#Partisan divide

[trendynewsnow]

The Stakes of Democracy in the 2024 Presidential Election

As I wrap up my reflections on the significance of the upcoming 2024 presidential election, I find it essential to revisit a poignant excerpt from Sean Wilentz’s insightful 2005 book that explores the evolution of American democracy. This passage resonates deeply with the current political landscape and the observations I wish to share. “Democracy is on the ballot next Tuesday. Democracy was on…

[jkanelis]

Hope continues to spring forth

Hope continues to spring forth

My optimistic wellspring isn’t bottomless, but it remains quite full. Thus, I want to share briefly my holiday wish for two levels of government: state and federal. Two new legislative assemblies are about to take office. The Texas Legislature and Congress will be seated soon after New Year’s Day. They’ll take oaths to protect the Constitution and defend it against enemies “foreign and…

[anistarrose]

Please don't tune out when you get to the non-partisan section of your ballot this November. First off, where state Supreme Court justices are elected, Republicans are trying their darndest to elect candidates who will destroy reproductive freedom, gut voting rights, and do everything in their power to give "contested" elections to Republicans. Contrast Wisconsin electing a justice in 2023 who helped rule two partisan gerrymanders unconstitutional, versus North Carolina electing a conservative majority in 2022, who upheld a racist voter ID law and a partisan gerrymander that liberal justices had previously struck down both of.

Second, local judicial offices will make infinitely more of an impact on your community than a divided state or federal legislature will. District and circuit courts, especially, are where criminalization of homelessness and poverty play out, and where electing a progressive judge with a commitment to criminal justice reform can make an immediate difference in people's lives.

It's a premier example of buying people time, and doing profound-short-term good, while we work to eventually change the system. You might not think there will be any such progressive justices running in your district, but you won't know unless you do your research. (More on "research" in a moment.)

The candidates you elect to your non-partisan city council will determine whether those laws criminalizing homelessness get passed, how many blank checks the police get to surveil and oppress, and whether lifesaving harm reduction programs, like needle exchanges and even fentanyl test strips, are legal in your municipality. Your non-partisan school board might need your vote to fend off Moms for Liberty candidates and their ilk, who want to ban every book with a queer person or acknowledgement of racism in it.

Of course, this begs the question — if these candidates are non-partisan, and often hyper-local, then how do I research them? There's so much less information and press about them, so how do I make an informed decision?

I'm not an expert, myself. But I do think/hope I have enough tips to consist of a useful conclusion to this post:

Plan ahead. If you vote in person, figure out what's on your ballot before you show up and get jumpscared by names you don't know. Find out what's on your ballot beforehand, and bring notes with you when you vote. Your city website should have a sample ballot, and if they drop the ball, go to Ballotpedia.

Ballotpedia in general, speaking of which. Candidates often answer Ballotpedia's interviews, and if you're lucky, you'll also get all the dirt on who's donating to their campaign.

Check endorsements. Usually candidates are very vocal about these on their websites. If local/state progressive leaders and a couple unions (not counting police unions lol) are endorsing a candidate, then that's not the end of my personal research process per se, but it usually speeds things up.

Check the back of the ballot. That's where non-partisan races usually bleed over to. This is the other reason why notes are helpful, because they can confirm you're not missing anything.

I've seen some misconceptions in the reblogs, so an addendum to my point about bringing notes on the candidates: I strongly suggest making those notes a physical list that you bring polling place with you. Many states do allow phones at the polling place, but several states explicitly don't — Nevada, Maryland, and Texas all ban phones, and that may not be an exhaustive list. There may also be states that allow individual city clerks to set policies.

You should also pause and think before you take a photo of your ballot, because even some states that don't ban phones still ban ballot photographs. But whether it's a photo, or just having your phone in general — in an environment as high-risk for voter suppression as the current one, you don't want even a little bit of ambiguity about your conduct. Physical notes are your friends.

[alainamama17]

The Shadows of History: Parallels and Warnings in American Democracy

As a historian, I am acutely aware that while history does not repeat itself, it often presents echoes that serve as warnings for the future. The United States today stands at a crossroads, with certain elements reminiscent of 1930s Nazi Germany and the ambitious plans of Project 2025, raising concerns about the direction in which the country is heading.

The 1930s in Germany were marked by the rise of authoritarianism, a period where democratic institutions were systematically dismantled in favor of a totalitarian regime. The parallels drawn between that era and the current political climate in the United States are not to suggest an identical repetition of events, but rather to highlight concerning trends that, if left unchecked, could undermine the very foundations of American democracy.

**Project 2025 and the Unitary Executive Theory**

Project 2025, a conservative initiative developed by the Heritage Foundation, aims to reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda of the Republican Party, should they win the 2024 presidential election. Critics have characterized it as an authoritarian plan that could transform the United States into an autocracy. The project envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly in economic and social policies, and the role of federal agencies.

This initiative bears a resemblance to the early strategies employed by the Nazi Party, which sought to consolidate power and align all aspects of government with their ideology. The unitary executive theory, which asserts absolute presidential control over the executive branch, is a central tenet of Project 2025. This theory echoes the power consolidation that occurred under Hitler's regime, where legal authority was centralized to bypass democratic processes.

**The Erosion of Democratic Norms**

In both historical and contemporary contexts, the erosion of democratic norms is a precursor to the loss of liberty. The United States has witnessed a polarization of politics, where partisan interests often override the common good. The Supreme Court, once a non-partisan arbiter of the Constitution, has been accused of partisanship, with decisions increasingly influenced by political ideologies rather than constitutional law. This shift mirrors the way the judiciary in Nazi Germany became a tool for enforcing the will of the regime, rather than a protector of the constitution.

**The Role of Propaganda and Media**

Propaganda played a crucial role in Nazi Germany, shaping public opinion and suppressing dissent. Today, the media landscape in the United States is deeply divided, with outlets often serving as echo chambers that reinforce ideological beliefs. This division hampers the ability of citizens to engage in informed discourse and make decisions based on factual information, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

**Civil Liberties and Minority Rights**

The targeting of minority groups was a hallmark of Nazi policy, justified by a narrative of nationalism and racial purity. In the United States, there has been a rise in xenophobia and policies that discriminate against certain groups. The protection of civil liberties and minority rights is essential to prevent the kind of societal divisions that can lead to the marginalization of entire communities.

**Conclusion**

The parallels between the United States today, Project 2025, and 1930s Nazi Germany serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy. It is imperative that as Americans, we remain vigilant against the forces that seek to undermine democratic institutions and principles. The lessons of history implore us to safeguard the values of liberty, equality, and justice, lest we allow the shadows of the past to shape our future.

As a historian and educator, I believe it is our responsibility to draw upon these parallels not to incite fear, but to inspire action. We must engage in civic education, promote critical thinking, and encourage participation in the democratic process. Only through collective effort can we ensure that the American experiment continues to be a beacon of hope and freedom for the world.

[comeonamericawakeup]

The biggest threat to the United States is not China or Russia or other "external threats," said Max Boot. It's "our own political dysfunction." The U.S. remains fundamentally strong, with the world's biggest and most resilient economy, the most powerful military, and 50 allies, compared with a handful for China and Russia. China's once-booming economy has stagnated, due to poor central planning and an aging and shrinking population. We remain the world's only true superpower and an "indispensable nation," keeping rogue actors like Vladimir Putin and Iran in check. But extreme partisan warfare and a growing isolationist movement have put us on the road to abdicating that critical role. A divided Congress cannot even pass a budget, or agree on military aid to embattled allies Israel and Ukraine. If Donald Trump and his "American First" brigade regains the White House, he'll likely abandon Ukraine, pull the U.S. out of NATO, alienate allies, and cripple our nation's global power. A host of enemies, including Nazi Germany, al Qaida, the Soviet Union, Russia, and China have been unable to cripple the U.S. and demote us to second-class status. But Americans may succeed where "others have failed."

THE WEEK November 24, 2023

[beguines]

[C]lass is not an essence but a social classification made by social scientists to explain reality; it is not some inherent nature possessed by the people who are hypothetically divided up according to a scientific assessment of a social reality. In such a context, being conscious of one's membership in a social class, let alone embarking on class struggle, is produced by a mechanism that is based on developing the hypothesis of social classes, which is unified by the concept of class struggle: a revolutionary party. Marx and Engels maintained that the point of a communist party was to organize workers as a class because they understood that the hypothesization of class was in fact a scientific intervention upon the social in much the same way that the hypothesis of the double helix model of genetics, as mentioned above, is an imposition upon crude biological existence.

There are popular strains of first world Marxism (autonomism, communization theories, "left communism") that argue against the above interpretation of class and are thus opposed to the notion that the ultimate meaning of class and class struggle is the business of a party project. My contention, however, is that such an interpretation of class and class struggle, even when it opposes orthodox categories, remains thoroughly economistic because of a reliance on a workerist spontaneity . . .

My position is that class comes into being through a political intervention that declares the meaning of class struggle and intends to impose this meaning upon a conflicted social plane. Such an imposition was also responsible for grasping the foundation of class structure, as analyses such as Marx's Capital demonstrate, but it is not enough to assume that class structure functions abstractly without a lived formation/composition or a political project to determine its conscious articulation as a class for-itself. These class categories are always conflicted, compromised by the detritus of history. To assume that there is a natural unity amongst the entire working class in all social contexts is a grave mistake. Social classes, as we have discussed, are often divided according to interior antagonisms. The point is to accept the fact of this division and locate the most conscious elements of these classes to understand: i) the enemy that is conscious of itself as the ruling class; ii) those who have nothing left to lose but their chains who are also conscious of themselves as a class. Class is thus realized in the crucible of a party project because, whether it be a bourgeois or proletarian party, such projects stamp their cadre with class partisanship.

Thus, class is defined by structure, formation, and consciousness. It is a structure insofar as a mode of production would have no meaning if it did not possess sites of structural occupation that would give it a definition, just as a factory requires pre-existing structural rules that would allow it to function as a factory. It is a formation insofar as the empty structural sites of class are composed of assemblages of real people; the composition is the result of a historical process of formation, the assemblage of multiple identities that are stamped with meaning based on the social context inhabited by the class structure (e.g., a white supremacist society will be a society where the class structure is designed to promote a racist formation). But class is also defined by consciousness, by the awareness of those who inhabit the class structure of their position within this structure, and this consciousness is consummated in a party project. Moreover, since the concept of class is overall a categorical judgment made by social scientists, and since such a judgement is always partisan, it is political inasmuch as it is an economic theory. In this sense the party of a particular class and the ideologues of such a party, call class consciousness into being for-itself. That is, the bourgeois or proletarian subject recognizes themselves as a partisan subject because the meaning of their class consciousness is declared by an organized political faction that provides a line of march. The bourgeois organization or party takes a position on the class structure and proposes a conscious meaning to class formation; the proletarian organization or party expresses a different political line and generates a different conscious meaning.

J. Moufawad-Paul, Politics in Command: A Taxonomy of Economism

[whencyclopedia]

US Presidential Election of 1800

The US presidential election of 1800, referred to by Jeffersonians as the Revolution of 1800, was a turning point in the early political history of the United States. It resulted in the victory of Vice President Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party over his rival, incumbent President John Adams of the Federalist Party.

Election of 1800 Electoral Results

United States Geological Survey (Public Domain)

The election came at a moment of deep political polarization across the country, with each party viewing the other as an existential threat to the Constitution. At the same time, the Federalist Party was experiencing infighting, with the Hamiltonian wing of the party – the so-called 'High Federalists' – disappointed with President Adams' handling of the recent Quasi-War with France, as well as his reluctance to adhere to their agenda. When Adams dismissed two prominent High Federalists from his cabinet, Alexander Hamilton turned on him, writing a pamphlet that critiqued Adams' character and his presidency. Attacked by the Jeffersonians on one side and the Hamiltonian extremists on the other, Adams ultimately lost the election. However, in an unexpected turn of events, both Democratic-Republican candidates – Jefferson and Aaron Burr – received an equal number of electoral votes, meaning that they tied for the presidency. The tie-breaking vote was then left to the House of Representatives, which was still controlled by Federalists.

Although many Federalists initially wanted to deny the office to Jefferson, Hamilton once again interfered, using his remaining influence within the party to sway the vote towards Jefferson. Although he despised Jefferson, Hamilton feared a Burr presidency even more and was determined to prevent it. Jefferson thereby won the election and was inaugurated on 4 March 1801 as the third president of the United States. He called his election the 'Revolution of 1800' and promised to steer the country back toward the republican ideals of the American Revolution, which he claimed the Federalists had lost sight of during their time in power. It was indeed a revolution of sorts, as the Democratic-Republicans would hold on to the presidency for the next quarter century, while the Federalists would fade into irrelevance.

Background

At the dawn of the 19th century, the United States was more divided than at any other point prior to the era of the American Civil War. The Federalist Party, which had dominated the national government for the last decade, was being increasingly viewed as an aristocratic if not pro-monarchist faction that had lost touch with the principles of the American Revolution and now stood in the way of republicanism and progress. The other faction, the Democratic-Republican Party, was accused of being a group of atheistic and bloodthirsty Jacobins who sought to bring the excesses of the French Revolution to American shores. The emergence of partisan newspapers only inflamed these divisions, turning ordinary Americans against one another. Historian Gordon S. Wood writes:

As the Federalist and the Republican parties furiously attacked one another as enemies of the Constitution, party loyalties became more intense and began to override personal ties, as every aspect of American life became politicized. People who had known one another their whole lives now crossed streets to avoid confrontations. Personal differences easily spilled into violence, and fighting erupted in the state legislatures and even in the federal Congress. By 1798, public passions and partisanship and indeed public hysteria had increased to the point where armed conflict among the states and the American people seemed likely.

(209)

Each party believed that its own agenda was the best way to ensure the survival of the country and the Constitution. The Federalists were a nationalist party who, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, wanted to transform the United States into a modern, industrialized nation on par with the great powers of Europe. The Federalists sought to forge a strong, national government designed for the "accomplishment of great purposes" (Wood, 91). Through Hamilton's influence, Federalist policies greatly shaped the presidency of George Washington (1789-1797) – these included the Hamiltonian financial program of big banks and the funding of national debt, as well as the controversial Jay Treaty (1795), which strengthened ties with Britain. During the presidency of John Adams (1797-1801), the Federalists looked to consolidate their power by provoking and winning a war with France; although President Adams built up the military and allowed US warships to capture hostile French privateers, he did not ask for a declaration of war and, in fact, worked to de-escalate the conflict, called the Quasi-War. Adams' refusal to seek a full-scale war with France would cause a rift in the party, between him and the 'High Federalists', as those loyal to Hamilton's political agenda were known.

John Adams

Gilbert Stuart (Public Domain)

The Democratic-Republican Party, also known as Jeffersonian Republicans, had arisen in opposition to the Federalists. The Democratic-Republicans believed that Federalist policies were too aristocratic and too pro-British and that Federalists like Hamilton and Adams had lost sight of the principles of the Revolution, or the 'spirit of '76'. Jeffersonians believed in an expansion of republicanism and agrarianism and generally supported the French Revolution as a continuation of the American struggle against tyranny. During Adams' presidency, the Democratic-Republicans resisted the war with France and condemned the implementation of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798; this allowed for not only the deportation of non-citizens deemed hostile to the country but also the arrest of journalists and other speakers accused of spreading lies about the president or Congress. Jefferson, serving as vice president in the Adams administration, denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts as unconstitutional and condemned the Federalist administration as a "reign of witches". This was one of the larger points of contention in the upcoming election, which promised to be a rematch between Adams and Jefferson.

Continue reading...

[alliluyevas]

Overall, the bluest names with at least 5,000 major-party voters are Imani, Latoya and Tamika for women and Jermaine, Darnell and Malik for men. On the other side of the political divide, we find Brayden, Colton and Tanner for Republican men and Darla, Misty and — ironically for the party of Lincoln —Dixie for women. Incredibly, some names switch parties depending on whether you give them to a boy or a girl. Most women named Laverne are Democrats, while most male Lavernes register Republican. Tyler, Dylan and Toby see similar splits. Jean and Shelly swing in the opposite direction: A female Jean is more than twice as likely to register Republican as a male Jean would be. The politics of a name also depend on the era in which it was chosen. For older Democrats of both genders, Willie is one of the bluest names, as are Roosevelt (for men) and Hyacinth and Queen for women. For younger women, the equivalent names would be Imani and Ayanna. For younger men, they’re Malik and Jermaine.

For young Republican men, the most partisan names are Brock or Colton, while their retirement-age friends see a strong rightward lean when they meet a Galen or a Brent. For Republican women, young Gracie and Bailee give way to older Leann and Jolene. A select few names have also changed their political polarity over time. The most obvious? If you meet a woman named Reagan age 45 or older, when the name was rather rare, she’s probably a Democrat. If you meet a Reagan age 44 or younger — and therefore born after GOP phenomenon Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential election — she’s much more likely to register Republican. More often, though, the trend runs in the opposite direction: Older folks register Republican more often than their younger buddies with the very same name, presumably because younger voters lean left. We see old Republicans and young Democrats all named Terrell, Dwayne and Darrell — names that further analysis shows either belong to younger Black men or older White ones. We also see that pattern with women’s names that lost popularity among White people: Janet, Darlene and Karla have grown more Democratic as they’ve grown more Hispanic. Similarly, Joy has moved left as it has been adopted by more Black women, and Kathy followed suit as its popularity grew among their Asian and Hispanic friends. Among women, only Mattie and Gracie shift left among older voters. Further analysis shows both tend to belong either to older Black women or younger White ones. For men, we see the same trend in Old Testament favorites such as Levi and Seth. In perhaps related news, the most common surname for a Seth in his 5os or 60s, when they lean left, is “Cohen.” The top surname for a Seth in his 20s or 30s, when they lean right, is “Johnson.”

this is very interesting. I'm assuming that most female Jeans are old white women and male Jeans are likely Haitian or from French-speaking African countries. Hyacinth is also interesting as it's an extremely uncommon name in general and I don't think associated with any particular ethnic group.

[contemplatingoutlander]

America has legislated itself into competing red, blue versions of education

This is an excellent article in The Washington Post about how our school systems have begun to reflect the political divisions in our nation, with many red states legally banning discussions on racism, sexism, and gender issues, and many blue states legally requiring those kinds of discussions. This is a gift🎁link, so anyone can read the entire article, even if the don't subscribe to the Post. Below are some excerpts:

Three-fourths of the nation’s school-aged students are now educated under state-level measures that either require more teaching on issues like race, racism, history, sex and gender, or which sharply limit or fully forbid such lessons, according to a sweeping Post review of thousands of state laws, gubernatorial directives and state school board policies. The restrictive laws alone affect almost half of all Americans aged 5 to 19. [...] The divide is sharply partisan. The vast majority of restrictive laws and policies, close to 9o percent, were enacted in states that voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, The Post found. Meanwhile, almost 80 percent of expansive laws and policies were enacted in states that voted for Joe Biden in 2020.

The explosion of laws regulating school curriculums is unprecedented in U.S. history for its volume and scope, said Jonathan Zimmerman, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies education history and policy...states have never before stepped in so aggressively to set rules for local schools. [...] [A] nationally representative study from the Rand Corp. released this year found that 65 percent of K-12 teachers report they are limiting instruction on “political and social issues.” ��What the laws show is that we have extremely significant differences over how we imagine America,” Zimmerman said. [...] In practice, these divisions mean that what a child learns about, say, the role slavery played in the nation’s founding — or the possibility of a person identifying as nonbinary — may come to depend on whether they live in a red or blue state. [...] Almost 40 percent of these laws work by granting parents greater control of the curriculum — stipulating that they must be able to review, object to or remove lesson material, as well as opt out of instruction. [...] Another almost 40 percent of the laws forbid schools from teaching a long list of often-vague concepts related to race, sex or gender.

[...] At the college level, among the measures passed in recent years is a 2021 Oklahoma law that prohibits institutions of higher education from holding “mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling,” as well as any “orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping.” By contrast, a 2023 California measure says state community college faculty must employ “teaching, learning and professional practices” that reflect “anti-racist principles.”

Some experts predicted the politically divergent instruction will lead to a more divided society. “When children are being taught very different stories of what America is, that will lead to adults who have a harder time talking to each other,” said Rachel Rosenberg, a Hartwick College assistant professor of education.

[allie-leth]

Hey ya'll, gather round, time to talk about what happened and what's next. I normally avoid having anything super serious on here, but this warrants it.

First, no one tumblr user caused this. Don't get mad at people on here for being apathetic, for doubting harris, for refusing to vote. They are the symptom of a broken system, not the cause, please be kind. They're far more ideologically aligned with you than those selling the apathy and reinforcing the status quo. The infighting and turning on each other is the desired outcome, please don't do that. That's how we got here. Now take a deep breath, lets move to what happens next.

Not much will likely change over the next year, you will see a lot of bullshit in the news about bills being passed and other things that attack people, but most of that will get watered down by the court systems and judges and get escalated to higher courts. Like with Florida's "Don't say gay" bill that got watered down so hard as to be almost meaningless, most of what passes over the next year will have no teeth when it's actually implemented. The point is the news headlines and fearmongering, using a scape goat (Queer, POC, immigrants) to sell success to people who have been told those are the problem with this country. Many things will be passed, very few will matter.

If you're in a deep red state, you will likely see anti trans/anti queer items on the docket next year. It's extremely important to vote against those and to get involved, if you can, to make sure everyone votes against those. Those are the real dangers, those are the real weapons. The point of all the items in the headline, all the fear, is to sell apathy and fear to get laws like those passed this time next year or this time in two years. But those won't come for a year or two, and some won't even be implemented for a year after that. That means that for the average person here, if you're in a red state, expect a 3 year timeline before you start seeing laws implemented that actually hurt you. I'm sorry, but if you're in a red state, those are likely coming.

If you're in a purple state or a weird red, like utah, expect that 3 year time frame.

HRT likely won't be limited in any real way to adults, if you see all those "water is wet" studies about trans topics, those studies were done to protect the process and treatments in times like this. Those represent a solid basis of proof that doctors associations won't want to move away from. There is a possibility that supply side regulation is done to artificially create shortages, but that would hit a lot of older cis woman just as much, so I don't see that as likely. I do not have enough information on hand to make any comments on hrt for ftm, I'm sorry, but I'm not involved enough in that process to have the knowledge to make comments.

There will be a lot of laws that are passed over the next 4 years that cause long term economic damage. Most of these will take 10 years to really show their face despite what the headlines show. This isn't great, but it's not going to destroy your life tomorrow. Amusing side note, the US downgrade that happened in the early 2010's was actually because of a prediction of partisan politics creating divides that cause situations exactly like this one.

I've said this before and will say it here again, find community irl. It's the single most important thing you can do. They will have the best resources, the best shoulders to lean on, the best people to be there when things seem bleak. If you've been too scared to go to events that interest you, to find your community, please let this be the sign that forces you out of your shell. Community will be your true savior over the next 4 years, please find it. Find ANY topics that interests you, it does not matter what, just any topic with groups that meet weekly, and start going. Every. Week. Week in, week out. You will make friends, it will take a bit, but you will. You can find community in that. I found mine in the kink and rave communities by doing exactly that. You can too, in whatever community you desire, but you just have to go and be there. I love ya'll, things will be okay. If you are truly scared and need someone to talk to, feel free to reach out and I'll reply as soon as I can. 💜

[memecucker]

Most in US want arms shipments to Israel to stop, poll says

A narrow majority of U.S. adults, 52%, said American arms shipments should be stopped until Israel ends its attacks in Gaza, according to a YouGov poll released on March 11. Less than one-third of respondents, 27%, said the shipments should not be halted, and 21% were unsure.

The poll, commissioned by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) — a think tank in Washington, D.C. — sampled 1,000 U.S. adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The question over additional military aid revealed a strong partisan divide among respondents.

The majority of respondents, 62%, who said they voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 agreed with the statement “The US should stop weapons shipments to Israel until Israel discontinues its attacks on the people of Gaza,” while 14% disagreed.

On the other hand, 30% of respondents who said they voted for former President Donald Trump in 2020 supported stopping the shipments, while 55% opposed it.

Additionally, 60% of respondents who said they sat out the 2020 election favored stopping shipments, 17% were opposed and 23% were unsure.

“The support for halting weapons shipments is specific and unambiguous,” Mark Weisbrot, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said in a CEPR news release.

The U.S. has sent Israel tens of thousands of arms — including precision-guided missiles and bombs — since the Oct. 7 attack that left 1,200 Israelis dead, according to The Wall Street Journal. Many of the shipments have been green-lit through a process that avoids congressional review and public disclosure.

[themattress]

The 20 most consequential events in modern US History that led us to the Trump Era:

The Cold War - How international politics played out changed during this conflict.

McCarthyism - The "Red Scare" that began pitting Americans against Americans.

JFK's assassination - No more durably popular Presidents + rise in conspiracy thinking.

The Civil Rights movement - Black people fighting to end segregation and achieve equality.

The Vietnam War - A botched overseas operation that put Americans off foreign wars.

Nixon and the Southern Strategy - Moved racists to the Republican Party.

Watergate - Shattered Americans' trust in government + emboldened media sensationalism.

The 1970s in general - A time of chaos, hardship, and low national morale.

Reaganomics - Created a gap of income equality + fueled corporate greed.

Iran-Contra Affair - Fueled Americans' distrust in government and aversion to foreign wars.

Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution - Increase in unprincipled, combative Republicans.

Bill Clinton's Scandals - Created a media divide based around bias toward either parties.

Bush vs. Gore - A super-close election that fueled partisanship between the two parties.

9/11 - Increase in fear for security + brief national unity that partisans viciously squandered.

The Iraq War - Reignited distrust in government + aversions to foreign wars.

The Great Recession - Brought division between classes to a fever pitch.

Barack Obama's Election - Unleashed anti-Black racism from the Republican base.

The Tea Party movement - The Republican Party begins explicitly catering to their base.

The Birther conspiracy - Trump gets involved in Republican politics and feuds with Obama.

Barack Obama's Re-Election - Cements Trump's decision to run for President in 2016.

If any given number of these things, especially in the latter half of the list, had gone down differently, we could be living in a different moment; in a better country. Alas, here we are.

[odinsblog]

False Equivalence

Why does the mainstream media keep depicting lunatic-right Republicans and normal Democrats as equidistant from the center?

With the final passage of the debt ceiling deal, Democrats got off easier than one might have expected, given that it was a deal between a mainstream Democratic president and a Republican House in thrall to the lunatic far right. In drastic contrast to the scorched-earth budget bill initially passed by the Republican-controlled House, the cuts were about par for the course in a divided government; and they spare the country a repeat of this debt-hostage ordeal for two years.

However, much of the media played the agreement as a compromise between two equal extremes. The New York Times story about the House passage of the deal included this astonishing sentence: "With both far-right and hard-left lawmakers in revolt over the deal, it fell to a bipartisan coalition powered by Democrats to push the bill over the finish line, throwing their support behind the compromise in an effort to break the fiscal stalemate that had gripped Washington for weeks."

Think about that for a moment. There is no doubt that Matt Gaetz, Elise Stefanik, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar et al. are far-right by any definition, as white supremacists, Christian nationalists, election deniers, and nihilists on fiscal policy.

But no Democrats in the House can fairly be described as hard left. Those who voted against the deal included moderate liberals such as Joaquin Castro, mainstream progressives like Rosa DeLauro and Jan Schakowsky, as well as self-described democratic socialists including Cori Bush and AOC. But none of them are "hard left," which suggests anti-democratic, any more than Franklin Roosevelt was hard left.

The Times coverage reinforces a narrative of false equivalence that the media keeps repeating, with lazy catchphrases like "partisan bickering." It also plays into the hands of corrupt No Labels and Third Way types, who promote the idea that the best course for the republic is to split the difference between neofascists and a normal mainstream Democratic Party and president.

Big media, obsessed as it is with the appearance of fair and balanced coverage, took years to give itself permission to accurately describe Donald Trump with the impolite word "liar." But its treatment of the two parties as in any sense symmetrical is far more insidious than using euphemisms to characterize Trump’s lies.

Our friend Peter Dreier, whose observations inspired this post, points out that by any reasonable definition, "even the most left-oriented Democrats (AOC, Bush, Bowman, Raskin, Jayapal) are not extremists. They are shades of social democrats. They are pro-union, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-LGBT equality, pro-Green New Deal, pro-progressive taxation. But the most right-wing Republicans are extremists and reactionaries."

(continue reading)

[misfitwashere]

September 9, 2024 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

SEP 10

Last night, Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign launched a new section of its website detailing her policy positions. Titling her plans “A New Way Forward,” Harris vows to build the American middle class through an “opportunity economy.” Her vision for the future, she says, “protects our fundamental freedoms, strengthens our democracy, and ensures every person has the opportunity to not just get by, but to get ahead.” 

Harris’s economic plan builds on that of the Biden-Harris administration. This makes sense, since their focus on investing in the middle class has created the strongest economy in the world. Harris is emphasizing the need to bring down household costs of food, medicine, housing, healthcare, and childcare, all issues important to Americans.  

The website provides concrete economic actions she plans to take with a willing Congress. They include expanding the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, investing in more housing, and supporting the PRO Act, which protects the rights of workers to unionize, while continuing the crackdown on business consolidation that kills competition and rolling back the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

The biggest economic shift from the current administration is pegging a new capital gains tax for those earning more than a million dollars a year at 28%, significantly lower than the 39.6% President Joe Biden proposed in his 2025 budget. The plans also call for the first-ever national ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries (37 states already have such laws). 

Aside from strictly economic plans, the policy pages say Harris backs passing the bipartisan immigration bill that Republicans killed on Trump’s orders, protecting reproductive healthcare and restoring Roe v. Wade, and protecting the right to vote and ending partisan gerrymandering through the John Lewis Voting Rights and the Freedom to Vote Acts.

Republicans have charged that Harris has not offered specifics for her policies, but much of what is now clearly laid out is already in the public record. By the standards of American history, it is a strikingly moderate agenda that reflects the belief that the best way for the government to protect opportunity and nurture the economy is to make sure that the system is fair and that ordinary people have access to opportunity.

The “New Way Forward” in Harris’s plan seems to be less a new set of policies than a rejection of the politics of the past several decades. She and her running mate Minnesota governor Tim Walz appear to be attempting to reshape the political landscape to bring Americans of all parties together to stand against Trump’s MAGA Republicans. The campaign has actively reached out to Republicans, several of whom spoke at the Democratic National Convention. On Saturday, Harris said she was “honored” to have the endorsement of former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) and former vice president Dick Cheney, both staunch Republicans. “People are exhausted about the division and the attempt to divide us as Americans,” she said. “We love our country and we have more in common than what separates us.” 

Trump’s website offers slogans rather than policies, so Harris’s website compares her policies to the comparable sections of Project 2025, the playbook for a second Trump term laid out by a number of right-wing institutions led by the Heritage Foundation. Trump and his campaign have tried to distance themselves from Project 2025, but at his rallies, he has offered the policies in it—like firing nonpartisan civil servants and replacing them with loyalists, and abolishing the Department of Education—as his top priorities. 

While Harris focused on policy, as critics have demanded, MAGA Republicans today spread slurs about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, claiming they are eating other people’s pets and local wildlife. Right-wing media figure Benny Johnson, who was one of the six commenters whose paychecks at now-disbanded Tenet Media were paid by Russia, was one of those pushing the false stories. So was X owner Elon Musk. 

The story was debunked almost immediately by the Springfield police, but Republican politicians ran with it. The X account for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee ran it; so did Texas senator Ted Cruz, who shared an image with two kittens saying: “PLEASE VOTE FOR TRUMP SO IMMIGRANTS DON’T EAT US.” And the Republican vice presidential nominee, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, posted: “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country.” (The Haitians in Springfield are in the U.S. legally.)

Perhaps most significantly, Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno, who is challenging Democratic Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, pushed the story. That Senate seat is crucial to the Republican attempt to take control of the Senate, and Moreno has just launched a $25 million ad campaign against Brown, accusing him of giving undocumented immigrants taxpayer-funded benefits. Today’s disinformation was well timed for that ad campaign. 

The Justice Department today announced  charges against two leaders of the white supremacist Terrorgram Collective, an international terrorist group that operates on the platform Telegram. Dallas Humber of California and Matthew Allison of Idaho have been charged with “soliciting hate crimes, soliciting the murder of federal officials, and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.” They “solicited murders and hate crimes based on the race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity of others,” U.S. Attorney Phillip Talbert said. They had a hit list of federal, state, and local officials, as well as corporate leaders, and they encouraged attacks on government infrastructure, including energy facilities. Their plan was to create a race war. 

“Hate crimes fueled by bigotry and white supremacy, and amplified by the weaponization of digital messaging platforms, are on the rise and have no place in our society,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said.

Congress is back in session today and must fund the government before October 1 or face a government shutdown. Although Congress negotiated spending levels for 2024 and 2025 back in June 2023, the House has been unable to pass appropriations bills because MAGA extremists either refuse to accept those levels or insist on inserting culture war poison pills into the bills. 

Now, Trump has demanded that a continuing resolution to fund the government must include a measure requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Since it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections for president or members of Congress and there is no evidence it is anything but vanishingly rare, the measure actually seems designed to suppress voting. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) went along and put the measure in the bill. He also designed for the measure to last until next March, making the budget so late a new president could write it, but also blowing through a January 1 deadline set in the June 2023 bill to require automatic cuts to spending.

House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) wrote to his colleagues: “House Democrats have made it clear that we will find bipartisan common ground on any issue with our Republican colleagues wherever possible, while pushing back against MAGA extremism.” Jeffries called the Republican bill “unserious and unacceptable.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told House and Senate leaders that the cuts required by law if Congress pushes the budget into March would drastically affect the military. “The repercussions of Congress failing to pass regular appropriations legislation for the first half of [fiscal] 2025 would be devastating to our readiness and ability to execute the National Defense Strategy,” Austin wrote.

Meanwhile, Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) is back to his old trick of blocking a military promotion, this time of Lieutenant General Ronald Clark, one of Austin’s top aides. Tuberville says he placed the hold because he has concerns that Clark did not alert Biden when Austin had surgery. Biden has nominated Clark to become the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Pacific, a position currently held by General Charles A. Flynn, younger brother of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, Trump’s first National Security Advisor who resigned after news broke that he had hidden conversations with Russian operatives. 

Today, ten retired senior military officials endorsed Harris, saying she “is the best—and only—presidential candidate in this race who is fit to serve as our commander-in-chief…. Frankly stated, Donald Trump is a danger to our national security and our democracy. His own former National Security Advisors, Defense Secretaries, and Chiefs of Staff have said so.”

—

[mariacallous]

Over the past few weeks, Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump have both made some huge plays to attract specific groups of men: young ones, in Trump’s case, and white ones, in Harris’.

Harris’ supporters have been hosting huge Zoom calls organizing “white dudes,” while Trump’s made appearances on a wide assortment of fratty podcasts and livestreams. The campaigns’ strategies with these voters are completely different, and they’re each creating their own vision for what masculinity could look like in their parties.

Let’s talk about it.

How Trump and Walz Are Redefining Masculinity

Before this week, Adin Ross, the 23-year-old streamer, had been known for playing NBA 2K, allegedly inadvertently tipping off authorities about accused rapist and human trafficker Andrew Tate’s plans to flee Romania, and getting kicked off Twitch for spewing slurs and hosting the white nationalist Nick Fuentes. This is certainly not the best résumé when applying to become a political commentator, but it was enough for Donald Trump to stream with him for more than an hour at his Mar-a-Lago home on Monday in what equated to a virtual campaign stop, complete with Ross apparently committing a campaign finance violation by gifting Trump with a gaudily-decorated Cybertruck.

The Ross stream is just the latest in a series of streams, podcasts, and TikTok appearances Trump has made with a specific subset of hypermasculine creators who cater to an audience of politically disaffected young men. Trump has long catered to this group, acknowledging their support across fringe parts of the internet in the run-up to his election as president in 2016. But this cycle, he’s engaging with them more directly—appearing, for example, at UFC events—in the apparent belief that this will help turn out younger voters.

The partisan gap between young men and women voters has nearly doubled over the past 25 years, with men growing increasingly more conservative, according to recent polls. With these numbers, you’d think Trump would have little to worry about with this demographic, but some experts suggest that despite this growing divide, the likelihood of young men between the ages of 18 and 29 actually going to the polls might be low.

“He’s trying to pull out base intensity. These young men often don't vote, especially the newcomers to the field,” says Rachel Kleinfeld, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Getting them to care enough to come vote—it's easier if it's something more emotional. All politics runs on emotion.”

She continued: “Most cultures have rites of passage to grow up. It's not an easy thing to do, and we don't in America. And we lost, for a generation, a lot of traditional role models … What we got in their place were these internet influencers and celebrities whom a lot of people aspire to be now.”

Democrats are attempting to create their own contrasting vision for masculinity in light of Trump embracing these creators. Last week, Mike Nellis, a Democratic digital strategist, helped organize the White Dudes for Harris organizing call, where dozens of white male politicians and celebrities spoke to thousands of their white male counterparts about voting for Harris. Throughout the call, many of the speakers—including Harris’ veep pick, Tim Walz—made the case for these same disaffected young men to abandon the Republican Party.

“I think that there are millions and millions of white dudes in this country who are sick and tired of MAGA politics and who reject Project 2025 and need a model and permission structure for something else, and so that’s what we’re doing with White Dudes for Harris,” says Nellis.

Nellis saw Harris’ decision to bring Walz onto her ticket as another play at attracting white male voters. “The guy's a father, and what would be like a ‘real man’ on paper. But here he is supporting and advocating for women's rights. He's campaigning for a woman of color for president. He's talking about ending gun violence,” says Nellis. “There are new models out there, and so I think that there's a fight over what it means to be a man.”

“We've had a cultural problem with young men for a number of years that is now becoming a political problem, and both parties are recognizing it,” says Kleinfeld.

Back in 2019, I profiled a YouTuber named Joey Salads who was running for a Staten Island House seat against Nicole Malliotakis. He never stood a chance at winning, but his Instagram model girlfriend, nice cars, and 10 million followers convinced him he had a shot. Salads admired Trump, seeing him as someone for whom the rules also did not apply in the pursuit of money and success.

4chan incels and hypermasculine YouTube pranksters had been viewing Trump as a role model even before the former president was elected. In 2024, those influencers and brainrotted forum posters have more influence than ever, and they’re paying it forward to the man who made it all possible.

“In a way, they’re kind of like post-incels, having overcome some of their inceldom with fame and followers but retaining the resentments and insecurities that get expressed in bizarre ways,” Jack Z. Bratich, a communications expert and professor at Rutgers University, tells me. “It’s possible Trump’s campaign is trying to extend their reach with these types, or else they are just seeking to increase the voting numbers of young men and happen to have stumbled upon this new mutation of online youth.”

Around 49 percent of young white men voted in the 2020 election, according to data from the Center for American Women and Politics. That’s a nine point increase from 2016.

[mapsontheweb]

Napoleon's Spanish War

“Atlas histórico de España”, Enrique Martínez Ruiz, Consuelo Maqueda Abreu, Emilio de Diego, Ediciones Istmo, 2016

by cartesdhistoire

For Napoleon, the Iberian Peninsula was a weak link in the southern flank of the continental blockade. In 1807, he sent Junot to occupy Portugal, where smuggling of British products was developing on a large scale. The presence of French garrisons on Spanish territory exacerbated the dynastic crisis which undermined power, torn between King Charles IV, Prime Minister Godoy and Infante Ferdinand. Napoleon deposes the Bourbons, exiled in France and replaced by Joseph Bonaparte. A popular riot broke out in Madrid on May 2, 1808, followed by fierce repression on the 3rd. The country was set ablaze, resistance was organized by politico-military juntas. French troops were defeated at Bailén, in Andalusia, in July 1808. Napoleon had to strip the eastern front to undertake costly reconquest operations.

In the years that followed, Spain became a gigantic battlefield. Spanish resistance is composite; a strong Catholic component gave the conflict the appearance of a crusade, while the politicians were divided between dynastic loyalty to the “legitimate” king, Ferdinand VII, and liberal aspirations which were expressed in the Constitution of Cádiz of 1812. The supporters of “Intruder king”, the “josefinos”, are isolated and only provide a semblance of authority under the cover of powerful military governors, Soult in the south, Suchet in the north. The French and their allies know how to play on the divisions of their adversaries, the liberals wary of the bands of partisans often supervised by priests and fanatically devoted to Ferdinand, whose absolutist tendencies are a mystery to no one.

It was the English expeditionary force commanded by Lord Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, hostile to the people's war, which ultimately decided the balance of power. In June 1813, the French army was crushed in Vitoria and had to evacuate the peninsula.