Election Madness and the Erosion of Our System: From Maddow to Hannity

 

No one wants to hear this but... the "stolen election" conspiracy theories Newsmax and OAN are spewing, that Trump supporters gobble up, are different only in degree, not kind, from the Russian collusion theories Hillary Clinton voters adored hearing from Rachel Maddow and her ilk re Hillary's defeat.

Yes, we can stipulate that there was indeed attempted Russian interference. But it was minuscule—enough to affect an election for dogcatcher in Podunk, maybe, but not enough to swing the presidential race. Hillary lost. Period.

Meanwhile, there's zero, none, no evidence for the Trump "stolen election" theories. Those are made up entirely of bad faith and vapor. The Trump lawyers argue a completely different set of facts and claims in court than the crazed fraud allegations they and Trump present to voters.

But Democratic and GOP conspiracy-believing voters have a few more things in common than any are likely to admit:

1) They each place a religion-like trust both their preferred "news" sources and their politicians. If voters in either group did some independent investigation (examine the evidence presented to respective courts and investigators instead of simply listening to their side's explanation of it) they'd discover that both "news" sources and pols were conning them; 

2) Neither group appears to want the evidence that they are (and were) being conned. How else to explain why they are so carefully selective with their "news" sources, and why many of them lash out when those sources are contradicted;

3) Each group believes the other group is crazy, deceitful, and/or clueless because members of each group are well aware of the shenanigans perpetrated by the rival group's "news" sources and pols (their "news" sources and pols have given them all the details) but blissfully unaware of those perpetrated by their side.

So, this is what we get in 2020 according to reporting today in the Washington Post. And it's not going to get better going forward unless/until citizens of the USA decide that they can handle--and will pay attention to--the truth. Read and weep. Better yet, watch the accompanying video:

>>It wasn’t just White men carrying the Trump flags and banners. Korean and Vietnamese immigrants, young gay couples and Black, White and Latina women, many with children, marched alongside conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and members of the Proud Boys hate group. They wound slowly from Freedom Plaza to the Capitol to the Supreme Court, demanding, among other things, that Biden be sent to prison and the election be handed to Trump. 

 

For hours, we talked to protesters who weren’t merely skeptical of the election outcome; they believed it to be a total fraud. They distrusted the count, the voting machines, the media that reported the results, even the state officials, many of them Republican, charged with certifying the outcome.<<

All Partisans are Lemmings

Partisans see things through partisan lenses, while imagining only the other side does so.

Morning Consult shows the effects of this in its latest polls on the government's COVID-19 response. Among Republicans, 84% say they are either "confident" or "somewhat confident" of Trump's handling of the pandemic. Among Democrats, it's 22%, and among all adults, it's 46%.

But before Democrats pat themselves on the backs for their perspicacity, they must deduct points for overwhelmingly supporting a contender for president who is showing clear signs of cognitive decline. Most noticeably, he has a problem with names, substituting the wrong word for the name of the office he's running for, the state he's in, objects, people he knows well, and which healthcare legislation he’s for or against (“he derided Mississippi’s former governor for not accepting Medicare-for-all” notes a Washington Post article, pointing out that Biden confused it with the Affordable Care Act).

At certain events, though his speeches now last, at most, 15 minutes, his naming problem has occurred more than once. This specific symptom appears to be what is called verbal paraphasia, according to a paper by Professor Mark Mizuko of the University of Minnesota at Duluth. Professor Mizuko’s paper explains that naming problems fall under the larger heading of aphasia:

A paraphasia is a symptom of commission in that it is an incorrect word substituted for an intended or target word. It is the product of a breakdown at a stage of word-retrieval process and is a dominant symptom within the more general category of anomia

… Verbal paraphasias are identified based on whether there is a semantic relationship between the error and the intended word. Examples: wife/husband; talking/hearing

Sounds like what Biden’s handlers are trying to pass off as the return of a childhood stutter, doesn’t it?

Biden also confused his wife and sister, 22 seconds after staring at his wife in the moment before he began his Super Tuesday victory speech. In the video linked to the previous sentence, you will see him turned toward Jill Biden at 0:01, looking right at her. He then turns to the crowd at 0:03 to begin his speech. At 0:23, he turns back to Jill, reaches for her hand, calls her his sister, then turns to his sister and calls her his wife. Contrary to Biden’s attempt to cover his mistake by saying the two women had switched positions, they had not. They are in the same positions they were 22 seconds before.

If you point this out to most Democrats, they will yell at you and accuse you of helping Trump, as if you were the one causing Biden's symptoms. And they will remain willfully blind to it.

Why? Maybe because we humans sort ourselves into tribes the way other species sort themselves into herds, hives, schools, packs, swarms, and flocks.

So, just as Republicans will stand by their man as he leads them, unprepared, into a pandemic, Democrats will stand by theirs. And over our respective cliffs we go. 

- Anita Bartholomew

The Establishment Limits

There is nothing wrong with your TV screen. Do not attempt to change the channel.

We are controlling the narrative. Whatever station you choose will tell you the same thing: get back in line. Or else. Do not move beyond the Establishment Limits.

We control who you imagine is electable. Nevermind if he stands for nothing and appears to understand even less. Nevermind if, when his face fills your screen, he only looks good because we’ve blurred everything you thought you knew.

You don’t need crystal clarity. You just need to participate in exactly the way we tell you to.

You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Establishment Limits.

(With apologies to The Outer Limits)

- Anita Bartholomew

The Electability Trap

Every Democratic presidential hopeful faces obstacles. Every one.

The two progressive candidates scare the establishment media, corporate, and political structure (although, if they had to choose, Bernie scares them more). The four establishment candidates face troubling claims of racism and/or sexism.

Here’s a short list of what might drag down each candidate’s chances:

- Sanders: Social democrat conflated with communist; relentless major media smears.

- Biden: Clueless racist remarks; treatment of Anita Hill; Burisma/Hunter.

- Buttigieg: Homophobes; racist cops/prosecutions during his South Bend tenure.

- Bloomberg: History of racist remarks; lawsuits over his sexist/abusive workplace behavior.

- Warren: (Mostly) white lies blown way out of proportion; backtracked on Medicare For All.

- Klobuchar: Abusive to employees; as a prosecutor, put away an innocent teen for life.

Democrats and other non-Republicans keep wringing their hands, trying to figure out who’s most “electable” versus Trump. They ask: who will Trump smear and how? Answer: everyone, in every way he can. So, forget smears. Trump is an equal opportunity one-man smear campaign, and truth is no obstacle to his insults.

The best choice you can make is someone who will do the most good for the most people.

What will excite voters enough to stand outside in long lines on election day, often in bad weather, many with little kids in tow, some traveling long distances, too many facing racist attempts to thwart their participation in the election? Why are they there, despite the obstacles? 

They're not doing that just to vote for a pleasant personality, or whoever might be considered by pundits to be the safest, most inoffensive, don't-rock-the-boat establishment favorite. They're there to vote for the chance at a better life for themselves, their kids, their parents--and maybe for you, too.Who offers the best chance for that better life? That's your most electable candidate.

- Anita Bartholomew