Paul Krugman is Correct About Trump and the Rest of the GOP Field. The Know-Nothings Have Made a Comeback

Update, Aug. 11th: Those who thought Trump would implode after bullying everyone at the GOP debate and blowing lots of noisy hot air out of his.. orifices, new polls indicate the opposite, because, heck, the conservative base likes what Trump represents. The GOP leadership want to hide this ugly reality from the rest of America.

In the first contest state, Iowa, according to the latest poll, Trump leads the field at 19%, followed by Ben (who?) Carson at 12%.  In the second state contest and first primary, in New Hampshire, Trump jumped up by 7% to 32% [New Hampshire poll] after the debate. The second choice, Jeb Bush, dropped to 11%.

I think it's time for this blog to endorse Donald Trump for the Republican Party's nomination in 2016. I think Sarah Palin would be a great VP on the ticket with him. What? She's not running? OK, let's keep our eyes & ears open on this.....

---------------
Another excellent editorial by Paul K; it's worth reading it in its entirety. (see below)

The GOP strategists and party leaders aren't happy with the Donald because he's damaging and already damaged party with the mainstream (centrists and independents) voters. But, what Trump represents is the basis of the activist part of the Republican party. He's expressing views that, although deeply-held in GOP's heart, are not usually expressed when Republicans are seeking mainstream votes.  Don't believe me? Just read the national and state Republican parties' platforms. There, you find many abhorrent views that fly well with the conservative base but are sunk in the waters of where the rest of the country lives!

I often wonder how it's possible two people to see something in front of their eyes and form totally different conclusions. If it's about factual findings, then, I had believed, it'd be a simple matter of using logic and evidence to ascertain the facts. But, in reality this rarely happens, especially when something is deemed important by the individual!  People are greatly influenced by culture (including religion), ideology, and a personal sense of a comfort zone. The ideological part can numb the mind and make someone lazy to chew up and digest information. Conformity was rewarded. Venturing outside the comfort zone--into the discomfort of realizing you've made a mistake--wasn't/isn't desired either.

But, I think it may be a personality trait on how to approach life. Being a conservative is natural, or at least it's how the vast majority of humans lived and experienced their lives. Captured by culture and in time. Very few ventured outside the norm. It can be argued that such approach made sense too. At the very least, blaze makers were not rewarded but they were rather persecuted, tortured, and killed. Group think was the norm. Of course there were divisions and big conflicts. Recently, I've been pouring over the religious conflicts after the Protestant Reformation. Yes, Martin Luther, Kalvin, and others brought about tremendous change, but much of it--and it took many generations to be evident--was unintended. The bloody religious wars pitted one religious faction against another, but in essence all sides hadn't been that radical--as they all held different versions of the same flawed illusion of a divine creator who insisted upon how we dress, what we eat, how we screw, how we kill our enemies, etc.

Now, how is it that most of us think Trump is someone who uses empty (though appealing) rhetoric. He said he didn't prepare for the first GOP debate last week. I believe him, because he doesn't have to be specific as long as he appears to know and uses generalities specifically addressing the concerns of the conservative base. Instead of responding to Megyn Kelly's question about his paleolithic views on women, he responds by personally attacking her and ..Rosie O'Donnell. That debate broke all viewership records for such debates other than presidential ones. Trump was tramp. The GOP leadership may not want him but if the activist base--those who show up during the Republican primary selection process--this is exciting.

The 2016 election, was supposed to be a showcase of the "new" Republican party. There's no incumbent running this time, so both parties have a chance to re-define themselves by showcasing their candidates. They're indeed doing so....

 Paul Krugman's editorial [link] in its entirety

This was, according to many commentators, going to be the election cycle Republicans got to show off their “deep bench.” The race for the nomination would include experienced governors like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, fresh thinkers like Rand Paul, and attractive new players like Marco Rubio. Instead, however, Donald Trump leads the field by a wide margin. What happened?

The answer, according to many of those who didn’t see it coming, is gullibility: People can’t tell the difference between someone who sounds as if he knows what he’s talking about and someone who is actually serious about the issues. And for sure there’s a lot of gullibility out there. But if you ask me, the pundits have been at least as gullible as the public, and still are.

For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party.

For example, Mr. Trump’s economic views, a sort of mishmash of standard conservative talking points and protectionism, are definitely confused. But is that any worse than Jeb Bush’s deep voodoo, his claim that he could double the underlying growth rate of the American economy? And Mr. Bush’s credibility isn’t helped by his evidence for that claim: the relatively rapid growth Florida experienced during the immense housing bubble that coincided with his time as governor.

Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration that he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?

Mr. Trump’s declared intention to deport all illegal immigrants is definitely extreme, and would require deep violations of civil liberties. But are there any defenders of civil liberties in the modern G.O.P.? Notice how eagerly Rand Paul, self-described libertarian, has joined in the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood.

And while Mr. Trump is definitely appealing to know-nothingism, Marco Rubio, climate change denier, has made “I’m not a scientist” his signature line. (Memo to Mr. Rubio: Presidents don’t have to be experts on everything, but they do need to listen to experts, and decide which ones to believe.)

The point is that while media puff pieces have portrayed Mr. Trump’s rivals as serious men — Jeb the moderate, Rand the original thinker, Marco the face of a new generation — their supposed seriousness is all surface. Judge them by positions as opposed to image, and what you have is a lineup of cranks. And as I said, this is no accident.

It has long been obvious that the conventions of political reporting and political commentary make it almost impossible to say the obvious — namely, that one of our two major parties has gone off the deep end. Or as the political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it in their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” the G.O.P. has become an “insurgent outlier … un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.” It’s a party that has no room for rational positions on many major issues.

Or to put it another way, modern Republican politicians can’t be serious — not if they want to win primaries and have any future within the party. Crank economics, crank science, crank foreign policy are all necessary parts of a candidate’s resume.

Until now, however, leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a façade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party. What distinguishes Mr. Trump is not so much his positions as it is his lack of interest in maintaining appearances. And it turns out that the party’s base, which demands extremist positions, also prefers those positions delivered straight. Why is anyone surprised?

Remember how Mr. Trump was supposed to implode after his attack on John McCain? Mr. McCain epitomizes the strategy of sounding moderate while taking extreme positions, and is much loved by the press corps, which puts him on TV all the time. But Republican voters, it turns out, couldn’t care less about him.

Can Mr. Trump actually win the nomination? I have no idea. But even if he is eventually pushed aside, pay no attention to all the analyses you will read declaring a return to normal politics. That’s not going to happen; normal politics left the G.O.P. a long time ago. At most, we’ll see a return to normal hypocrisy, the kind that cloaks radical policies and contempt for evidence in conventional-sounding rhetoric. And that won’t be an improvement.

Ignorance Usually is not a Good Defense, Unless You're a Conservative Running for Office and Appealing to Idiocy

"I'm not a scientist," it's the excuse many politicians use to avoid answering controversial questions, like climate change, evolution, age of earth, etc. Of course, most of us aren't scientists, but use the products of science every day. And, most of us are alive, because of science. We doubled human life expectancy in the last 100 years, cured diseases, reduced infant mortality (and mothers' mortality at childbirth), went to the moon, understand a lot more about the universe, and we made our lives more comfortable because of science. So, science works.

What works actually it's the method of discovery, acquisition of knowledge, forming and amending scientific theories, and seeking the facts and the truth. Unfortunately, many Americans don't really understand what the scientific method is. There are several reasons for this. One is the strong influence of religion, which is much higher here than in other advanced countries. In addition religion has been meddling in education. Another reason is the failure of schools to teach what science and the scientific method is.

Education has to be knowledge, but what kind of knowledge? Memorization & repetition without understanding isn't the goal. Education, like science, should be a tool for knowledge. In this sense, it's more important how you thing than what you think about.

We may not be scientists but we must understand what science is and what it does. Democracy depends on the people's understanding of issues, engagement, and prudence. It's obvious that the quality of a system depends on the quality of the people involved. Ignorance doesn't serve the good political life--nor life in general.

"I'm not a scientist"

It's tiresome, to say the least, that leaders use this lame line. They are either ignorant or lying or both. If they're ignorant, they should recuse themselves from making public policy on issues they don't understand. They should stop promoting idiocy like, there's got to be two sides to the story, or teach the controversy, or there's no unanimity... Please, stop this nonsense. As leaders they should try to elevate public discourse by speaking carefully about science, the facts, and reality than by appealing the lowest common denominator.

Here's an ignorant person, a former governor of Florida and a member of the Bush clan, who is seriously exploring running for president of the U.S.

 

 Let the circus of the Republican/conservatives/tea partiers begin. It'd be hilarious if it didn't have serious implications on our public discourse.

Democracy Depends on a Consensus. Often, non-Optimal Choices May Be Acceptable and Even Very Prudent

I had an interesting conversation with colleagues during lunch today and at least one said that they won't vote for Hillary Clinton should she run for president. Some of the reasons cited was that she's openly for big business, that she didn't do anything while at the State Department, and that it's not appropriate to have an oligarchy of the Bushes and Clinton.

Well, I get all that, but in a democracy--as many times in life--we, personally, don't have the ideal choice. We may not have great choices either. We often take the "lesser of the two evils" and it makes sense, especially when one is truly evil, as I believe any serious Republican contender has been in my lifetime and will be in 2016.

Plus, elections have consequences as they can steer the country in a certain direction, elevate certain priorities, and articulate ideas. Successful policies, despite their flaws, convince people about their merits. Let's not forget, many people are conservative--can't imagine in the abstract or analyze ideology. There are many narratives out there. Sure, leadership matters, and that's why we have so many people choosing the ridiculous and want a society more fit for the Dark Ages. However, once they see that, say, Obamacare is generally good, that same-sex marriage doesn't destroy a state, etc, they accept it.

In the same light, I don't think most people readily accepted the ideas of the Enlightenment, of liberalism, or of civil rights for everyone. But, once those took hold (often imposed by elites like Jefferson, Madison, et al), people accepted them. We can see this today in our own country, from state to state--different sub-cultures with very opposing views on, say, gun control, religion, sex, political parties choice, etc. This also shows that most issues aren't decided on their merits, on evaluating the facts, because otherwise we wouldn't still be debating whether humans are responsible for global warming, evolution (and science in general), and the age of the Earth!

In yesterday's NYT, C. Blow's oped titled, "Religious Constriction," makes a similar point about the religiosity of our citizens--highest among affluent countries. You have to look to Greece, Italy, and the oil-rich Gulf countries to find higher religiosity. I maintain that--for most domains, issues, ideas, morality--if religion informs opinion then, most certainly, it's wrong, and imprudent. It is precisely because such opinions are held by so many of our citizens that we don't see the progress we could get nor do we solve many of our own problems.

***

 

I have to give another shout to a favorite, Paul Krugman, who he recently wrote [link] along the same lines of my argument:

"The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It’s not really surprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big-government power grab. After all, right-wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place.

So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostility to science. In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." 

"The Problem We All Live With" Some Thoughts on Martin Luther King Day, 2014

Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With"

On the occasion of the MLK day, I've read and heard several speeches of the slain civil rights leader and, of course, most of us today wonder why American society was so opposed to equal rights, or more specifically to blacks having equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity like anybody else.

It's conservatism! Being conservative is a disposition--an attitude towards change and something new. Conservatives exist in all political parties. This was particularly true in the 1950s and 1960s in the Democratic party. Many of the opponents to the Civil Rights acts, most from the old South, left the party and joined became Dixiecrat Republicans. President Lyndon Johnson said that the South would be lost for his party after he signed the CRA. It's been certainly true, but a couple states like Virginia and North Carolina may be trending the other way now.

There's a difference in disposition between conservatives and liberal-progressives. I think we have a better imagination and we are more confident over all. Why is imagination necessary? To evaluate abstract scenarios, to imagine change, whereas a conservative prefers the "tried and true," tradition, familiarity and can't imagine a different world. Blacks having same rights as whites? Oh, goodness, traditional society would collapse, a way of live (which included either slavery or later discrimination and separation of the races) of the old was preferable to a new order.

PBS's documentary, Slavery By Another Name, is a must-watch *

Confidence? Well, sameness is comforting. Confirmation bias, solidarity of thought and action is soothing to a conservative.  We all have this trait to some extent. We like to see our choices, thoughts, beliefs, customs, etc, confirmed; it validates our life...   Yet, some of us are willing to accept correction; we're open to revision, and seek the truth even if it's uncomfortable. Confidence doesn't mean stubbornness of a closed mind, but it means that the new, the different doesn't necessarily make us uncomfortable. And we can image a world with all races, creeds, and sexual orientation.

Isn't the same approach and the also the difference between the conservatives and liberals when it comes to same-sex marriage? My heterosexual makeup isn't threatened by homosexuality. My heterosexual marriage or relationship isn't threatened by homosexual unions or marriages. The right to marry a person of your choosing is having equal opportunity and treatment under the law. End of story (for a liberal).

Speaking the Tongue of the Natives

MLK was a great leader and even a better orator and thus motivated lots of people to meaningful action for civil rights. He spoke like a preacher, which, for me, isn't my favorite elocution. I don't want to be preached at. I don't want to be told that a certain action is good because it has the blessings of a god, or the God.  However, MLK spoke the language of religion in a deeply religious land, whereas both sides had used religious language to justify their positions.

But, many people on both sides were practicing confirmation bias--using the Bible to justify their positions. Guess what? The Bible has a little for every one. Am I glad that MLK's Bible quoting and religious messaging worked to help bring about change? Certainly! Because, this was a much-needed change. 

However, it should be noted that the Bible condones slavery! [source]  I would expect a messiah to preach against the evils of slavery, but Jesus didn't. The Gospels in the New Testament don't advocate for a slave-free world. On the contrary. Women's status? Subservient. We're talking about divine morality here. The word of God, good then, good today, and unalterable in the future!

Anyway, we have a long way to go despite our advances, many of which have been forcefully opposed by conservatives of all types. We're still very primitive in how act, think, and often treat each other. 


 * This PBS documentary examines the conditions of servitude that existed until the second part of the 20th century in the US. It's definitely worth a watch.

SOTU 2013: A Progressive View of Government

There were two distinct views on the role of government as their speeches demonstrated by president Obama and GOP Senator Rubio on Tuesday. It also demonstrated the conservatives' anachronistic view of liberalism. 

The notion of freedom that came out of the Enlightenment was to define it by the individual; free countries weren't necessarily free unless their citizens had individual freedoms which were guaranteed by a social contract. 

After the American Revolution, the question was, what kind of political system should we have here?

Those early leaders of the new country-to-be chose liberalism, representative government, popular consensus, and the radical idea that the new entity should be a commonwealth--that is, work for the benefit of the people.

Ever since, and in order to fulfill this goal, government is engaged in the redistribution of resources, enhancing access to opportunity and maintain fair play. At least this has been the principle.  

Of-For-By The People

 Now, let's think how this social contract principle was implemented in the early days. "Of the people"? Well, not so much. Common people weren't invited into government. "By the people"? Not so much either. Only white men with property were allowed to vote. "For the people"? OK, more or less, if you excluded the slaves, the very poor, and the absence of a social safety net.

Since those days, there has been an evolution in the role of government, culture, society, gender roles, racial relations, economic activities, all sorts of ideas and views, etc, etc. And, our country has been better off, because of it. Look at any country where most of its citizens are faring well and you'll see that's a liberal, social democracy with an activist state.

FDR's New Deal put in practice the evolved liberalism--an expanded notion of freedom--which went beyond the narrow definition of the absence of restraint. What prevents a person from enjoying freedom is the absence of access to opportunity, lack of meaningful choices and actions. An in the absence of an activist state, the marketplace alone or even charity and human fellowship weren't enough to give individuals of the middle and lower classes a pathway to freedom.

It's the activist state--which according to the main principle of the social contract should serve the people--that helped create a more even playing field and ensured the rule of law. We still have a long way to go, so the conservatives' and libertarians' view that the state should be limited makes no sense whatsoever, unless, of course, this is designed to further the gap between the classes and ensure our system becomes plutocratic, unjust, immobile, and unfree!

The SOTU, 2013

 

Federal budget reflects the values and priorities of government. Here are some of the president's points that I share:

• Wages and benefits haven't risen in decades
• We're in this together
• Fairer tax burden; not fair for wealthy to pay less of a share than working class people
• Debt: health care costs rising; tuition debt
• Cuts in social services, job training, green economy are not good for us
• Medicare reform; Affordable Health Care Act necessary to improve the health of the nation, including access to medical treatment
• Social Contract should be maintained, and paid for; it's what a modern country does for its citizens.
• We shouldn't cut medicare and education, ss, for the benefit of preserving tax breaks to the wealthy.
• don't play with the credit and credibility of the USA
• A strong economy is based on a strong middle class
• Gov investing in green energy, innovation, scientific research
• Climate change is upon us, not a coincidence; Science v. wishful thinking
• Internet, infrastructure, efficient, less corrupt system, educated workforce, tolerance, etc.
• investment in education, early access to learning, makes individuals more productive, more successful, less prone to crime, etc. Better for US
• comprehensive immigration reform, now!
• Women's rights, like paycheck fairness act, more protection from violence
• minimum wage should rise
• shared prosperity
• end of war (started by previous prez)
• gay and straight in the military should have equal benefits and treatment
• right to vote, fundamental right; why do we place obstacles to voting? 
• reduce gun violence; sensible gun control laws;

Rubio

• I made it on my own; don't need Washington's help
• Free enterprise economy is the solution
• More government is the problem; but not if it has to do with intrusion into our privacy,  abortion, and the .."moral fitness of America"
• More government breeds more rules, laws, and taxes. Who needs that, right?
• No Obama care; without explaining the particulars since most Americans are in favor of the new health care law if its provisions are explained.
• Role of gov: security, night watchman, not much more
•  blah, blah, blah
• ....
• have some of the same medicine that got you sick in the first place....