lookin

This article helps firm up the numbers. Of the $200+ million raised so far, very little of it is being spent on the lawsuits. Somewhere I read $6 million. Most of it is going into Trump's new PAC, and much of that is being shared with the RNC. He's by far the Republicans' best fundraiser. So, as long as the lawsuits bring in the money, most Republicans will support them and it makes no difference that they're crazy. That is, the lawsuits are crazy. The Republicans are crazy like a fox. And, ironically, it was Fox that did the original reporting on the scheme. How crazy is that?

He was always kind and had a playful sense of humor. I'll miss him.

Lately I've also been thinking about some additional disengagement. Although I got my first computer forty years ago and went on-line a few years after that, I've never wanted to become so immersed that I couldn't survive without connectivity. Even so, the pull to be ever-connected is stronger than I'd like. I live in an area with regular power outages and spotty cell phone coverage, so I do go cold-turkey from time to time, including three days last week. Thirty years ago, that meant walking to a friend's house, taking some long hikes, and pulling out a handful of votive candles to read after dark. The world always returned a few days later and I hadn't missed all that much. Last week though, I was getting anxious enough by the end of the first day that I wandered around till I got a cell signal and checked for the latest power outage update. Pre-Covid, I'd have gone to the local library and used their WiFi connection. I found I really don't enjoy being off the grid as much as I used to, and that's a concern. Having avoided Facebook and Twitter and all the social apps, I'm not hooked in as much as most of my friends are, but I'm still too tethered for comfort. I'm wondering what gradual steps I might take to further cut the ties. Thanks RockHard and AdamSmith for voicing some of the same concerns. I wonder if a small support group might be in order. This has indeed strained the credulity of even your most ardent admirers.

Guess I'm one of those who finds this more humorous than horrendous. Are there other western countries where a paucity of prudence and a dollop of diddling would crater a career? What I can't figure out is what kind of camera setup he has. I've been on a few Zoom meetings recently with my laptop in my - er - lap and the camera pointing up at my face. Had I done a 180 and turned it down toward my pudenda, I couldn't have seen the other folks. Not only do I hope that he returns with his luster intact, I also hope that the suspenders at the New Yorker will adjust themselves and not go all hypocritical about a little erection tampering.

The thing that annoys me about these life-begins-at-conception folks is that they don't put their money where their mouth is. Like letting folks take a tax deduction on a zygote. If Amyconeybarret's right, I'm nine months older than I've been letting on. I should immediately get twenty grand for the Social Security they started late. And it turns out my insurance premiums were way too high when I started driving. And when I think of the months of senior discounts I missed at the Golden Corral, it makes my stomach turn. Of course so did the pot roast at the Golden Corral but at least I'd have saved a couple bucks.

As I've posted before, I understand authoritarianism as a psychological construct. And, while it has social and political implications, it's an enduring characteristic of a subset of the population. I also believe it has a genetic component as (a.) it has persisted throughout human history and (b.) it exists in other species besides humans, although not in all species and to differing degrees when it does. My understanding is that about 30% of humans are authoritarian followers and the key to activating them is to stoke their fear of "the other". So, yes, authoritarianism is a global phenomenon and, no, it's not going to disappear from the human race anytime soon, and I think the way to change authoritarian followers is through reducing - rather than fanning - their fears. My take is that the persistence of authoritarianism in the human population, probably passed through the genes, is sometimes necessary for the survival of the species. There have been - and likely will be again - times when outside threats are real and immediate and the need to obey a leader fast and without question is necessary for survival. But there are times - like the times we've been blessed with since I can remember - when unquestioning obedience is not required. Not only is it not required, but it can be downright harmful as we are seeing today. Naturally, that doesn't mean that authoritarian followers disappear overnight from the gene pool. They're still there - and still here - and when they are gathered together and manipulated for ill intent by an unscrupulous leader they can destabilize a society. I think about this every day and, since I last posted, I've revised the definition of the problem away from the fact that we have a large number of authoritarian followers among us and toward the fact that we're not very aware of it and we don't know how to minimize the harm they can do when they are misused by a leader for his own antisocial purposes. Angela Merkel is aware of this and so, I thought, were most Germans and most of us who can remember the last time authoritarian followers were used to bring down a society. Currently, the US seems to have lost this institutional awareness and we're watching the German playbook being repeated page for page. And we seem to be nearly as compliant as the German citizens were when their rights were finally stripped away by the Enabling Act. Nearly, but not quite. I think we still have time to learn from the past but it's rapidly slipping away. With that redefinition of the problem to "lack of awareness", I'll suggest one solution might be a House subcommittee to evaluate the risk of authoritarianism to our democracy. The Committee would answer the questions: (1.) How big a risk is authoritarianism to our democracy?, (2.) What authoritarian forces are there in the country today?, and (3.) How should we reduce the threat of authoritarianism to our democracy? And I'd publish interim findings as they come out of committee. I'd like to see the issue of authoritarianism become public discourse at the speed of light.

A Modest Proposal (with props to Jonathan Swift) Seems the Democrats are constantly under bombardment for "wanting to take our guns away" and perhaps it's time to put that one to bed for good. I'm thinking of a plank in the Democratic platform promising to put forward a bill that would send an AK-47, complete with a hundred rounds of ammo, to every household in the good 'ol USofA. For starters, it would deprive the Republican party of one of its perennial pieces of propaganda duping its base that Democrats are "coming for your guns". Not only would the wind go out of that one overnight, but Wayne Lapierre could hang up his bullhorn and spend the rest of his days fighting the insider lawsuit that accuses him of looting the NRA. As if that weren't enough, such a program would even up the ballistic odds. According to this survey, Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to have a gun in the house, whites are 50% more likely than Blacks and twice as likely as Hispanics. With everybody packing heat, the promise of democracy could finally be fulfilled. Elections would be fairer too. Anyone concerned that there'd be a militia member at the polls making sure you aren't voting twice would find there'd be at least two well-armed folks making sure you got to vote at least once. And talk about our right to peacefully protest! Imagine those folks who stay away from protests out of fear of being shot suddenly having enough firepower to shoe away anybody who tries to stop them. Folks would be safer in their homes too. Far fewer break-ins and unexpected knocks on the door when there was most certainly an assault rifle at the ready. But, lookin, you say, wouldn't giving every household an assault rifle bankrupt the country? Not by a long shot, you should pardon the expression. Somewhere I read that an AK-47 could be had from Northern Mexica for just over $1200. Add another hundred bucks for ammunition and every one of our 130 million households could be extremely well armed for just shy of $170 billion. Hell, Trump's deficit was four times that much his first year in office, and six times that much last year. If he can spend that much making his fat pals that much fatter, why couldn't he spend a fraction of that amount defending the one constitutional amendment his base can recite from memory? He said he would and now's his chance to stand and deliver. So to speak. PS: I'm aware there may be some Republicans out there who would consider this a bad idea and would come forward to rail against it. I might even send them a modest donation. But it wouldn't stop me from watching them try to squeeze the shoe on their other foot.

Good gosh, @stevenkesslar, I wasn't sure I'd even finish reading your post before the election let alone conjure up a way to reach authoritarian followers by then. I recall that you're a long-time political operative so I know you appreciate the importance of data as opposed to just slinging opinions. And I'm sure you'd join me in looking over the psychographic research on Trump's followers so that we'd understand what their fears actually are. However, in the absence of hard data, I wouldn't give up on Covid-19 just yet. Of all the things Trump followers should be fearing, that one bubbles to the top for me. And it's also one where I don't think the Democratic messaging has been nearly as simple as it needs to be in order to break through to single-issue thinkers. For example, I haven't heard too many folks mention that our "war-time president" is halfway to losing as many U. S. citizens as we lost in World War II. With another thousand lives being lost each day, he most likely will - through his lack of leadership - hit the 400,000 lost lives mark by April Fool's day. And the 200,000 deaths we've recorded so far are more than our World War II allies and enemies have reached when all their Covid-19 death totals are combined. If you ask me, that's something to be afraid of! If his authoritarian followers can grasp one more fact, it would be that he's already tried taking away their health insurance so that those who survive, along with their pre-existing conditions, will be on the hook for health problems that may last a lifetime. And, if they can comprehend one more thing to be fearful of, it would be the damage he's already done to Medicare and Social Security which rely on payroll taxes and well-paid jobs, both of which he has undercut. I've never felt comfortable setting out, as Trump has, to instill fear as a political strategy. But, if anyone needs the raw material to do so, it's there in abundance.

Honestly! Us old members were here first. Speaking of frustrations, how I envy you guys who can't log in! Starting about a year ago, I couldn't log out. I tried it from the Forums, I tried it from the Main Page, I reloaded the pages before, during and after and I even tried it standing on my head. No matter what I did, I was still logged in. If that weren't enough, each time I returned to the Forums, I got a beep notifying me that someone had just responded to a post I made a week ago. I figured this was something deep within the site's plumbing and maybe if I stayed away a few months it would heal itself. No such luck. On my return, logging out is still hit-or-miss but I did stumble on a workaround that seems to improve my odds a little.

They endorsed sleepy Joe Biden? That's deplorable! They’re not sound on climate either I bet they’re not even Americans They’ve been going downhill for a hundred years Ever since that fake theory of relativity Einstein, Schmeinstein They're a bunch of dopes I’m canceling my subscription

As I've belabored in another thread, I think our main problem is a large destabilizing minority of authoritarian followers. I think they're somewhere around a third of the population, have latched on to Trump as their "leader", and are motivated primarily by fear - which Trump knows how to stoke. And I believe such authoritarian followers have been with us since the beginning of time and that they will be with us till the end of time. By definition, these authoritarian followers want simple answers, so "debate" is not something they want to engage in. I'm coming to the conclusion, reluctantly, that the best way to reach them is to provide them with the authoritarian leadership they require while redirecting their fear toward something more useful. As Hitler and his propagandists taught German authoritarian followers to fear the Jews and communists, Trump and his propagandists have taught their authoritarian followers to fear brown-skinned folks and "leftists". In hindsight, what the German authoritarian followers should have been fearing was Hitler's willingness to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of Aryan world dominance. And, with a bit of foresight, what American authoritarian followers should be fearing is Trump's willingness to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of primarily white American world dominance. Or, as he calls it, "Make America Great Again". For the average Trump follower, Trump's focus on world dominance has not improved their lives, security, or wellbeing in any meaningful way. As a result of his so-called leadership, fewer of them have jobs or health insurance and they are less welcome in other parts of the world. With nearly 200,000 Americans dead since March, we are nearly halfway to the number of lives lost in World War II and, without a miracle, I expect we'll reach that grim milestone within another few months of Trump's "leadership". So, my stab at answering the OP's question would be to reach out to the authoritarian followers among us and help them realize that what they should be fearing is Trump and his enablers who are leading them to a loss of life greater than during World War II, to a financial meltdown worse than the Great Depression, and to a loss of world political status that took their ancestors a century or more to build. Like Hitler, Trump is leading them day-after-day toward death and destruction. I think the Democrats need to put forward a government modeled after that of Konrad Adenauer, one that can de-Trump America, one that makes life better for even the most down-and-out Americans and one that can, through skilled diplomacy, return our country to a place of influence - rather than "domination" - in the world. Germany's authoritarian followers didn't disappear overnight and neither will ours. So, as long as they're with us, I think they need to become part of the solution and not part of the problem. While it won't be a piece of cake, I take some comfort in that fact that every time authoritarian followers have been co-opted to bring down a society, they have subsequently been co-opted to help restore it. Assuming they remain alive to do so.

As promised, a few thoughts on how to deal with authoritarian followers. Step one for me is always to try to put myself in their shoes, as fully as I'm able. This part of the process is not one of "winning" and judgement needs to take a back seat to understanding. While it feels uncomfortable to immerse myself in simplistic thinking, it's something I need to do for eventual enlightenment. And I need to be empathetic to the "fear of the other" that motivates an authoritarian follower. I don't have to agree with it, especially since my life experiences have shown me that it's unwarranted. But I do have to imagine that I haven't had those life experiences and that the "other" is someone who can and will harm me. I also have to pretend that my own thought processes are insufficient and that I need to trust someone else to do my thinking for me. From that exercise, I've concluded that "debating" authoritarian followers will not be productive. By definition, they're not wired to hold competing thoughts, let alone debate them. They want simplistic answers and they avoid complexity. All I'll get in return is repetition of the thought their "leader" has implanted. The resulting frustration on both sides could stop the process in its tracks. And that does seem to be where most folks give up and say things like the only solution is to "defeat them". That may be one solution, but it's not a reliable one. Authoritarian followers will not just up and disappear. They never have. They'll be back again, perhaps with a new and more dangerous "leader". I'm also beginning to conclude that dealing with their fear, particularly fear of "the other", is necessary. When I say "deal with their fear", I don't mean make it go away. By definition, authoritarian followers are motivated by fear of "the other". I'm coming to the conclusion that the best I can do is to try to persuade them to fear something more relevant that what they fear today. For example, fear of South American immigrants who pick our crops, prepare our food, build our houses and care for our seniors is a fear without benefit. Fearing the folks who help us all build our society is counterproductive to our wellbeing. On the other hand, helping them redirect their fear to a would-be despot who will strip away their social safety net and eventually their lives or the lives of their loved ones might be a valid approach. Perhaps I can help them realize that "the other" who should frighten them is not Dona Teresa who takes care of their grandparents but Donald Trump who takes care of himself and will toss them aside, just as he has tossed so many others aside. Clearly, this is a work in progress and I'll stop here with hopes that others will weigh in.

Always a pleasure when you get the bit between your teeth, @stevenkesslar. I know the discussion is going to advance. If that's where Dean ends up, I agree with you that we need a lot more than that. I went back to the thread I began at Daddy's a year ago and I'll stand by it, in particular some of the basics: Authoritarianism has long been understood to encompass a set of personality traits strongly associated with aversion to difference and desire for conformity to prevailing social norms and proper authority. Though many scholars have linked authoritarianism to many attitudes and traits, a handful stand out: a general moral, political and social intolerance, an aversion to ambiguity and a related desire for clear and unambiguous authority. From a study of authoritarianism, here are some of the things that popped out for me: On any given day, about a quarter of the population can be classified as having fairly extreme authoritarian values. They want simple solutions, even to complex problems. Authoritarians tend to be religious, especially those who adopt a literal interpretation of the Bible. After religion, the next strongest predictor of authoritarianism is reduced education, specifically the lack of a college degree. Those without one are much more likely to be authoritarians than those who have a college degree. The twenty-five percent figure, as well as the degree of authoritarianism, fluctuate over time and one of the biggest factors driving the shift is the level of perceived threat. A higher level of perceived threat will bring more folks into an authoritarian mindset and make folks who are already there more extreme in their views. During the Cold War, there wasn't much difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in terms of their share of authoritarians. Once that external threat was removed, however, Republicans went looking for another one, found a threat in the form of Willie Horton, and proceeded to become the party that knew how to scare authoritarians and then offer to make them feel more secure. In 1992, authoritarians skewed seven points toward the Republican party. By 2004, it was twenty points. In 1992, economic issues were very important to voters, Republican and Democratic. The desire for authoritarianism was much less than the desire for a livable income. But by 2004, authoritarianism had twice the effect on voters as did economic issues. In the year since that post, I've thought a lot more about the authoritarian follower and why we need to understand them and find a way to keep them from bringing down our society, which, if history is any guide, they have the ability to do. Authoritarian followers also, under certain conditions, have the ability to preserve our society which is why I believe there is a genetic component to authoritarianism that makes sure it persists through the generations. (And shows up in other species.) Imagine, for example, an outside threat to our society where immediate and lockstep obedience to a single leader is the only thing that will keep us from being overrun. Think War of the Worlds as an example. Just because we've been lucky enough not to be invaded by aliens during our lifetimes doesn't mean we won't be and there may come a time when blind obedience is necessary for survival. So Ma Nature, in all her wisdom, makes sure we have among us those who will do little else but look for outside threats and blindly follow orders when they appear. The downside of having such authoritarian followers in our midst is we have to keep them occupied when we are not under assault. Otherwise, they can be coopted by ill-intentioned "leaders" who will exploit them for nefarious purposes. Which, I believe, we are seeing now. From what I understand and, as you say, I don't think authoritarian followers are interested in debate. Debate is for folks who can hold competing ideas in their heads and weigh them one against the other. Authoritarian followers are wired to avoid complexity; they want a single idea. And, unlike you, they want someone who will tell them what that idea is and what to do about it. Of course, for this discussion, I am myself using simplistic arguments. Between authoritarian followers and non-authoritarian-followers there will be shades of gray. But one way to harden the positions of authoritarian followers is to stoke their fears. Which all effective authoritarian leaders know how to do, cf "murderers, rapists and bad hombres". So, knowing that these folks will be among us in significant numbers (about a third of us, I think) and for all time to come and, given that we can't "debate" them out of existence, how do we make sure they aren't coopted by malevolent authoritarian "leaders", like Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones and Donald Trump to destroy themselves and perhaps the rest of us along with them? That's what I've been spending the past year or so trying to figure out. I'll try to share some preliminary thoughts in a later post.

Much obliged to you, @stevenkesslar, for the shoutout and particularly for keeping the issue of authoritarianism alive. I couldn't get much traction on the subject either here or at Daddy's. Which is a disappointment, as I think Trump's base of authoritarian followers will have more impact on the election and on the future of our democratic institutions than will any three-point lead in the polls. As I've posted before, I think a ten-point lead on election day will be necessary to get enough folks off their asses to fight for our democracy on our own home front should Trump refuse to leave office. It's been a puzzle to me how reluctant we are to even perceive, let alone attend to, the destabilizing influence a large minority of authoritarian followers can have on democratic institutions. It may have to do with how committed authoritarian followers can be. Recently I watched a documentary on Hitler's last days in the bunker when he told his secretary and other office workers to make a run for it. As they made their way through what remained of the German forces still guarding central Berlin, they watched as German soldiers were shot and killed by other German soldiers who accused them of dishonoring their oath to the Fürher. And this was after they knew that Hitler had already killed himself. Recently read an article that puts the case as strongly as I've ever seen. The Trumps are Gaslighting a Collapsing America Ever Wondered How Authoritarianism Happens? Exactly Like This. The author, whom I've never read before, thinks the threat of Trump's refusing to leave office, even after losing the election, is so strong that it would be a mistake to wait until November 3rd to get rid of him. He thinks the solution is for five million U. S. citizens to march on Washington now and refuse to leave until Trump resigns. Glad to see the increasing discussion of authoritarianism in the last few months and especially the last few weeks. Relative to what we should be doing, I think we're still sleepwalking. But even hearing the word regularly in the mainstream media is a step up from where we have been. I had long thought that the Holocaust and the destruction of Germany in World War II would be a lesson that would remain with us for generations but, for some reason, we seem to forget about the deadly destruction of authoritarianism very predictably and apparently very quickly. "Drink the Koolaid" has morphed into a toss away line only two generations after a thousand authoritarian followers killed themselves and their children by doing so on the instructions of a single loon. Appreciate your linking the John Dean book and his interview with Amy Goodman. He apparently has a recommendation for how to deal with authoritarian followers, but none of the reviews mentioned what it was. I remain a firm believer that we do need to engage with authoritarian followers and find a way to absorb them into our society. As I believe there's a genetic component to authoritarianism, I don't believe it will go away. And, unless we want to let it bring down our society on a regular basis, we'll have to find a way to incorporate it. Glad to see so many of my Forum homies still thinkin' and still postin'. For some reason, my off-board activities have ramped up during the pandemic and it's been too much of a stretch to follow both sites or even both political forums. But it does my heart good to see everyone engaging so thoughtfully during this critical time.

Enemies and Hecklemen, I’d like to introduce Grim Milestone, acting press liaison for the President’s new Perfect Storm Pandemic Panel, and he’s here to deflect any questions you may have.

More than you know, though the return of a couple of missing pages would not go unnoticed.

My grand daughter says this annoys her Daddy; but it has great volume and she loves it. By Mrs.R. on May 15, 2014 No buts about it.

“Brad broke the first rule of American politics: under promise and over deliver,” [Rick Wilson] told the Guardian. “Brad’s survival now depends on the good offices of his patrons inside the Trump camp, and [Ivanka and Kushner] are already signaling their displeasure to the media. This could be big. I've long believed (and posted endlessly) that Brad Parscale's used of micro-targeted and misleading use of social media was the primary (if not only) reason Trump was able to turn a popular vote loss into an electoral college win in 2016. Since then, the Trump campaign has virtually merged with the RNC campaign and the tactics used by Parscale have been expanded and refined. It's why I believe the Democratic challenger will need at least a sustained ten-point lead to blunt Parscale's manipulation of the electorate. With him out of the picture, I'm not sure the Trump/Republican campaign has anyone left who could do what he did. Here's hoping that, once again, Trump's volatility and need to blame someone for his own failures will cause him to get rid of one of the few people left who knows what he's doing. And the sooner the better. PS: If you ask me, Rick Wilson has been one of the most prescient of the Trump-watchers.

Well he fooled me. Even though he's well away from the nearest audience member, he's still in a room with plenty of virus droplets likely to be floating around. He must have convinced himself he won't be breathing any in. At least a million people didn't show up. Nor 19,000 people judging from all the empty seats in the bleachers. Apparently Brad Parscale is blaming the protesters, who have been very well behaved from what I've read, but he's the guy who I expect was in charge of bringing in the rubes. And he didn't. I bet somebody's gonna get unmasked tonight.

Trump the Dog Whistler sure wants to do the rally, but I've had this nagging suspicion that Trump the germophobe is looking for a way out. If he walks into a closed space with twenty thousand screaming Oklahomans, he's got to know that at least some of them are asymptomatically infectious. Everybody in there is signing a waiver in case they pick up the virus, so he's got to know that he could pick up the virus. If he goes in there without a mask and does his usual call-and-response for an hour or two, I'll admit I've misjudged him. A medical pile on would give him the cover he needs to pull the plug. All that's missing is someone to blame. http://www.dailymagazine.news/news-images/295003d8e4f588abb08a1f951a852606-690-0-N.jpg

36 if you count the Politics Forum.

Personally, I'm a big fan of boycotts and Chik-fil-A gave me my hardest test yet. I kept hearing how great it was but also how many bad causes they sent their money to. I sure didn't want them forwarding any of my money. As you might expect, it was nearly impossible to find one in the liberal Bay Area so it was only when I visited family back East that the conflict became real. A few years ago, I got as close as their parking lot but was saved by the fact that it was Sunday and they were closed. I toyed with the idea of poking around in the dumpster for a free sample but apparently I was not the only one with this idea. Fast forward to last year when I learned that, not only were they donating to pro-gay causes, they had also just opened up twenty miles away across from my Costco. A week later, I found myself in a long line waiting for my Deluxe Combo, large fries and a chocolate Hand-Spun shake, whatever the hell that means. Now, at long last, I can report that it was anything but worth the wait. Not to me anyway. The chicken was OK, but no better than KFC. The "biscuit" was only a little fluffier than cardboard and a bit less flavorful. The french fries were likewise bland, and a pickle no more goes with chicken than a feather boa goes with board shorts. It was the milkshake that was most disappointing and, had I bothered reading the ingredients first, I'd never have ordered it. Whole milk and nonfat dry milk, sugar, cream, water, contains less than 1% of: whey, mono and diglycerides, corn starch, guar gum, carrageenan, calcium sulfate, cellulose gum, brown sugar, natural and artificial flavor, natural flavor, salt, caramel color, beta-carotene (color), annatto (color), chocolate syrup (cane sugar, corn syrup, water, cocoa, natural vanilla flavor) At the very least, I'd have asked them to serve the guar gum, carageenan, calcium sulfate, cellulose gum, mono and diglycerides and artificial flavor on the side so that I could add them to taste. Don't get me wrong. I've had worse fast food. The spicy mutton curry at Little Taste of Calcutta, for example, kept me toilet-bound for three days but the price was right and my table came with its own fly swatter. So, for me anyway, the boycott merely delayed the inevitable and Chik-fil-A is officially off my list for culinary, if no longer political, reasons. They could hire RuPaul as a car hop and I still wouldn't go back.

Honestly! Some days I think I should just stay up in my turret. (Thanks, guys! It's been ten years since I posted this one over at the other site and I never thought I'd be able to trot it out again. )