, the old world is gone for good.

 And that is the first question for all of us in the here and now: Do you accept that the world as we knew it – the political and cultural America we once knew – is gone?  Because if you do, then you’ll arrive at one set of answers to that question.  

But some people just don’t, and those people will arrive at a radically different set of answers, because they liked the old ways.  They prospered and were respected under the old rules. They can’t adjust to the new realities, so they metaphorically offer empty prayers in an empty church, as if, by sheer force of will, they can beg, and bargain and bully  the new reality back into the old ways.

Of course, there has been no nuclear war, and at the moment there is no virus sweeping across the globe, or meteor impact large enough to topple governments.  But when you think about it, our lived experience as Liberals is remarkably similar to characters living through a zombie apocalypse.   

So, as a thought experiment, let's see how this metaphor stacks up.  

First, the inciting incident.  For those of you who are playing along at home, you might say The Powell Memo, or Nixon’s Southern Strategy, or Strom Thurmond switching parties, or the media becoming a Both Sides Do It cult, or Republicans inviting Conservative evangelicals into the party, and those are all good answers.  But for the moment, let’s call those examples (and dozens more) the foreshocks of what was to come.

These are moments of escalation that, in a sense, were like retroviruses that weakened our democracy’s immune system and set the stage for the real Bad Thing.  And in this scenario, the inciting incident was the election of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in 2000, and even more importantly, the re-election of Bush and Cheney in 2004.  

That was the year that launched 1,000 liberal bloggers.  

In their first term, Bush and Cheney showed that they were more than willing to lie and cheat to win, and crucially, that the base was cool with it.  They proved that Republican concerns about deficits were a lie.  That character didn’t count after all.  That they could lie this country into a catastrophic foreign war…and the Republican base and the legacy media would go along with it.

And the re-election of Bush and Cheney?  Let's turn to the late Dr. Hunter S. Thompson for post-2004 debate coverage, because what Hunter Thompson saw is what we all saw.
Kerry came into October as a five-point underdog with almost no chance of winning three out of three rigged confrontations with a treacherous little freak like George Bush. But the debates are over now, and the victor was clearly John Kerry every time. He steamrolled Bush and left him for roadkill.

Did you see Bush on TV, trying to debate? Jesus, he talked like a donkey with no brains at all. The tide turned early, in Coral Gables, when Bush went belly up less than halfway through his first bout with Kerry, who hammered poor George into jelly. It was pitiful. . . . I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him "Mister President," and then I felt ashamed.

Karl Rove, the president's political wizard, felt even worse. There is angst in the heart of Texas today, and panic in the bowels of the White House. Rove has a nasty little problem, and its name is George Bush. The president failed miserably from the instant he got onstage with John Kerry. He looked weak and dumb. Kerry beat him like a gong in Coral Gables, then again in St. Louis and Tempe -- and that is Rove's problem: His candidate is a weak-minded frat boy who cracks under pressure in front of 60 million voters. 
And you know what?  It didn’t matter in the slightest.  If you were there at the time, you saw what years of the Conservative media calling anti-war Democrats “traitors and lunatics" with "Bush Derangement Syndrome”  had done.  What Andrew Sullivan, calling us “fifth columnists” had done.  And don’t forget this, coming from the highest office in the land. 

From The New York Times, September 8, 2004: 
Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

Stepping up the battle over national security, Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Tuesday that the country would be at risk of a terror attack if it made "the wrong choice" in November, and President Bush accused Senator John Kerry of adopting the antiwar language of his Democratic primary rival Howard Dean...
Oh, and we mustn't forget the gay bashing, or who Bush’s point man was on slandering gays and lesbians.  From Salon, April 5, 2007:
With Bush as president, [Matthew] Dowd was put on the Republican National Committee payroll and became an intimate participant in White House strategy sessions. Bush and the Republicans now exploited divisive wedge issues and tactics with a vengeance. After Sept. 11, 2001, fear was bundled with loathing, the terrorist threat from abroad conflated with the gay menace within. By 2004, relying on Dowd’s numbers, Republicans made gay marriage the most salient social issue, exceeding abortion and gun control in its inflammatory potential to mobilize conservatives. Dowd prescribed the strategy for targeting Republican base voters’ “anger points,” as GOP consultants called them, for maximum turnout. 
And then came the Swiftboating!  

The base of the Republican party sopped all of this poison up with a biscuit and begged for seconds.  Which Fox News and Hate Radio provided non-stop 24 hours a day, while the legacy media rolled right over for it.

And the incompetent dry-drunk halfwit draft dodger and his blood-drunk regent were reelected, defeating a decent, honorable man and war hero.  All of which and so much more during a time which your Never Trump allies desperately want you to remember as the good old days, when everyone played it according to Hoyle.  

This is what jump-started the Liberal blogosphere.  And this was the true beginning of the current Republican zombie apocalypse.  It was when Republicans learned they could violate what they’d always claimed were their core principles, and the base would cheer them on.  That they could attack Democrats every day using the most disgusting lies and most violent, unhinged rhetoric, and there’d be no consequences.  The laws of political gravity no longer applied to them.  

And most importantly, it’s when the base discovered they could unleash their worst impulses and be rewarded for it.  That Conservative media and Republican elected officials would actually egg them on, while the legacy media busied itself pretended it wasn’t happening.  

And it was all going great until it all fell apart!  When the price in blood and treasure and reputation of the Bush administration’s incompetence, deceit and corruption grew so great that even Fox News screaming at 120 decibels couldn’t drown it out.  

This was the moment to stop the Republican zombie plague in its tracks.  To cauterize the infection by holding everyone responsible accountable, right down to the Republican base who had endorsed all of it with their vote, and a legacy media which had let war criminals lie to their face and laugh about it.  

But one of the themes you will find running through almost every zombie apocalypse story is sadness.  The loss of the familiar world and the people who gave it meaning. Unlike many other horror genres, the enemy is frequently someone who used to be human—a friend, a neighbor, a family member—now reduced to an unrecognizable shell.

Alongside that sadness runs a strong current of nostalgia, often expressed through small, almost mundane details. Characters cling to remnants of the old world—photographs, music, empty streets, half-functioning routines—as a way of preserving identity that reality is taking away. This nostalgia is both comforting and bittersweet; it reminds the characters that the apocalypse is erasing our shared cultural memory and what we believed were our shared values.  

  And here in the real world, this is when the “Let’s get back to normal” caucus leaps into action and insists that the best way to move forward is to put the past behind us.   Because “Let’s get back to normal” is code for letting the millions of malefactors who created the disaster off the hook.  

A prime example of this is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who is apparently running in the 2007 Meet the Press Green Room presidential primary.  This was him on Morning Joe just last week:

Booker: "There are really good people in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, and I have these private conversations with my colleagues about what's wrong. But they're afraid or unwilling to say these things publicly. And that is the crisis that we're in. It's a crisis of conviction."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) March 24, 2026 at 1:02 PM

And the reason many of us OG bloggers roll our eyes at people like Senator Booker is that we’ve already been to this rodeo.  We’ve already witnessed Republicans fuck things up almost beyond repair, then Democrats get voted in to clean up their mess, and the immediate reaction of the “Let’s get back to normal” crowd was to put the past behind us.   

This is what was on offer in 2008 when Barack Obama ran for president.   In the face of the huge disasters which Republicans had left in their wake, Obama offered decency, competence and a forgive-and-forget forbearance, inviting Republicans to roll up their sleeves and help him fix what was broken.   
Except Republicans are not wired that way.  They do not learn the lessons that every child is supposed to know.  Lessons about admitting you were wrong when you were wrong.  Lessons about apologizing when you were wrong to the people you have wronged.  Lessons about cleaning up the mess you made.  

Instead, the Republican ethos is the opposite of all of that in every way.    

First, never admit you were wrong.

From Time Magazine, June 25, 2014

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday stood by the Bush Administration’s decision to wage war in Iraq, saying he has never second-guessed the decision even with Iraq once again descending into chaos.

“I was a strong advocate of going into Iraq,” Cheney told PBS in an interview, a week after launching a new political group designed to boost his foreign policy and national-security policies. “I think that was the right decision then, and I still believe that today.” 

 Second, obviously never apologize…because you’re never wrong.

And third, there is no mess to be cleaned up because either they just refuse to acknowledge it, or they try to blame it on some Democrat.   

And now here we are again.  2006 all over again, but vastly worse with exponentially higher stakes.  If this were an actual zombie apocalypse, the title would be “26 Years Later. “

The inciting incident that changed the world has already happened and now we are living in  a post-apocalypse Republican zombie future.

So what can we say about this ugly new world?

We can say that the nostalgia-drunk forgive-and-forget caucus is once again ascendant – led by recently-former Republicans like the Bulwark Crew – because they tell the story that the hapless Sensible Centrists want to believe and the “Let’s get back to normal” legacy media desperately wants its dwindling readership and viewership to believe.  

That the people who clawed their way to power casually slandering us in the most despicable language imaginable – the “Fuck Your Feelings” meatheads – must now be treated by us like delicate Faberge eggs that might break and flee back into the waiting arms of the American Fascist Party at any hint of criticism or judgment.  

We can say that many of us are infuriated by what-might-have-been.  How could those responsible have allowed this to happen?  How could they not have seen the danger in what they were doing.  We can also say that many of us are depressed because we’re pretty damn sure we know why those responsible allowed this to happen, and it was for the pettiest and stupidest of reasons.  

We can say that perhaps the majority of Republican politicians – the ones Senator Booker insisted were good people – have metaphorically adopted the Walking Dead method of safely moving through a herd of walkers without being torn to pieces.  And that is to smear rotting zombie remains all over themselves, affect a slow, undead shamble and join the party.  Sure, you'll probably puke and, sure, a random cloudburst can ruin your disguise and turn you into lunch for MAGA purists.  But MAGA zombies are stupid, so with a little luck you’ll look and smell enough like one of the undead to be able to make your way to the head of the herd safely.

Let’s call this the "Zombie Dance of JD Vance Zombie".     

Then, of course, there are the billionaires and party leaders who believe they can harness the zombies or keep them as pets.  Put them as a defensive perimeter around their schemes, or launch them as offensive weapons against the opposition.  Yes, a herd of mindless biting monsters can come in very handy, especially during “Republican Primary Elections”.  Except every now and then the camouflage wears off and a Republican who built their career appeasing zombies forgets that they’re dealing zombies and tries to appeal to them as thinking, adult human beings who care about democracy.  --- That’s when they get eaten.  

Let’s call this “Liz Cheney’s August 16, 2022, Republican primary ass whoopin’” - where she lost to outright lunatic and pro-Trump zombie named Harriet Hageman, with 28.9% of the vote to Hageman's 66.3%. Her margin of defeat was the second-worst for a House incumbent in the last 60 years.

So let’s get back to the second half of Dale Horvath’s question, because that's the big one.  If you accept that the world we knew is, in a very real sense, gone, what does our common humanity require of us?  
Well that’s a damn good question.  

And for the answer we have to travel all the way back to the Year of Our Lord 2016.  The closing months of that campaign.  Very painful, we know.  

According to our thought experiment, in 2016 we were well over a decade into a full-blown Republican zombie post-apocalypse world, divided among Donald Trump who was the now the undisputed leader of the rabid, bitey-bitey Republican zombie horde, Hillary Clinton who was trying everything she could think of to peel away some fraction of the zombie horde, and the legacy media, which had chucked all sense of proportion and fairness and were beating Hillary like a rented mule every day because they believed she could not possibly lose, so what’s the harm of pretending that Both Sides are blah blah blah.  

And then the “deplorables” thing happened.  And from the safe distance of five years later, the Washington Post had this retrospective.  From The Washington Post, August 31, 2021:

Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ speech shocked voters five years ago — but some feel it was prescient

Hillary Clinton said those three words in the final months of her 2016 presidential campaign, making rhetorical and political history. There were two kinds of Donald Trump supporters, she explained: Voters who feel abandoned and desperate, who she placed in one metaphorical basket, and those she called “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic” — her “basket of deplorables.”

“I am all that stands between you and the apocalypse,” Clinton told the cheering crowd. She launched into all the things she found “deplorable” about Trump: He threatened marriage equality, cozied up to white supremacists, made racist and sexist remarks — all things she found “so personally offensive.”

She warned there were two months left in the race and no one should assume he wouldn’t be elected anyway. 

The people in this basket, emboldened by Trump’s tweets, were “irredeemable,” she said. But there was another basket: Trump supporters who just felt the government had let them down and wanted change — and Democrats had to empathize to win these voters. 

Clinton’s remarks spread like a prairie fire mainly because it threw pundits and Centrists and elite Conservatives a life preserver. Yay! Instead of reporting on the dire threat the Republican party had become, they could keep the Both Sides Do It lie stoked for another few weeks!  

It was all over Politico.  It was in Time magazine.  

It was in Bustle, PolitiFact Vox, segment after segment on CNN.

The NPR Tone Police made a five-course meal out of it. 

David Brooks wallowed in it, both on PBS and in The New York Times.

This is what Jonathan Allen said about it in his 2017 book “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign”.
It’s very hard to say you have a message of civility and then turn around and talk about how essentially a quarter of the country is, in your view, a basket of deplorables.  That is a screeching conflict of her overall message, which is we have a civilized country and we need to be stronger together — that this should be a kinder, gentler, unified country.
You can practically hear this asshole chortling over the chance to use the word "screeching" in a book about Hillary Clinton.  

But we Democrats tried all this, didn’t we?  Barack Obama’s administration was an eight-year lab experiment in continuous and nearly superhuman efforts to reach out to Republicans. Find common ground with Republicans.  Compromise with Republicans.  And Republicans fucking hated him for it.  Back then, all of your favorite Never Trumpers were making their living relentlessly slagging Obama and counseling lockstep obstruction and sabotage. To this day, you will hear Republicans like Chris Christie and Nikki Haley blaming Obama for the divisions in the country.

So, five years later, please note what the very same Jonathan Allen said about the very same subject in that Washington Post retrospective:
When asked about “deplorables,” Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesman, said she was never afraid to denounce racism — just two weeks earlier, she gave a significant speech deconstructing the alt-right and the “quest to preserve white maleness” in America. “The deplorable comment may have been politically less than ideal, but it has been proven right again and again over the last five years.”...

Now, many of her fans believe she was prescient about “half” of Trump’s base.

“After four years of President Trump,” Jonathan Allen said. “I think that there are a lot of Democrats and some Republicans who would say that was an undercount.” 
 So back to the question, if we really care about a viable future for our country, what does our humanity demand of us?

We tried running competent public servants and Republicans hated us for it.  And what happened? 

They only got worse.

We tried open-handedness, decency and olive branches, and Republicans didn’t just reject that out of hand. Because Republicans are wired differently than normal people, they coded all of that as weakness and naivete and used it as a signal to go on an eight-year berserker attack on the Obama administration.

And they only got worse.

Then they nominated and elected the King of the Birthers.  Who fucked up everything he touched.

And Republicans only got worse.  Dug in even deeper just like they did during the Bush administration as the wheels were coming off.

Then they renominated Trump.  He lost.  Then they tried to overthrow the government. 

And they only got worse.

Then they renominated Trump again.  He promised he’d pardon the J6 traitors.  

He won.  Again.  And here we are.

 And check the clock, because this insistence that the Liberals need to shut up and sit down and deplorables need to be ouchlessly absolved has been the Never Trumper’s First Commandment of the Resistance for a decade now.  And as you may have noticed, the Republicans have only gotten worse.

Yes, some of them are hurting now.  Feeling some pain at the pump, some pain as Trumpflation eats away at their paycheck, some pain at all the things they voted for come back to bite ‘em.   Then there is Iran.  And, of course, the Epstein files.  Sure they voted for it all, over and over and over again.  And, sure, they cheered when their Dear Leader made Liberals cry.  But, see, somehow they believe it really wasn’t their fault.  They were just, y’know, going along with the crowd.  

So have they seen the light?  Learned their lesson? 

Of course not.  History has shown again and again that they aren’t built that way.  They just want someone to step in and ease their self-inflicted suffering until they’re back on their feet enough to go back to hating Liberals and voting for monsters.  

Our humanity and concern for our country demands that we do everything that is in our power to break the “We can get away with anything” mindset of Republican voters -- whose rage and racism and stupidity brought these calamities down on us.  That these lifetime members of the Party of Personal Responsibility be held civically and socially responsible for what they have done to us.  





Burn The Lifeboats