WHEN THE NIGHT HAS COME, AND THE LAND IS DARK

I walked my dog yesterday evening instead of watching the “debate.”  Apparently I made the right decision.  Every account I’ve seen described the event as excruciating.  (The “debate, not the dog walk.)  Everyday life in Donald Trump’s America supplies all the excruciation I can stand.  I don’t need to inject more of it.

It’s a truism by now that Donald Trump doesn’t debate – he performs.  We saw a version of his performance against Joe Biden four years ago, when Trump was persistently rude to Hillary Clinton.  He got away with it then, and he doubled down on the tactic last night.  Apparently he thought he could break Biden with insults and interruptions.  Trump may have broken Chris Wallace, but Biden did just fine under the circumstances. 

Speaking of Chris Wallace, he may have been overconfident about his ability to persuade Trump to behave like a relatively normal presidential candidate.  Moderators ought to insist on having a way to mute a candidate who won’t stop talking.  It would be amusing to see Trump’s reaction to being silenced.  The moderator might need a shock collar as well as a mute switch.

The geniuses behind the Trump campaign spent all summer painting themselves into a corner, insisting that Joe Biden was sinking into dementia, unable to function normally.  Guys, you’re supposed to lower expectations for your guy, not for your opponent.  As a result, Team Trump set the bar so low for “Sleepy Joe” that all he had to do was stay awake and speak in complete sentences.  He did that.    

Trump, on the other hand, kept trying to knock Biden off balance by interrupting and shouting insults.  Maybe their internal polling suggested that suburban housewives and undecided voters really love politicians who are rude and vulgar.  Still, the evening wasn’t a total waste.  At least Trump locked down the coveted Proud Boys demographic. 

A BUMBLE BEE, AN EVIL BUMBLE BEE

"Cans of tuna fish. They go out and buy tuna fish and soup. You know that, right?  Because they throw it. It's the perfect weight, tuna fish, they can really rip it, right? And that hits you. No, it's true. Bumble Bee brand tuna." 

So says Donald Trump, the ostensible leader of the free world – and brand ambassador, apparently for Bumble Bee Tuna. 

While we’re all waiting for our $200 voucher to pay for the guaranteed 100% effective COVID-19 vaccine, both of which will miraculously appear in (checking my calendar) about a month, we can pass the idle hours by thinking about the Supreme Court.

As everyone likely to be reading this post knows, Trump has nominated a right-wing Catholic lady for a lifetime term on the Supreme Court.  I care a lot about the right-wing part, and not so much about the Catholic part.

There are plenty of reasons to vote NO on Amy Coney Barret.  Setting her qualifications aside, there’s a presidential election coming up in five weeks.  No less a judicial authority than Amy Coney Barret herself was emphatic in 2016 that it’s just plain wrong to alter the balance of power on the Supreme Court in an election year.  She’s got a lot on her mind.  Maybe she’s forgotten her earlier opinion. 

Or maybe – because she’s a Republican, after all – she’s just a hypocrite.  Or maybe – because she’s human, after all – she simply sees the risk/reward issue differently now that she’s the one who’s taking the risks and stands to reap the rewards.  Who among us would turn down a job that pays in excess of a quarter million dollars per year for the rest of our natural lives, if all we had to do to earn the money was outlaw abortion AND deprive poor people of health insurance coverage?  Easy money, right?  Cast the first stone, and all that.

As we’ve come to expect, though, the GOP That Couldn’t Shoot Straight revealed their Barrett confirmation strategy prematurely.  They were confident that they could portray Barrett as the victim of anti-Catholic prejudice.  Never mind that Joe Biden is Catholic.  No, any opposition to Barrett can only be rooted in religious prejudice. 

Right wingers from Marco Rubio to Hugh Hewitt tweeted savage attacks on Barrett’s critics.  Sadly, they couldn’t find any prominent Democrats who criticized Barrett on religious grounds.  So they cast a wider net.  And sure enough, they found a few inflammatory statements on Twitter and Facebook from some left-leaning randos.  Voila, proof of a conspiracy to keep Catholic jurists off the Supreme Court. 

That might come as a surprise to the four Catholics already on the Court, but whatever.  

(As a reminder, when you see right wingers comparing “the Left” with the Republican Party, understand that they’re being dishonest.  An apples-to-apples comparison would either be “Left vs. Right,” or “Republicans vs. Democrats.”  But if they stuck to quoting actual Democratic office holders, they couldn’t use as evidence the intemperate tweets of some adjunct professor at South Succotash State Junior College, or a minor league standup comedian.)

Apparently, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are considering boycotting the whole affair.  Maybe that’s the right approach.  Show your contempt for the shitshow by including yourself out. 

On the other hand, I’d love for at least one Democrat – maybe Senator Kamala Harris (D) CA – to get Barrett on the record about her change of position on the whole “balance of power during an election year” thing.  And also see if she’ll promise to recuse herself from any issues that may arise about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, since the guy who’s trying to appoint her has said explicitly that he wants her on Court for that very purpose.

THE SHADOW KNOWS

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?  The Shadow knows.  And since Donald Trump’s shadow side is on full display, 24/7, now we do too.  He always says the secret things out loud.  He can’t help himself.

In his own weird way, he’s revealing how scared he is.  At a campaign rally/superspreader festival this weekend, Trump explained how he intended to cheat his way to a second term “Now, we’re counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins.  Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later.” 

In other words, pack the courts with Republican loyalists (including one more Supreme), and get them to invalidate as many ballots as possible.  Declare victory before all the votes are counted, and if Democrats object, activate the Big Boogaloo. 

He also promised that “I’ll never speak to you again,” and “you’ll never see me again” if he loses.  Sure, Don.  Trump will keep running his mouth until he dies or goes to prison.

The Greens are showing their true colors as well, using Republican Party attorneys to get on the ballot in various states to take votes away from Joe Biden.  That didn’t surprise me, since it’s been clear since 2000 that the real (albeit unwritten) mission statement of the Green Party is to help Republicans win close presidential elections. 

But I was surprised by this tweet.  When I first saw it, I assumed it was a parody account.  But it’s still up on the official Twitter account of the Green Party of Monroe County NY.  The day after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, their social media person had this to say:  “The Green Party of Monroe County, NY would like to express it's [sic] heartfelt indifference to the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose over-inflated importance to the future health of our nation is an exemplar of everything that is diseased about our two-party government.”  Stay classy, guys. 

Yes, I know that this is a local party affiliate in Rochester NY, whose views may not reflect those of the national party.  But as best I can tell, the national party hasn’t seen fit to disavow those sentiments.  When you’re having trouble even getting your presidential candidate on the ballot in some states, purging assholes from your ranks might seem like a problem that can wait.  On the other hand, it just might be that the Greens’ high asshole quotient is why they’re having trouble getting on ballots.   

HERE COMES THE JUDGE

As we mourn the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and contemplate Mitch McConnell’s infamy, let’s remember that the Republican Party is shameless.  Nevertheless, it’s still appropriate to shame them when they do something shameful, which is pretty much every day.  In that spirit, I’ll say “fuck Mitch McConnell and the horse he rode in on.”  Nah, let’s leave the horse out of it. 

There’s no reason to let McConnell and his Republican colleagues off the hook, but there’s also no reason to expect that appeals to logic, much less conscience, will have any impact.

The truth is that McConnell’s refusal to allow a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016 was not a matter of principle, although he couched it that way.  Right vs. wrong didn’t enter into it.  It was a power play, and in 2016, McConnell had leverage (not to mention an overly-complacent Democratic Party). 

Now he’s announced another power play.  He doesn’t care whether his public rationale is consistent with the one he put forward four years ago.  It only matters whether he has enough leverage to force a vote on a Trump Supreme Court nominee between now and November 3. 

[Or maybe between November 4 and January 19.  McConnell said that Trump’s nominee will get a vote on the floor of the Senate, but if he calculates that the political risks are too great in the heat of the campaign, he can wait and call his outgoing Republican majority back for a lame duck session after the election is over.]

Why might he want to wait?  For one thing, Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination would pull three Republican incumbents – Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, and Thom Tillis – off the campaign trail and back to Washington at a time when they’re facing stiff challenges from Democrats.  For another, he’ll need to be sure in advance that he won’t face another John McCain-Obamacare moment, falling short of a majority because a few Republican senators decide to vote no, either on the nominee or the nomination itself.  

It’s true that a few GOP senators got so carried away in excusing McConnell’s 2016 power play that they spoke of it on the record as a principle:  no election-year Supreme Court nominations.  How likely are they to stick to that principle in 2020?  I’d love to be wrong, but I don’t see many candidates for a Profiles In Courage reboot among the current crop of Republican senators.

Finally, appointing (or even attempting to appoint) an anti-Roe judge would ensure that abortion becomes a hot button campaign issue.  I don’t suppose it will boost Democratic turnout much –   Democrats are already prepared to crawl over broken glass if that’s what it takes to cast a vote against Trump.  Now they’ll crawl over broken glass and electrified barbwire, if need be.  But Democrats only vote once (if we’re not cheated out of the opportunity), and I’m pretty sure there aren’t any wavering Democrats who were thinking about sitting this one out until RBG passed. 

Nevertheless, polls suggest that independents generally prefer “safe, legal, and rare” rather than an outright ban on abortion.  Since Trump and several Republican senatorial candidates need all the independent votes they can get, deferring the crisis until after the election might make sense.

I assume that McConnell is mulling all this over – and also mulling over the possibility that this is his last shot at the Supreme Court for a good long time, so why not go for it?  If I were a betting man, that’s how I’d wager.

ONE LAW FOR THEM, AND ANOTHER LAW FOR US

I’ll try to avoid repeating things I’ve posted, but I have a couple of additional observations on the protest/riot dilemma I’d like to offer.

The cream of the jest is that Donald Trump has promised to end the violence – but only if he’s re-elected, and then not until January 20, 2021.  That prompted Joe Biden to ask a reasonable question: does Trump know he’s president right now? 

What makes Trump’s “I’ll save you later” angle even stranger is that he said virtually the same thing on the campaign trail in 2016:  “The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be restored.”  And Mexico will pay for the wall!

It is true that some of the current hot spots are in cities and states with Democratic mayors and governors.  Some of them are obviously in over their heads.  How will that change by January 20 of next year?  What does Trump expect to do in January that he can’t do now?  

Right now, Trump enjoys the support of a spineless Republican Senate.  Current polling suggests that after the election, Democrats are more likely than not to increase their majority in the House and possibly even take the Senate.  If Trump has a trick up his sleeve, it seems like this would be the best time to give it a shot.  But of course, he’s bluffing.  He’s clueless now, and he’ll be clueless next January.

And so Joe Biden asked another reasonable question: “Does anyone believe that there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is re-elected?”  Egads!  The MAGA crowd clutched its pearls and claimed that Biden was threatening violence if he loses.  Projection is a helluva drug.

MAGA types claim that the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois, and other right-wing militias are independent actors, on the scene simply as good 2A citizens to protect life and property.  They also insist that protestors, be they BLM, Antifa, or just concerned citizens, take their orders from Joe Biden. 

Funny thing, but I’ve seen a lot of footage from Seattle, Portland, Kenosha, and other hot spots.  I see a lot of the right-wing fighters with MAGA hats and Trump banners.  I have yet to see a single Biden banner, sign, or other Democratic Party signifier from the progressives in the fray.  There probably aren’t a thousand members of Antifa in the entire world, but I’m pretty sure than none of them are Biden stans.

And here’s why.  This is what Joe Biden said on Monday:  "I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting, looting is not protesting, setting fires is not protesting…It’s lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted."

I will now offer a personal story that bears on the situation, so return with me now to those thrilling days of the 20th century.  It was thirty years ago, give or take, and I was a youngish librarian at the University of Arizona.  On the first day of a new semester, I arrived that morning to find a bunch of teenage boys lying on, and under, every study table in the room.  They were wearing dress slacks, long sleeve shirts, ties, and blazers, and apparently they’d been there all night.  I asked them to move, at least into the chairs, but they refused, and not politely. 

As you may have guessed, they were freshman fraternity pledges, and this was part of some hazing process.  Since they were interfering with my ability to do my job, I called the campus police.  A UAPD officer arrived quickly, and ushered all of us outside, where he listened to the story they made up and sent them on their way.

I was outraged.  Those frat boys were rude to me, and he didn’t even bother to take their names.  Lock ‘em up, dammit, or at least report them to the Dean of Students.  Then the policeman turned to me and said, “I know what was going on.  I know they were lying.  I know you’re annoyed.  But my job is to keep the peace.”  I was still outraged.

But thirty years later, I get it.  Occasionally you have to take one for the team.  Turn the other cheek, as someone once put it.

My sense is that the governors and mayors in current hot spots were trying to do what that UAPD officer did – avoid escalating the situation and hope that cooler heads eventually prevail.  But as long as there are people spoiling for a fight – and especially as long as Donald Trump supports the fighters – cooler heads will be shouted down or trampled underfoot.   

It was arguably worth a try, but it’s a failed strategy.  Time to try something else. 

What might that be?  The options aren’t great, first because there’s still a pandemic looming over everything, and also because one side welcomes the violence.  As Kellyanne Conway said last week, “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order.” 

Donald Trump wants riots.  Without them, the entire premise of his campaign – Joe Biden’s America is a crime-ridden hellhole – stops making sense.  He and his surrogates will do their best to make bad situations worse, hoping to scare enough voters to make a difference in November.

That being the case, it’s up to the people who want to get rid of Trump to exercise some self-discipline.  And look, I know that the vast majority of them are doing that already.  As Joe Biden said, protests and riots are two different things.  I’d be interested to see what it would look like if the protestors – the folks who are legitimately outraged about police brutality – took a week off. 

It would be fun to see MAGA militias and their friends on the police force milling around in the dark, looking for someone to fight.  Maybe a few dozen Antifa types would still show up, but there’d be a lot fewer of them, and less likelihood that mob psychology might infect otherwise peaceful demonstrators. 

In an earlier post, I suggested that people who are outraged when protests turn violent have an obligation to suggest alternative strategies.  I myself have one modest proposal, and one arrogant proposal.  See if you can tell which is which.

All the cities and towns where protests have turned violent have football fields – from an NFL stadium in Seattle, to at least a high school field in Kenosha.  How about the mayors invite their local MAGA militias and their local Left provocateurs – Antifa or whoever – to a trial by combat?  Sell the TV rights.  Both sides pick their 20 best fighters and have a good old fashioned melee.  No firearms, but no other rules.  Kill each other if you want.  But when it’s over, it’s over.  Let that be an end to it.

OK, so that won’t happen.  How about this?  Joe Biden convenes a summit of the governors and mayors where trouble is occurring, along with Barack Obama, LeBron James, Kamala Harris, and anyone else who has stature in the eyes of legitimate protestors.  Let them brainstorm both long-term and short-term strategies to encourage protests and stop the violence.

Long-term, the only viable strategy involves a radical reform of law enforcement, probably including some transfer of some police responsibilities to other government units.  Since nothing like that will happen as long as Donald Trump is president, electing Biden is a necessary first step. 

As I’ve said repeatedly, Joe Biden wasn’t my first (or 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th) choice among Democratic presidential candidates, but I’ve come to believe that he’s the ideal candidate for this particular race.  Republicans built a straw man Joe Biden.  He was Sleepy Joe the Socialist Menace, in thrall to AOC and the Squad.  They know how to attack that guy.  But unfortunately for them, that version of Joe Biden exists only in their imagination.

Biden – quite sensibly – played rope-a-dope with Republicans from the onset of the pandemic through the Republican convention.  Lay low, stay safe, and never interrupt your enemy when he’s in the process of making a mistake.  Donald Trump makes a lot of mistakes.

Now Biden is on the attack, and from my perspective he’s saying and doing all the right things.  I’m happy with his VP choice.  His convention was impressive.  And he’s talking sense about the difference between protests and riots.

I’ll say it again.  Joe Biden is poised to win a fair election.  Trump’s only hope is to create so much chaos that casting a vote will be difficult, and counting all the votes may be impossible.  That, along with a little help from his pal Vladimir Putin, may be enough to steal it for him.  Our job over the next two months is to make sure that doesn’t happen.

WE'RE ALL BACK IN OUR CELLS, BUT EVERY NOW AND THEN

A wise man recently made the point that riots aren’t arguments or attempts at persuasion.  They’re what happens when attempts at persuasion fail. 

Another wise man once said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” 

He didn’t say what you should do if the evil guy keeps smiting, which evil guys tend to do.  But on a related topic, when asked how many times he had to keep forgiving someone who sinned against him, the answer was “seventy times seven.”

Frankly, rioting sounds easier. 

I’m not a rioter, looter, or arsonist.  But I can empathize with their frustration and their fear.  The Kenosha incident, or series of incidents, is far from unique.  A policeman kills a Black person.  There’s an internal investigation, which may or may not result in charges.  If they do, the result is often an acquittal, because the rules are written to protect the police.

And it’s pretty obvious that right-wing critics who tut-tut about the necessity to keep protests peaceful are arguing in bad faith.  Note their reaction to the NBA players’ wildcat strike, which put pressure on billionaire NBA owners, and which has already borne fruit.  It was, in other words, a protest that was both peaceful and effective.  Naturally, conservative commentators are furious.  How dare they engage in THAT form of peaceful protest!  Shut up and dribble!  And don’t get them started on football players who kneel peacefully during the National Anthem.

But sure, let’s protest peacefully one more time.  Maybe one more will do the trick.  Except that most of the protests this summer began peacefully enough, and were sabotaged by provocateurs from both sides.  Is there any reason to think that won’t keep happening? 

Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing anyone who is outraged by police violence, nor am I criticizing anyone who is outraged by the burning and looting.  Me too, on both counts.  And I heartily approve of protesting against both outrages. 

I also want to be clear that I’m not saying that both sides are equally responsible for the violence.  These riots are happening because police murder Black people.  They happen because police (and Bill Barr’s goon squads) are spoiling for a fight. They happen because police look the other way when the boogaloo boys and other Trump-Jugend thugs show up to attack peaceful protesters.  “We appreciate you guys, we really do.”

Protesters (as opposed to rioters) are overwhelmingly well-intentioned, and their cause is just.  But when their events become a magnet for provocateurs on both sides, maybe it’s time to rethink tactics.  Beyond the loss of lives and property, the net effect is to give the Trump campaign more propaganda footage.  I wish they’d stand down for a while.

And to that, a reasonable person might observe that you can’t stand down from being Black.  I’m an old white guy.  Cops don’t see me as a threat, or as a potential target when they’re running on adrenaline from fear and rage.  It would behoove me to be circumspect about offering advice to people whose daily risks are orders of magnitude greater than mine.

That said, I would still argue that Black Lives Matter – the generic movement, not any specific organization using that name – has legitimate grievances that must be addressed.  But anyone – BLM or otherwise – who believes that they can burn and loot their way to ending police violence against Black people has some explaining to do.  How does that work, exactly?  And if you don’t expect it to work, why do you keep doing it (or supporting those who do it, or creating situations where burning and looting are more likely than not)? 

Similarly, I would argue that anyone who takes the (very reasonable, from my perspective) position that burning and looting are wrong – morally, strategically, and every other way – has an obligation to help find a non-violent solution to the problem of police murdering Black people.  And in lieu of fresh ideas of their own, that means supporting the non-violent strategies that others come up with. Otherwise, they’re saying Black Lives Don’t Matter – at least not to them.

Speaking of fresh perspectives, here’s what Donald Trump had to say about protests yesterday: “You know what I say?  Protest this, your ass.  I don’t talk about my ass.” 

I believe there is strong bipartisan support for not talking about Donald Trump’s ass.  Let us savor small victories.

I'LL HAVE WHAT SHE'S HAVING

Sure, they said.  Scream your speech, they said.  It’ll be great, they said. 

There’s a theory that many of the tactical blunders that doomed the Nazi war effort can be attributed to the German leadership’s massive drug consumption.  Everyone from Hitler on down was befuddled by amphetamines and/or morphine.   Luckily for the rest of us, I guess.

It sure looked like Donald Trump Jr., and his girlfriend Kimberley Guilfoyle, opted for some sort of pharmaceutical pick-me-up prior to their pre-taped speeches at the Republican National Convention.   Given that the speeches were taped ahead of time, the producers could have asked for second takes.  Maybe they did, and what we saw was the best they could do.  Kind of a scary thought.

What’s scarier is that the Republican Party is just fine with all of this.  “Twelve more years,” and all that.  Earlier this summer, there was a mini-debate among Never Trump conservatives about the future of the Republican Party after Trump.  But when the GOP adopted its 2020 platform, they effectively burned every bridge (and every boat) that might lead back to “normal.” Their platform is, quite literally, “Support Trump.” 

No philosophy, no policies, just Führerprinzip.

PROHIBITION HAS KILLED MORE FOLKS THAN SHERMAN EVER SEEN

Hey, if you haven’t completed your 2020 census form, please do it now.  I’ll wait. 

Fun fact: the 1860 Census helped the Union win the Civil War.  General William Tecumseh Sherman used census data to identify the likeliest foraging routes as his army burnt its way from Atlanta to the coast in the winter of 1864.  Fatalities on both sides exceeded 3000.  For a long time, Sherman’s March to the Sea was a bone in the throat of unreconstructed Rebs.  Maybe it still is.

But for some reason, the guy that broke Sherman’s record seems to be getting a free pass.  I’m speaking of Georgia’s current Governor, Brian Kemp, whose feckless “leadership” has resulted in over 4600 COVID-19 deaths – and counting.  If Donald Trump is the “new Cyrus,” surely Kemp ought to be considered the “new Sherman.”    

Republicans and their media enablers are fond of demanding that Democrats denounce every fringe incident perpetrated by anyone they can construe to be on “the Left.”  They also specialize in premature gotchas, as when Governor Kemp’s loosening of pandemic restrictions did not immediately result in mass fatalities.  “Where does Brian Kemp go for his apology?” was their rallying cry.  Ditto for Arizona’s Governor Ducey and Florida’s Governor DeSantis. 

Boy, were they smug.  Until people started dying.  Now they’re not quite so smug, although I’ve yet to hear any of those Republican worthies offer an apology for failing to protect their constituents from a deadly virus.

I’ve been reading tweets and blog posts from a guy named Erick Erickson, a right-winger who knows better but can’t help himself.  He’s based in Georgia, he’s got a wife with co-morbidities, and he’s smart enough to know that sending his kids back to school now would probably kill them, and him.  He knows Trump is a miserable piece of shit, and he knows the QAnon phenomenon is both dangerous and insane.  He even understands that Joe Biden is a good guy, a much better human being than Donald Trump. 

Nevertheless, Erickson intends to vote for Trump.

Why?  The overriding issue for Erickson is abortion.  He tweets and blogs criticism of Trump, but he always talks himself into the same conclusion.  Democrats are baby killers.  Nothing else matters.

That seems odd to me, on various levels.  When Roe v. Wade was handed down, Southern Baptists shrugged – a Catholic issue, they said, nothing to do with us.  But abortion opponents kept trying new approaches, and when they got around to testing the “baby killer” concept on focus groups, they hit BINGO.

It’s one thing to believe that abortion is wrong, or at least the option of last resort to save the mother’s life.  It’s another thing to declare that abortion is murder.  That’s an absolutist position that brooks no compromise.  If you really believe that abortion is murder, why wouldn’t you bomb clinics and kill the murdering doctors who perform them? 

There are several affinities between the “abortion is murder” crowd and the QAnon “Democrats and celebrities are pedophiles” crowd.  Most folks who hold both opinions are Republicans, of course, and my guess is that a substantial percentage of hardcore QAnon believers are pedophiles themselves, or at least pedophile-curious.  Projection is a helluva drug. 

I’m also pretty sure that the GOP has its fair share of people (men and women both – the guys who knocked up the gals don’t get a pass) who’ve had abortions.  But what distinguishes them from run of the mill hypocrites is that they’ve invented a theology in which members of their in-crowd are “saved,” and thus immunized against criticism for their sins.  “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,” as the saying goes. 

But there seem to be a lot of Republican Christians who view forgiveness as an endless supply of Get Out Of Jail Free Cards.  Sin today, repent tomorrow, and Jesus will push the reset button on the Etch-A-Sketch, and you’re good to go.  I have a feeling that those folks are in for an unpleasant surprise when they meet St. Peter at the pearly gates. 

The MAGA/QAnon crowd is not big on self-reflection.  They’re probably not familiar with the concept of cognitive dissonance.  But their bizarre fantasy of Donald Trump as a crusader against pedophilia is just nuts.  Trump is the guy who partied – frequently – with Jeffrey Epstein; and who – repeatedly – offered his best wishes to Ghislaine Maxwell.

Erick Erickson and the other semi-respectable anti-anti-Trump pundits don’t have much to say about Trump’s sympathy for Maxwell.  They know, first that they can’t quit Trump, and second, that any attempt to spin Trump’s sexual history would be mocked as delusional.  So they just change the subject.

And when they change the subject, they always wind up with the babies!  Won’t someone think of the children?  But the only children Erickson and his ilk care about are the ones who haven’t been born yet – the pre-children. 

Why are conservatives freaked out about abortions, when the rate of abortions is now BELOW the rate immediately after Roe v. Wade?  The number of abortions has declined every year since 1980.  They ought to be celebrating instead of freaking out.

A smart approach to radically reducing the number of abortions would be an aggressive promotion of birth control.  Recognize that men and women of child-bearing age are going to have sex, and make sure they have access to information about reproductive health, and to condoms, IUDs, birth control pills, and any other contraceptive measure that might be appropriate in their situation.

Until conservatives embrace contraception, I’ll be skeptical about their claims to be pro-life.  Otherwise, why do they lose interest after a fetus turns into a baby? 

Actual living children – whether they’re babies, or toddlers in cages at the border, or adolescent girls trafficked by Trump’s pals?  Republicans don’t care.  Those kids should have been smarter about picking their parents (and their race, and their gender).  They need to stop complaining and find a free market solution to their problems.

I mean, if Republicans are so pro-life, why don’t they get mad at Trump for sacrificing 170,000 (and counting) Americans to COVID-19, while he tried to convince China to help his re-election campaign? 

The answer is, they’re not pro-life.  Republicans are a death cult with a fetus fetish. 

WHEN WE WAS FAB

It was 60 years ago today.  On the way to Fab, a contingent of musicians from Liverpool had a gig in Hamburg. They made it across the channel, but took a wrong turn and wound up in the Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery on August 17, 1960.  Sadly, they were never heard from again.  Left to right, Allan Williams (their manager), Beryl Williams, Lord Woodbine, Stu Sutcliffe, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Pete Best.  The other future Fab fellow decline to participate.

IN MY SOLITUDE

My wife and I just returned from three days off the grid on Mt. Lemmon, where it rained every afternoon and the highs were in the 70s.  It’s 109 in Tucson as I write this.  Point being, I’m playing catch up here.  Apologies if some of my comments are old news by now. 

We heard the news about Kamala Harris as we were leaving home; ironically, as soon as we hit the road, the man Harris will replace next year (that would be Mike Pence) managed to delay us for 20 minutes while his motorcade crossed town.  Kamala Harris has never made me late, even for a minute, so on that basis alone, she’s the superior candidate. 

I wasn’t surprised that Biden chose Harris, but apparently the Trump campaign was; they’d focused their opposition research on Karen Bass.  At least in the first 48 hours after the announcement, Trump and his Fox enablers were scrambling to find an appropriate demonization narrative.

As of this writing, they’ve tried two angles of attack.  I knew they’d play the race card, but I wasn’t expecting an outbreak of Birtherism.  Harris, they insist, isn’t really Black, or at least not really of African descent.  Why?  Her father is Jamaican.  Where did all those Black Jamaicans come from?  Who knows?  The answer is lost in the mists of time.

But wait – maybe she’s not really Indian either.  After all, she pronounces her name differently than some Fox commentators think appropriate.  (This from the Trump-humpers who brought you “Thighland.”)  And somehow, all of this means that an American senator, born in California, isn’t eligible to run for Vice President. 

Seriously, who’s going to find that argument persuasive?  Hardcore MAGA-QAnon types, I suppose, but they were in Trump’s camp already.  Republicans are clearly spooked, and they’ve reached the whistling-past-the-graveyard stage of electioneering.  But intentionally or not, they’re demonstrating how deep-seated their racism is.  The white people’s party claims the right to decide who’s authentically Black and who’s not.

Besides which, the “she’s not really Black” argument would seem to undercut their second angle of attack, which Donald Trump rolled out on Fox and Twitter.  In Trump’s mind, a specter is haunting suburban housewives, and it’s Kamala Harris.  Like a latter-day pied piper, Harris will lead millions of welfare queens and MS-13 members out of their tenement slums into the toney suburbs.  It’s the first step towards sharia law and mandatory gay marriage, especially in swing states.

Republicans have been playing this game in one form or another for fifty years, and it helped them elect Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.  But again, apart from the usual Deplorable suspects, which voters are going to be persuaded by this argument?  Suburbs aren’t nearly as homogenous as they were back in Nixon’s Silent Majority days. 

The truth is, Donald Trump isn’t looking well.  I’m not convinced he’s going to debate Joe Biden.  He can’t handle obvious softball questions from sympathetic Fox personalities.  If he can’t read from a script (and sometimes even when he does read from a script), he gets sidetracked, rambles, repeats himself, and stumbles over words. 

Apart from Harris’ qualifications, which I think are just fine (for VP or the top job), one thing I like about the Harris pick is that she really gets under Donald Trump’s skin, which means he won’t be able to keep himself from spouting racist and sexist garbage.  Powerful women clearly freak Trump out, especially if they’re minorities.  Except for his aspirational sex partners, Trump wants women to be like 50s sitcom wives.  He imagines himself defending Donna Reed and June Cleaver against the Mongol Hordes.  

But over and above the anachronistic “suburban housewife” terminology, current polling suggests that most women can’t stand Donald Trump.  And I’d be willing to bet that his latest rants against Harris, AOC, and Nancy Pelosi (“nasty,” “angry,” “not even a smart person,” “she yaps,” and “mad woman”) won’t turn that around. 

Trumpian rhetoric is simply a window onto the racist, sexist id of Trump and his followers.  But I’d argue that his comments about Kamala Harris are also an attempt at voter suppression.  Maybe they think if they can convince Black voters that Harris isn’t one of them, they’ll vote for Kanye West.  Certainly they hope they can find a message that will persuade white progressives to stay home or vote Green.  Oh, and Kamala’s also a cop.  But she’s a cop who’ll let criminals take over the suburbs.  Talk about heightening the contradictions. 

With 80 days to go, I’m convinced that the Biden/Harris ticket would win a fair election.  I’m not as convinced that we’ll get a fair election, as witness Trump’s admission that he’s defunding the Postal Service to limit voting by mail.  I have a feeling they jumped the gun; it would have made more sense to begin trying to shut down the Postal Service in October.  By giving away the game in August, Democrats have a chance to stop this clearly illegal effort to rig the election.  It appears that the near universal outrage has had an effect, as the USPS inspector general (one of the IGs Bill Barr didn’t get around to firing) has launched an investigation.

That’s a good start, but the Biden/Harris campaign needs to devote significant effort into anticipating and foiling Republican attempts at vote fraud.  The next 80 days (and probably beyond) are likely to get ugly.

I KNOW I AIN'T NO PROPHET, AND I AIN'T NO PROPHET'S SON

Like Linus in the old Peanuts cartoon, Donald Trump is less clever than he imagines.  Unlike Linus, Trump is incapable of self-reflection. 

Trump has a few reliable “tells.” When he promises to deliver something in two weeks, you can be sure he’s bluffing.  When he tweets “many people are saying,” he’s about to repeat something he heard on Fox.  His frequent use of ambiguous statements about future consequences – “we’ll have to see” or “wait and see” – are meant to sound intimidating but those sorts of non-committal deflections actually signal that he has no idea what to do.  When he says “not many people know” (e.g., that Lincoln was a Republican), it means he just found out himself. 

He’s also terrible at keeping secrets.  One tradition of America’s quadrennial presidential follies is the “October surprise.”  Anthony Fauci is on record as predicting a vaccine sometime in 2021.  Based on that, plus Trump’s own remarks this week, I have a prediction.

I predict that – in addition to whatever other surprises we may see between now and election day – sometime in late October, Donald Trump will announce that he’s approved a COVID-19 vaccine.  He’ll have had nothing to do with its development, but he’ll find a way to take credit for it.  On the eve of the election, he’ll claim that the vaccine will make the virus will go away, and things will be back to normal in a jiffy.

Spoiler alert:  things will NOT be back to normal in a jiffy.  We won’t know whether Trump’s vaccine is effective, or what its side effects might be.  We won’t know if Trump let Big Pharma skip any phases of the clinical trials to get the product on the market faster.  We won’t know how much a dose costs, or who will pay for it.  We won’t even know if it’s a real vaccine, or a risky off-label use of an existing drug, or some quack nostrum that one of Trump’s credulous pals told him about. 

Those answers will be revealed in the fullness of time, but that time will be long after November 3. 

The wisdom of this strategy is questionable.  Outside the MAGA swamps, voters have learned to be suspicious of Trump’s pronunciamentos.  If he delays the announcement too long, many votes will have already been cast (via the dreaded mail ballot).  But a deus-ex-machina announcement of a COVID cure right before the election is the kind of H.L. Mencken move – no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people –that the grifters in the Trump campaign would consider galaxy-brain genius.

On the other hand, maybe the vaccine tease is just a diversion from a different October surprise, which Donald Trump prophesied today:  Joe Biden will “hurt God.”

I have two thoughts on that assertion.  First, it seems impossible by definition.  How would a mere mortal manage to hurt God?  I mean, the Bible is full of people disappointing God.  And the Bible is also full of false gods.  Count ‘em off – Baal, Belial, Dagon, Ishtar, Marduk, Moloch, or some random Elohim?  Hey, the harder they come, the harder they fall.  Even Satan himself.

If Joe Biden is somehow mightier than all those pagan gods, it’s hard to square that with the “Sleepy Joe” image Trump is also pushing. 

And besides, no one in the Biden campaign asked me, but hurting God doesn’t seem like a smart political move.  Wait until after the inauguration, dude.          

And if any of this actually happens, you read it first here.  If it doesn’t happen … well, you still read it here first.  It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong, and it won’t be the last.

HELL IS EMPTY AND ALL THE DEVILS ARE HERE

Donald Trump, to the surprise of no one who’s been paying attention for the past four years, has crossed yet another uncrossable line.  After spending the past couple of years trying to recruit the leaders of China and Ukraine to help him win re-election, Trump still found himself trailing badly in the polls. 

There was only one thing to do!  Ask Brazil for help!

Or maybe there were other things to do.  Like deflect attention from the worst economic quarter in history by tweeting a suggestion that we should postpone the election until Trump’s prospects improve.

Personally, I’d say if we were going to change the date of the election, we ought to move it up, not back.  Let’s vote on Labor Day and get this shit over with.  Give Trump six weeks to pack up and get out, and inaugurate Joe Biden on November 26.  That would be the greatest Thanksgiving of my life.

Meanwhile, back on Earth 1, Joe Biden speculated last April that Donald Trump would try to delegitimize a loss in the upcoming election.  He was widely mocked as paranoid, a victim of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  So where does Joe Biden go for his apology?    

So what are we to make of Trump’s proposal?  People on the Left are talking past each other as usual.  On one side, institutionalists make a few important points. 

·        Congress, not the president, sets the date of the election.  Good luck getting the House Democratic majority to agree to delay the election.

·        The elections themselves are run by the individual states.  That doesn’t make interference impossible, but it’s not subject to the whims of Donald Trump. 

·        The Constitution says that the president’s/vice president’s terms of office end on January 20, 2021.  If the Electoral College hasn’t certified a 2020 winner by then, the Speaker of the House will assume the office until such time as things get sorted out.  I could live with President Pelosi while we get all the votes counted. 

In summary, the institutionalists say, Republicans are acting like they expect to lose.  Keep calm and carry on. 

And against those perfectly reasonable points, other perfectly reasonable people say, are you fucking kidding me?  Donald Trump doesn’t give two shits about the law, and neither does the Republican Party.  They’re not acting like they expect to lose.  They’re acting like they’re planning to stage a coup d’état.  What the Constitution says is all well and good, but what are we going to do when Trump, Barr, and the rest of them ignore the Constitution?

Fair point.  Here are some thoughts.  Prayers to follow.

My main concern in this election is voter suppression.  Republicans have closed voting sites to make voting less convenient.  They are recruiting “poll watchers” to lurk at the remaining voting sites in the hopes of intimidating likely Biden voters. And this year, they’ve decided to sabotage voting by mail. 

Donald Trump seems to believe that there’s a difference between voting absentee (for example, military personnel stationed overseas) and voting by mail.  He’s too dumb to know that absentee votes are submitted by mail.  Somehow, those ballots remain pure.  But regular vote by mail ballots are all fake, submitted by members of Antifa, ISIS, and MS-13. 

If you believe that, the only way to keep America safe from democracy is to destroy the U.S. Postal Service.  Which is what Trump is doing right now.  I worry that the USPS, intentionally or simply because they’ll be critically understaffed, will slow-walk the delivery of ballots (or “loses” some of them in Democratic precincts).  States need to be willing to accept mail ballots that arrive late, and we all need to understand that this means that results in some states may take longer to tally.

I hope it won’t get this far, but if the 2020 election returns are inconclusive, Democrats also need to be ready for the next “Brooks Brothers Riot” – Republican attempts to stop counting the votes, as they did in Florida in 2000.  If needed, there will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats who’d be willing to descend on Tallahassee (or Phoenix, or Madison, or Raleigh, or Atlanta), or wherever Republicans try to interfere with the small-d democratic process.  The Biden campaign needs to be prepared to flash the bat signal.

My hope is that Biden’s win is so overwhelming – both in the popular vote and in the Electoral College – that no serious person will question the legitimacy of the election.  Then it all comes down to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts.  I don’t trust Roberts any farther than I can throw him, but he appears to be an institutionalist.  If the Electoral College certifies a Biden victory, I would expect Roberts to swear Biden in on January 20.  If that happens, it’s game over. 

Whatever paramilitary units Bill Barr may be able to muster, President Biden will be the new Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, nuclear codes and all.  President Biden will chill long enough for the Secret Service to escort the Trump crime family out the back door.

I should note that there are those who insist that Trump was merely trolling when he tweeted about delaying the election.  He was just trying to divert attention from the terrible economic news released that day.  Maybe, but so what? 

Trump thrives on chaos, and he’s a super-spreader.  But when his opponents begin to bicker about which terrible thing is worse – “hey, stop obsessing about A when the real problem is B” – they’re missing the point.  Both A and B can be real problems at the same time.  A and B will continue to fester, and they’ll be joined by L-M-N-O-P soon enough.  Our job is to build a firewall to protect X, Y, and Z.

Three months to go. Eyes on the prize.

THIS IS MY STORY, THIS IS MY SONG

One of the commenters on my earlier “don’t waste your vote on a third party candidate” post played the “my vote won’t affect the outcome in my state” card.  

I’m not surprised.  I’ve played that card myself a couple of times.  Personally, I’ve come to regret those choices.  Your mileage may vary, but here’s my story. 

In 1968, I lived in Kansas – then as now, Republican territory.  Its electoral votes were going to go to Richard Nixon, no matter how I voted, whether for Hubert Humphrey, Dick Gregory, Pat Paulsen, George Wallace, or not voting at all.  My preferred candidate that year was Bobby Kennedy.  He didn’t exactly lose the Democratic nomination.  He was assassinated on the night he won the California primary.  An unworthy candidate won the nomination.  Fuck you, Hubert Humphrey.  I’ll sit this one out.  I voted in the down-ballot elections, but left the presidential vote blank.

By 1980, I was living in Arizona, another solidly Republican state.  My options then were Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, or John Anderson (a liberal Republican, at a time when there were such things), but it was a foregone conclusion that Reagan would get Arizona’s electoral votes.  I thought I was smart back then.  Fuck you, bumbling ineffectual Jimmy Carter.  I’ll stay pure and vote for someone who has no chance of winning.  I voted for John Anderson.

With the benefit of hindsight, I’m embarrassed by both of those decisions.  Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.  Nixon was a terrible president.  Tens of thousands of people died because of him – people who would have lived had Hubert Humphrey won the election.  More or less the same thing happened in 1980.  Ronald Reagan had a sunny disposition, but his policies ruined lives.  Jimmy Carter looks pretty good in retrospect. 

In neither case did my lone vote “matter,” except to me.  Now I wish I had voted for Humphrey and Carter.  It would have been a better use of my franchise.

That same commenter also noted that he wouldn’t vote for a warmonger, a racist, or a rapist, no matter what party they represented. 

Those seem like reasonable cutoff points to me, too.  But if “warmonger,” “rapist,” and “racist” were intended to describe Joe Biden, I have thoughts. 

The only rape accusation I’m aware of directed at Joe Biden was made by Tara Reade.  I kept an open mind while the press investigated Reade’s allegations.  As best I can tell given the evidence I’ve seen, there’s no there there.  I base that conclusion both on reporting by reputable news organizations, and also on the fact that Republicans long ago dropped the issue as an angle of attack.  

“Warmonger” seems a little over the top, although Biden was a get-along-go-along senator who tended to support military action if a president said it was necessary.  He was a conventional senator in that respect.  I hope, and assume, that he’s learned from his – and America’s – mistakes.  This time around, Biden will inevitably be surrounded by advisors who are focused on 21st century realities.  Our biggest problems are not military, and Biden knows it.  What war is Biden currently mongering?

As for the racism charge, if it refers primarily to Biden’s disgraceful conduct in the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings, it’s hard to argue.  Shame on him.  On the other hand, that was thirty years ago.  People change. 

You know who doesn’t think that Joe Biden is a racist in 2020?  Barack Obama, Jim Clyburn, the late John Lewis, and the entire Congressional Black Caucus.  You wanna argue racism with them, knock yourself out.  I could add Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Biden’s list of endorsements, but it wouldn’t matter to folks who are Bernier-than-thou. 

And, what the hell, I can’t argue with the assertion that one person’s vote in a deep blue or deep red state won’t affect the ultimate outcome.  For me, it’s about what I want my personal karmic legacy to be, and maybe I’m making a bad bet.  By the time I find out for sure, I may have been re-incarnated as a cockroach, or a Republican.  Thoughts and prayers, por favor. 

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

In a remarkable example of random coincidence, or synchronicity (or maybe futility), it was exactly four years ago today that I first publicly fulminated against what I’ll call “protest votes.”  As election day 2020 draws nearer, I fear that some folks are beginning to overthink the upcoming presidential election, which will lead them to counterproductive conclusions.  Here’s an updated version of the argument I offered four years ago. 

There are conscience voters, and there are strategic voters.  My sense is that those two groups are largely talking past each other.  Conscience voting plays out as “Trump is terrible but I can’t bring myself to vote for Biden, so I’ll vote Green.”  Strategic voting plays out as “I like the Greens better than Biden, but because Trump is so terrible, I’ll vote for Joe because realistically he’s the only candidate who can beat Trump.” 

So once more, with feeling, here’s why you should vote for the Democratic candidate for president.  My foundational premise is that our next president will be the nominee of either the Republican Party (right now, that looks like Donald Trump) or the Democratic Party (right now, that looks like Joe Biden). 

Of course, there will be other candidates on the ballot.  You’ve got Howie “Huh?” Hawkins, the presumptive nominee of the Green Party.  Hawkins, as his Wikipedia entry notes, “has run for twenty-four offices, all unsuccessfully.”  Spoiler alert:  the next presidential election will be his 25th unsuccessful run. 

You like a lot of Green Party positions?  Me too.  You think Howie Hawkins is ever going to be in a position to implement them?  Spoiler alert:  Don’t be silly. 

Oh, but maybe you think Howie can use 2020 to build the Green Party into a contender in 2024?  Again, don’t be silly.  The Green Party has fielded candidates in the past six presidential elections.  How did they do?  The Greens’ share of the vote in those elections was, 1996: 0.7%, 2000: 2.7%, 2004: 0.1%, 2008: 0.1%, 2012: 0.4%, and 2016: 1.4%.  It’s hard to see much Green-mentum there.  The Greens made an impact twice, not by winning but by taking votes away from Al Gore in 2000, and from Hillary Clinton in 2016.  An honest summary of Green Party accomplishments since 1996 would give them at least partial responsibility for both the Iraq war and for our current descent into madness. 

Honestly, I think the Green Party’s secret is that they are NOT trying to win.  They exist as a refuge for progressives who would rather engage in virtue signaling than get their hands dirty in retail politics.  When I hear or read someone using phrases like, “hold my nose and vote for,” or “just can’t bring myself to vote for,” or “I’m looking for someone worthy of my vote,” – or especially “vote my conscience” – it says to me that their vote is about them, and about how they want others to see them. 

I understand the appeal of conscience voting.  I did it in 1968 and 1980.  But lately, conscience voting has begun to look pretty narcissistic.  Some people seem to be saying “I cannot, in good conscience, help save my country from disaster by voting for a flawed candidate.”

Four years ago, I let Tony Kushner, author of ANGELS IN AMERICA, make my closing argument.  In an interview with MOTHER JONES in 2003, Kushner said:  “Listen, here’s the thing about politics: It’s not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this….  The country doesn't elect great leaders. It elects fucked-up people who for reasons of ego want to run the world.” 

Of course, conscience and strategic voters need not reach different conclusions.  I came around to voting strategically as a matter of conscience.  I’m old, I’m white, I’m heterosexual, and I’m well off financially.  If all I cared about was me, I’d be a Republican.  Or if I were a real asshole, a Libertarian.  But I have younger, poorer, gayer, and blacker friends who are in a more precarious position than I am.  I’m going to cast my vote as much for them as for myself.  That makes me a strategic voter.

As a strategic voter, it appears that I’ll have the choice between a mentally unstable oligarch who’s leading an overtly racist Republican Party, and a well-intentioned but fairly conventional Democratic politician.  One of those two people will be our next president.  I’m rooting for the conventional Democrat.   

When I wrote the above paragraph in 2016, a reader remarked that my position “looks like a lesser evil vote.”  Not exactly.  Although I’d supported Bernie Sanders during the primaries, I didn’t (and don’t) view Clinton (or Biden) as evil.

But – and here’s the key point – even if I did see Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Joe Biden in 2020 as a lesser of two evils candidate, I WOULD STILL VOTE FOR THEM.  Because lessening the amount of evil in the world is a good thing. 

And having said all that, I should acknowledge that I’m not nearly as worried about conscience voters this year as I was in 2016. 

First, four years of Republican misrule have demolished the Greens’ favorite talking point.  It is no longer possible to argue with a straight face that there are no real differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.  Anyone who’s serious about fighting climate change, anyone who’s serious about working for social justice, anyone who’s serious about saving American democracy – in short, anyone who’s been paying attention – knows that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are their enemies.  If Trump is re-elected, we’re screwed. 

Joe Biden wasn’t my first choice among Democratic presidential candidates.  He wasn’t in my top five.  But I’m going to vote for him on November 3, and I hope you do too.  I think he’s “a good man,” as the saying goes, but I’ll vote for him because, of all the names that will be on the ballot in November, Biden is the only one who has a chance to beat Donald Trump.

I want to see Trumpism repudiated, root and branch.  I want to see a Democratic landslide in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.  I want veto-proof majorities in both houses of congress.  I want the Republican Party to wander in the wilderness for forty years.  I want a more progressive United States. 

I want to see progressive Supreme Court justices, support for public health and public education.  I want to see an intelligent, federally coordinated response to COVID-19.  I want to see an end to the militarization of law enforcement.  I want a president who doesn’t hate African-Americans.  I want people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to have more influence on American policy. 

Joe Biden isn’t my ideal candidate, but he’ll deliver those things.  Howie Hawkins won’t.  Neither will Jo Jorgenson or Kanye West, or anyone else on the ballot, whatever policies they claim to support. 

If there is a path out of this current crisis (and there may not be – I’m beginning to wonder), it lies with the Democratic Party.  Not just with Joe Biden, whose role will clearly be transitional.  Biden’s job is to evict Trump from the White House and start the recovery process.  Biden’s election is key to empowering the new wave of progressive Democrats who have mastered retail politics and begun to win elections.  If you want change, winning elections would be a good place to start. 

Or I could vote for someone I agree with more than Biden.  You know who that guy is?  Robert Mitchell, that’s who.  If I were going to throw my vote away on someone with no chance to win, for no better reason than that he agrees with me on everything, I’d vote for myself.  Would that make me a good citizen?  Spoiler alert:  don’t be silly. 

LOOK AT THEM BEANS

Maybe Mexico will pay for a wall after all.  On their side of the border, to keep us out.  Couldn’t blame them.  We’re not sending our best right now.

Meanwhile, back in the States, things have continued to grow curioser and curioser.  I once speculated – this was right after the 2016 election – that Donald Trump wouldn’t serve out his full term.  At the time, I thought he’d get bored and find an excuse to declare victory – “I made America great again” – and retire to Mar-A-Lago.

I was wrong about that.  Right now, boredom is the least of Donald Trump’s problems.  To be sure, he hates his job, to the extent that he understands it.  He enjoys campaigning, but the virus follows him wherever he goes, literally killing some of his most devoted followers.  He’s tried ignoring COVID-19.  He’s tried bullying it, and lying about it.  What does he have left?  Offering the virus a presidential pardon if it will disappear before election day?  Good luck with that.

Roger Stone’s pardon (OK, commutation of sentence) was something new.  Trump has pardoned bad guys before – Joe Arpaio and military personnel who committed war crimes in the Middle East.  But Stone is one of his co-conspirators.  Remarkably, Stone himself made this clear when he said that he deserved to be rewarded for not spilling the beans on his pal.  Apparently there are a lot of those beans.

I wouldn’t bet the farm (not that I own a farm) either way on Trump staying in the race.  He is clearly not playing with a full deck.  Consider this monologue, which he delivered at a press conference on Tuesday: 

“We have great agreements where when Biden and Obama used to bring killers out, they would say don’t bring them back to our country, we don’t want them. Well, we have to, we don’t want them. They wouldn’t take them. Now with us, they take them. Someday, I’ll tell you why. Someday, I’ll tell you why. But they take them and they take them very gladly. They used to bring them out and they wouldn’t even let the airplanes land if they brought them back by airplanes. They wouldn’t let the buses into their country. They said we don’t want them. Said no, but they entered our country illegally and they’re murderers, they’re killers in some cases.”

Someday I’ll tell you why.  In the meantime, buy Goya beans.

We are sixteen weeks away from our next presidential election.  Whether or not he drops out, Donald Trump is not acting like a man who expects to win in November.  Rush Limbaugh, who a few months ago insisted that COVID-19 was basically the common cold, is now telling his listeners that they may have to resort to cannibalism. 

It has come to this.  The GOP is now the Donner Party.

NO ONE HERE GETS OUT ALIVE

Is this our October surprise?  That’s just one of so many questions around the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Was this the case that Bill Barr was trying to disrupt when he fired the United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York last month?  Why did it take this long to apprehend Maxwell?  Rumor has it that Maxwell has extensive records about Jeffrey Epstein’s powerful friends. Did she cut a deal in return for the promise of a light sentence?  Why, with all the resources at her disposal, was she hiding out in Bedford, New Hampshire? 

Oh, and here’s a big one.  What is Ms. Maxwell’s life expectancy at this point? 

It appears to me that there are at least two wild cards in the Epstein/Maxwell investigation:  Bill Barr and Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service.  Both Maxwell and Epstein (before he was raptured unexpectedly) are rumored to have worked for Mossad, passing along information from and about the rich and powerful.  What outcome would Mossad be rooting for in this case?

But the prospect of Israeli intelligence putting the squeeze on powerful pedophiles isn’t even the weirdest part of this case.  That honor would go to the Barr-Epstein connection.  Bill Barr’s father Donald gave Jeffrey Epstein his first job.  As headmaster of a fancy Manhattan prep school, the elder Barr hired a college dropout with no discernible math skills as a math tutor.  That same Donald Barr also wrote a science fiction novel with pedophile overtones.  Birds of a feather, and all that.

We know that Bill Barr will use extra-legal means, if need be, to protect Donald Trump.  Does he have an added incentive to muck around in this case to protect some family secrets?    

One assumes that Maxwell has been smart enough to build a variety of “if anything happens to me” triggers for the release of whatever information she has.  A plea deal that releases just enough dirt to satisfy the public appetite for scandal, while protecting a select few powerful pedophiles, might be Maxwell’s safest play.  If she gets to call the play.

So many bad actors, weaving so many tangled webs.  Will we finally see anything approaching justice in this case, or will Bill Barr simply round up the usual suspects?

LOOK UPON MY WORKS, YE MIGHTY, AND DESPAIR

Donald J. Trump looks in the mirror every morning, hoping to see Rambo, or John Wayne, gazing back.  A man among men, respected by his friends, feared by his enemies, and desired by every woman.  A leader with the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job, and the strength of Samson.  A man with many statues commemorating his eternal magnificence. 

A man, in other words, totally unlike Donald J. Trump. 

Ozymandias was fake news.  Donald Trump is a fake Ozymandias. 

Not that Trump has ever heard of Ozymandias, or that he would understand the poem if someone read it to him.  But I’m convinced that, underneath Trump’s frantic defense of Confederate monuments, is a dim recognition that those statues are remnants of a world that is rapidly slipping into irrelevance, and taking him with it.  It doesn’t matter whether it’s better to burn out, or to fade away, if both things are happening at the same time.  Either way, Trump is beginning to see that he’s part of the world that’s busy dying, rather than the one that’s busy being born.

But I was talking about statues.  I don’t know where I picked up the idea, but I’ve long believed that there was a consistent symbolism for military statues featuring a horse and rider.  I thought the number of hooves on the pedestal signaled whether the rider died in battle (two hooves up), from a wound received in battle (one hoof up), or of non-military causes (all four hooves on the ground). 

That begs the question of the symbolic meaning of other possibilities – are there any statues featuring a horse with one hoof down/three up, or with all four hooves off the ground?  In the latter case, I’d assume the rider died in a merry-go-round accident.  But apparently the whole thing is an urban legend, or a rural legend, or at least fake news of some sort.  Full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

Thus disillusioned, I find myself asking – what’s the point of statues, anyway?  Why are they such a big deal?  I get the impulse to pull them down, especially if they’re depicting racist scum.  I even get the impulse to find a statue to pull down in your locale, racist scum or no, because you want to be one of the cool kids, someone who can tell their grandchildren that they were part of the Great De-Statue-fication Movement of 2020.  Even if the statue you pulled down was one of the good guys.  You can’t be performative unless you perform.

It’s a time-honored tradition for new rulers to pull down monuments to the old regime.  It goes back at least 3,400 years ago, when Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (who changed his name to Akhenaten), decided to rid Egypt of his predecessors’ images.  Don’t remember Akhenaten?  It’s because his successors tore down his monuments.  And so it goes, from one dynasty to the next.  You can talk about heritage-not-hate all you want, but eventually, someone’s going to hate your heritage, and burn it to the ground.

Is it even possible to separate the heritage from the hate?  I’m not old enough to remember Egypt’s 18th Dynasty, but I do remember the 1990s, and the breakup of Yugoslavia.  It turned out that the citizens of that “nation” – Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians – had hated each other for centuries.  Americans were like, “why can’t you guys just get along?”  And one side would come back with, “Yeah, but what about that massacre in Kosovo back in 1448?”  And then the other side would say, “Hell no – we were just getting  even for the earlier massacre in Kosovo in 1369.”

Pro tip of the day:  you’ll never get even by exchanging massacres.  When you’ve got seven centuries of history weighing you down, it’s hard to let bygones be bygones.

In one way, Americans are lucky we have so little history to weigh us down.  But these Confederate statues are part of the weighing down process.  Statues are markers put down by the dominant culture of the time.  Hey, look at us – we won the war; all hail our conquering general.  Or: hey, look at us – maybe we lost the war, but we can win the peace if you let us put up statues of racist treason weasels.

It says here that we need to de-politicize public art, by which I mean government-sponsored art.  And since that sort of art is almost always political, that means cutting way back on depictions of politicians and generals. 

The first step is easy – no public monuments to traitors.  That means no Confederates.  Because we know that the bulk of the statues that are causing all the commotion were raised in the early 20th century, as part of an attempt to rehabilitate the Confederacy. 

Fuck them.  Let their fans start a GoFundMe for a Treason Museum and stick their Confederate statues there.  That’s the easy part.

But if there’s an insatiable demand for Confederate monuments, I’d be fine with statuary commemorating Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox.  I think a tableau featuring Jefferson Davis in chains in his prison cell would be fine.  As for those Civil War re-enactors, if they can’t-stop/won’t-stop, let them re-enact Sherman’s march to the sea.

But all of this begs the question of the rationale for putting up statues, murals, and other works of art that commemorate political events.  Who should we remember, and why?  And from among them, which ones deserve more lasting physical memorials? 

As Hippocrates noted 2500 years ago (after Akhenaten, before Robert E. Lee), “ars longa, vita brevis.”  Life is short, but art will be around for a long time.  All of us need to remember that the people we think of as heroes – Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Pershing, Roosevelt, Grant, Washington, etc. – were all  human beings with their share of flaws to go along with their accomplishments.  And future generations may have different ideas about how to weigh those competing records.

I understand the desire to honor heroes.  But once you get past the Washingtons and Lincolns, the duration of public gratitude has a much shorter shelf-life.  Maybe a few of you remember Audie Murphy.  You can check his Wikipedia page for details, but he’s one of America’s most decorated soldiers.  During World War II, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, and three Purple Hearts.  If you’ve heard of him at all, it’s likely for his film career, not for the military exploits that brought him to Hollywood’s attention. 

If you’re a member of the Lost Cause Losers Club, and your fondest dream is to actually own a black person, your heroes are losers, pretty much by definition.  But for the rest of us?  Is the best way to celebrate Washington, Lincoln, Sacajawea, Harriet Tubman, Millard Fillmore, or [insert your favorite figure from American history here] to put up a statue of them?  That seems like old fashioned thinking to me; statues just become part of the scenery.  Put ‘em on money?  Put ‘em on stamps?  Like stamps are going to be around longer than confederate general statues?

The way to honor history’s good guys is to make sure the story of their lives are passed down, generation to generation.      

Where I live (Tucson, Arizona, USA), we have lots of great public art.  We have a giant African elephant sculpture at the entrance to the zoo, a giant T-Rex at the entrance to a McDonald’s, and a giant lumberjack in the parking lot of an auto supply store.  We have giant tweezers at the entrance to the University of Arizona, and we have a giant replica of an Easter Island Moai outside a campus bar.  The T-Rex and the Moai represent vanished cultures, in a manner of speaking, but the T-Rex is currently sporting a COVID-19 mask, so Tucson’s Dinosaur-American community is pretty woke.

Tucson is also a great city for murals, including those by the fabulous Joe Pagac.  That’s a story for another time, (but here’s the link, in case I don’t get around to it: http://joepagac.net/murals#/public-murals).

We’re living in crazy times.  Bad things are happening, and the bad people in charge are failing us.  It’s frustrating, and I understand the temptation to lash out.  But it’s important to keep our eyes on the prize.  And statues are not the prize.  The White House is the prize – well, the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.  The good guys will have an opportunity to take those institutions back on November 3.

Donald Trump is basically a weed, an organism that thrives in disturbed soil.  He’s an expert at disturbing soil; there’s no need to help him add to the chaos.  I say let’s dial back the short-term gratification and act strategically.  Our job is to be better than they are.

The most effective way to repudiate Trump is to overwhelm him at the ballot box in November.  Let’s vote in such numbers that even Vladimir Putin can’t save the Republican Party.  er

In the meantime, here’s Percy Bysshe Shelley: 

“I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

ONE LAW FOR THEM, AND ANOTHER LAW FOR US

Deploying a remarkably unconventional headline to introduce a piece of fairly conventional wisdom, The NEW YORK TIMES recently published a column by Ross Douthat entitled “The Case Against Riots.”  I wouldn’t have thought the Times would find it necessary to make that case, but we live in interesting times.  The piece itself is what you’d expect.  TL;DR: riots are counterproductive.  Even Martin Luther King, a well-known Black person, said so: “Every time a riot develops, it helps George Wallace.”

Douthat doesn’t have the moral authority to lecture Black folks about responsible citizenship, but this particular argument isn’t crazy.  Donald Trump is a nihilist.  A long, hot summer of civil unrest would suit him just fine.  It would keep his base riled up, and it would divert attention from the fact that he’s a terrible president.  It may be the only campaign tactic he has left.  Why give Trump what he wants?   

A response was not long in coming.  Elsewhere in Gotham City, NEW YORK MAGAZINE columnist Zak Cheney-Rice wrote an article called, “The Rioters Aren’t Here To Convince You.”  He notes that “A riot is not a tactic to gain widespread sympathy. It’s an expression of how inadequate other efforts have been.”

That’s the thing, isn’t it?  I am, by nature, sympathetic to appeals to reason.  But I’m an old white guy.  I may have 99 problems, but dying with a cop’s knee on my neck ain’t one.  “Keep calm and carry on” is in my DNA. 

But if I did have to worry about a cop killing me, I have a feeling that I wouldn’t appreciate someone telling me to keep calm and carry on.  I’d probably hear it as, “Wake up and smell the coffee, dude.  Nothing’s ever going to change, so just accept your lot in life.  And when, inevitably, you run afoul of local law enforcement, please die off-camera, so we don’t have to watch anything unpleasant while we’re telling your community to keep calm and carry on.”

I understand why images of burning and looting upset people.  I have a harder time understanding why many of those same people don’t get equally upset when they see the images of police brutality that sparked the burning and looting.  Do those people really believe they’d keep calm under similar circumstances?  Good grief, they freak out when someone asks them to wear a surgical mask. 

White people tend to see police brutality, if they see it at all, as an aberration.  That narrative is abetted by a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (the one that’s hiding in plain sight on Fox, on radio talk shows, and on the internet) which has developed a playbook for such incidents.  Ignore the incident for as long as possible.  Smear the victim, and witnesses too.  Valorize the bad cop, or, if his conduct is sufficiently egregious, paint any criticism of an individual policeman as an attack on first responders in general.  Gaslight your audience, casting as much doubt as you dare on the available audio or video evidence.  Blame the Deep State, Obama, the Clintons, and Joe Biden – anybody but Donald Trump.  If any of those feints gain traction, double down.  If not, change the subject.  Repeat as necessary.

The essence of Trumpism is that the legal system is supposed to protect, but not restrain, Trump and his friends – and to restrain, but not protect, everyone else.  Bill Barr gets that.  The New York Times does not.

Instead of demanding Trump’s removal, and continuing to demand it until the polls close on November 3, they’re reduced to publishing earnest editorials about why riots are bad.  Their pundits write things like “just when we think he can’t sink any lower,” and “we’ve become numb to his outrages.” 

No.  That’s wrong.  It substitutes clichés for analysis.  I’d bet money that Donald Trump will sink lower, right up until his physical and mental deterioration renders him unable to function.  He’s operating on pure id at this point; and he’s surrounded by enablers who don’t care, as long as there’s money to be made and victims to bully.  They’ll keep going until someone stops them.

Who’s going to stop them?  Not the Senate.  Not the Supreme Court.  Not vandals or looters. 

I hate to say it, but I’m afraid it’s going to be up to me.  All I need to do between now and November 3 is find 70 million people who agree with me, and make sure they get to the polls.  The next five months are going to be crazy.  The temptations of numbness and mindless rage will be ever-present.  Keeping calm is optional, but please do carry on.  If I can count on you, then I only need to find another 69,999,999 folks to join us. 

HELL IS EMPTY AND ALL THE DEVILS ARE HERE

A newspaperman in John Ford’s 1962 film, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE said, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”  Here’s a legend.

When campaigning for the 1960 presidential nomination, John F. Kennedy repeatedly used the phrase, “In the Chinese language, the word ‘crisis’ is composed of two characters, one representing danger and the other, opportunity.”  At the time, this was news to native speakers of Chinese.  But it was such a nice turn of phrase that it has become a commonplace idiom – even in China.

The trouble with Kennedy’s comment is not that it’s wrong, exactly, but that when people use it, they tend to assume that the dangers and opportunities are distributed fairly throughout the population.  Most of the time, though, the game is rigged.  It’s pretty clear in contemporary America which groups get to take advantage of the opportunity and which get to live with the danger.    

As we wade ever deeper into our current danger/opportunity, the more  I’ve been thinking a lot about a seemingly random comment I overheard at a party back in the 1980s.  A guy said, “I wish I was either a little bit smarter or a little bit dumber.”  Smarter, and he’d know how to solve his problems.  Dumber, and he wouldn’t even know he had problems. 

That, too, was a nice turn of phrase, which is why I remember it decades later.  And the thing that has struck me over those years is how much easier it is to get dumber than to get smarter.  Smarter is hard work.  Dumber?  Tune out, turn off, and drink up.  Relief is just a swallow away. 

As Thomas Grey put it in 1742: “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.”  Remember the Tree of Knowledge in the Book of Genesis?  Nothing but trouble.  In Adam’s fall, we sinned all; Trump’s in the White House, ha, ha, ha. 

The morning after that dreadful election day in November, 2016, I made a commitment not to look away.  I could at least be a witness, if nothing else.  In one sense, I’m pleasantly surprised that I’ve been able to stick to it for this long.  But right now, I feel stuck. 

The worse Donald Trump gets, the harder it is to talk about him intelligently.  Narcissistic? Ignorant?  Racist?  Dishonest?  Immoral?  Incompetent?  Sure, he’s all those things and worse.  He was all those things yesterday, and he’ll be all those things tomorrow.  How many times can I say that?  How many different ways?  And at what point might it cease to matter?

Paying attention to this shit is painful.  The more we know about Trump’s cruelty and corruption, the more it hurts to know that there’s very little we can do about it.  Ignoring it just seems wrong.  Obsessing about it just seems unhealthy.  So where’s the middle way?

The formulation “one nation, indivisible” was always aspirational to some degree, although it was an aspiration that our forefathers were willing to fight for.  Nowadays, we seem to have given up.  Some very fine people on both sides.  Divisibility has become a feature, not a bug.  “Divide and conquer” has replaced “united we stand.” 

We’ve been in some bad places before, and we’ve always muddled through.  We gave up slavery and let women vote.  We turned ourselves into an agricultural and industrial powerhouse.  We led the fight against fascism, and then helped those former enemies turn into modern democracies. 

We outsmarted, or at least outlasted, the Soviet Union.  They boasted about their tractor production and glorious beet harvests.  We gave the world television and rock & roll.  They didn’t stand a chance.  For one brief, shining moment, we were the last superpower standing.   

We thought it was because of our military superiority, so we built ever more complex (and expensive) weapons systems.  We tried them out in Korea, in Vietnam, and in one hot spot after another in the Middle East.  The weapons worked as advertised, in the sense that they looked cool on TV as they reduced more civilian infrastructure to rubble.  They worked considerably less well at convincing our enemies to give up.  It turned out that none of our high-tech weapons helped much against an enemy that was patient, persistent, and smart. 

But a high tech weapon is a terrible thing to waste.  If we can’t use them to kill foreigners, perhaps they’ll work on our own citizens.  Let’s militarize local law enforcement and find out.  Arms dealers continue to get rich, and cops get to act macho.  That was the opportunity part of the crisis. 

We’re seeing what the danger part looks like right now. 

Lois Lowry writes books for young adults.  Her novel, THE GIVER, won the Newberry Medal in 1994.  It’s dystopian science fiction, in the tradition of LORD OF THE FLIES, 1984, and THE HUNGER GAMES.  The society it depicts is clearly American, but it’s set in a future America that has gone horribly wrong.  Lowry didn’t offer much backstory, and over the years her young fans have written to ask: “Would you please write a prequel to The Giver so we could find out how all that happened?”

Lowry answered that question definitively in a recent online article (link below):  “Dear Reader: guess what. You don’t need a prequel. You’re living in one.” 

I gave away the punchline, but there’s much more.  Read the whole thing.

https://thebulwark.com/dear-reader/

MAYBE THEN I'LL FADE AWAY AND NOT HAVE TO FACE THE FACTS

Trigger warning: I suspect that this post will upset some readers.  I’m about to opine on a sensitive topic – what is known euphemistically as “vaccine hesitancy.”  Spoiler alert:  I’m agin’ it. 

As my first witness, I’ll call the Father of Our Country, George Washington.  In 1775, a smallpox outbreak stopped the attempted American invasion of Quebec in its tracks, and threatened to decimate Washington’s Continental Army.  Washington took the law into his own hands.  He quarantined his entire army and – in violation of colonial laws against the procedure – had them all vaccinated.  In those days it was a process called variolation, which meant rubbing live pus from smallpox victims into a cut on the arm of a healthy patient.  If Washington hadn’t inoculated his army, the American Revolution would have died aborning, and we’d all be speaking English today. 

As my second witness, I’ll call a Japanese soldier named Hiroo Onada.  You may not have heard of Onada, but you’ve heard of Wuhan, China.  Long before it became famous for bat soup and pangolin souffle, Wuhan was the site of a Japanese trading post where Onada worked as a teenager.  In 1940, Onada enlisted in the Japanese army.  He was serving in the Philippines in the final days of World War II. 

Onada’s last orders were to avoid capture at all costs.  Boy howdy, did he follow those orders.  He hid in the jungle for 29 years after the war ended, living off the land and launching occasional raids on local farms.  In 1974, a Japanese tourist found him and told him that the war was over.  Even then, he refused to surrender until the Japanese Army sent an officer to give the order.  Onada lived to be 91, illustrating the power of sheltering in place.

I’ve been sheltering in place for about two months.  So far, I haven’t needed to raid any farms, because Albertson’s takes credit cards.  I think about Onada and his 29 years in the bush.  I try to remember what I was doing 29 years ago, and to imagine what it would have been like to have been in hiding since 1991.   I can’t even do it in my mind.    

If Hiroo Onada had views on vaccination, I’m not aware of them.  The lesson I draw from Onada’s self-imposed ordeal is that virtue ceases to be virtuous when it’s disconnected from reality.  Whatever else we might say about his 29 years on the run – praise for his devotion to duty, his self-sufficiency, whatever – he accomplished nothing of value for himself or his country. 

We’re seeing Onada levels of fanaticism among Trump followers today.  Three years ago, I wrote that “The most dangerous gap between us and them is a reality gap,” but I had no idea how far or how fast the reality gap would spread, and the madness has spread beyond the MAGA fever swamps.

I’m not surprised that wingnuts on the Right have developed crazy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic.  I’ve seen that kind of thing before.  It reminds me of the early 1960s in my hometown, when the hot button issue in local politics was fluoridation – a proposal to add fluoride to the municipal water supply to help prevent cavities.  The debate was not about whether fluoride worked, or whether it was cost-effective.  No, the paleo-Plandemic crowd insisted that adding fluoride to our water was a communist plot.  These same folks were convinced that President Eisenhower and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren were communists. 

If you’ve seen DR. STRANGELOVE, maybe you remember the line from General Jack D. Ripper:  “I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”  In the film, it was a big laugh line.  In Wichita, Kansas, in the early 60s, it was barely an exaggeration of the actual beliefs of the Kennedy-era lunatic fringe.   

Now, thanks to Donald Trump, the lunatics are no longer on the fringes.  They’ve taken over the Republican Party.  Or rather, they’ve found their niche among the GOP rank and file, alongside the other lunatics – the motley collection of racists, prosperity gospel hucksters, and gun nuts that serve as the Trump’s shock troops. 

Authoritarians, and especially right-wing authoritarians, are notoriously hostile to science because it weakens their ability to control their subjects.  It’s harder to keep women barefoot and pregnant when they have access to birth control.  It’s harder to sell cigarettes when scientists demonstrate a clear link between smoking and cancer.  It’s harder for farms and factories to turn a profit when environmental regulations frown on dumping toxic waste into the nearest river, or burning it and letting the smoke go wherever the wind takes it.    

Donald Trump is an authoritarian, but he’s a remarkably weak authoritarian.  He just plain gave up when confronted with COVID-19.  Predictably, con men of various descriptions rushed to fill the leadership vacuum, insisting that the problem wasn’t all that serious, and that a cure was just around the corner.  All those scientists and medical professionals who offered nothing but doom and gloom were the enemy, part of the Deep State Obamagate conspiracy.

Incredibly, all that has become par for the course in the Age of Trump.  What worries me is that I’m seeing a similar lunacy begin to infect people on the Left side of the political and cultural spectrum.  Old school anti-vaxxers are fishing for new converts on social media, and they’re finding sympathetic ears among people who should know better. 

I may not look it, but I’m a reasonably bright guy.  Educated, too; arguably even over-educated.  I’m at least as qualified as the average layperson to understand virology and epidemiology.  Which is to say: I AM NOT EVEN REMOTELY QUALIFIED TO UNDERSTAND VIROLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY. 

Reasonably bright people know that they’re susceptible to motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.  They know the internet is full of hoaxes.  They’d never send money to a random Nigerian prince.  Maybe they’ve even studied logical fallacies and know the difference between correlation and causation, etc. 

But it’s hard to think straight when your world suddenly tries to kill you, and you realize that no one in charge has any idea what to do about it.  You’ve got time on your hands, you find a YouTube video with decent production values, and you begin to wonder.  You hear about a friend of a friend who got really sick last fall and is convinced they had COVID-19 weeks before it was officially recognized, and you begin to wonder.

There’s lots we don’t know about the virus and how it spreads.  We aren’t sure when the first cases appeared, or how many cases there are.  In the United States, basic research and data collection has been slowed by Trump’s incompetence.  It’s reasonable to be cynical about the politics of the pandemic.  Trump and his minions are, in fact, lying to you.

But granting all that, I don’t understand why so many people believe they’re qualified to have opinions on the science of the pandemic.  They aren’t.  I laugh when QAnon followers say, “do your own research.”  That’s good advice for professionals with training in the relevant disciplines.  For anyone else, it’s an invitation to madness.  Going down the rabbit hole is easy.  Climbing back out again is a different story.

Here’s a clue.  If you begin to entertain the possibility that Bill Gates created the virus so that he could use 5G towers to forcibly vaccinate and enslave 300 million Americans, it may be too late.  It won’t be long until you’re ranting about pedophiles in pizza parlors, reptilian humanoids, and adrenochrome harvesting.   You’ve gone over to the Dark Side. 

Some people argue that vaccination is a personal decision.  I suppose that’s true, in the sense that every decision is a personal decision.  But a lot of personal decisions have public consequences, and personal decisions about how to behave responsibly in the presence of a deadly and highly contagious virus have far-reaching public consequences. 

Justifying a refusal to vaccinate by calling it a personal decision is the tantamount to saying that the only thing that matters is your personal well-being, and that any risks you take are nobody else’s business.  But you live in a community and interact regularly with others.  If you take that risk and catch the virus, and then pass it on to someone else, you’re responsible for what happens to them, just as surely as if you’d given them poison.  Why shouldn’t the legal consequences be the same?

My mother was a nurse.  She made sure I got every vaccination that came along, as soon as possible.  I can’t remember any adverse reactions, apart from a sore shoulder.  Those shots helped keep me healthy; some of them probably kept me alive.  My mom would have been flabbergasted by all the people who claim they’d rather get sick and die than get a simple vaccination.  I get flu shots every year.  When there’s a COVID-19 vaccine, I’ll get that too.  Maintaining a safe and respectful social distance, of course.  I hope you do too.

For the moment, my pandemic mantra is “let’s wait and see.”  It’s not the hottest of takes, but it strikes me as sensible.  I’d also add “be careful,” both in terms of physical risks and intellectual risks.  The mysteries of COVID-19 will be solved eventually – by doctors and scientists, not by YouTube influencers or Adderall-addled presidents.  In the meantime, the best thing the rest of us can do to beat the virus is to live long enough to vote on November 3.