This Week in America

Bad Juxtaposition #Trump #Scary @jbouie

We wrote last week that we don't think Donald Trump is Hitler or anything like him, and that comparing any American political figure to Hitler or political stance to Nazis is stupid and pointless, demolishing any legitimate argument before it begins.

Over at Slate, Jamelle Bouie made the valid point that fascism is a political philosophy separate from the Third Reich, and that Trump has come to embody it. We haven't gone quite that far in our analysis, so don't take anything from these photos beyond a creepy juxtaposition that occurred as we were skipping commercials on the DVR (History Channel, if you're curious). The screen landed on the first one, then immediately on the second.

We're not making a political point here. It's just...bizarre. And a little scary.

This Week in America (Vol. 3, Week 49, Thanksgiving Edition)

We're publishing on Wednesday this week, so we can take Thursday and Friday off from politics and political news and focus on other things. Enjoy your Thanksgiving, however you choose to spend it.

In other news, this is our new logo (and above you can see it used in our new banner):

And our new Twitter handle is: https://twitter.com/ThisWeekAmerica. Follow us.

Next: We take over Facebook!

 

This Week in Giving Thanks

We traditionally think of the first Thanksgiving as the feast prepared by Pilgrims in 1621 at the Plymouth Plantation (primarily Separatists who fled to the New World to escape laws requiring attendance at Church of England worship) for themselves and the Indians who had given or sold them food during their first harsh winter after the Mayflower's arrival. In fact, at the time that was simply considered a harvest feast, marking their first harvest, and the local Wampanoag who had taught them how to plant and farm in this new landscape were honored guests.

The first feast recognized as a thanksgiving celebration by those who took part was in 1623. The order to recognize it as such came from Governor William Bradford and not the church, making it the first civil recognition of Thanksgiving in New England. (Other colonies had thanksgiving celebrations throughout the New World, including ones in Virginia from 1607, but we don't think of those as the precursor to the modern holiday.) It wasn't until 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the national holiday, that the date officially became the fourth Thursday of November.

Perhaps a greater contribution by those who came on the Mayflower was the Mayflower Compact, which has been described as the world's first written Constitution. It was signed on the ship on November 11, 1620, after having been voted upon by the ship's passengers (meaning men, and not counting servants, women, or children), in what might have been the New World's first act of almost pure democracy.

In modern language, it said:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

They meant to create a "civil body politic"--within the framework of which they would work cooperatively for their defense and wellbeing--"for the general good of the colony." That, in short, is what the American experiment has always been about. It's hard to remember that now, when so many seek to divide Americans, to insist that what we think is good for us individually is more important than the greater good. It's worth reminding ourselves that the people who pioneered what we think of as American democracy knew that working together for the general good was the way to ensure a better life for all.

And it's worth remembering that the Europeans and the Wampanoag--through the translation efforts of Squanto, who had learned English while enslaved in England--could peacefully, cooperatively coexist despite their differences.

We here at TWiA are thankful for loved ones, for family by birth or by emotional connection, for our readers, and for the vast majority of Americans who get along, who help out, who contribute in ways large and small to community and to country. Also for bears.

This Week in the Medal of Freedom

President Obama put together an almost ideal guest list for a Thanksgiving dinner this week, but he did it a couple of days too early for turkey. Gathered at the White House to receive the Medal of Freedom--the nation's highest civilian honor--were Steven Spielberg, James Taylor, Barbra Streisand, Stephen Sondheim, Willie Mays, Itzhak Perlman, Gloria and Emilio Estefan, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D/MD), former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D/IN), and some lesser known but still deserving Americans described thusly by the New York Times:

He draped the medal around the neck of Bonnie Carroll, who founded the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, or TAPS, after her husband, Brig. Gen. Tom Carroll, died in a military plane crash in 1992. Mr. Obama extolled Katherine G. Johnson, a NASA mathematician who opened the door for women and African-Americans as she calculated historic spaceflights of the astronauts Alan Shepard and John Glenn.

The president also posthumously honored Billy Frank Jr., a lifelong advocate of Indian treaty rights who led so-called fish-ins to preserve salmon resources in Washington State, and Minoru Yasui, who fought a World War II military curfew for Japanese-Americans all the way to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama honored two other Americans posthumously: Yogi Berra, the legendary baseball player and coach, and Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman elected to Congress.

We here are TWiA World Headquarters are thankful for the contributions these people have made to the rich tapestry of American life. In a season that seems thick with fear and hate and unrest, we're delighted to see recognition given to people who create, enrich, and teach us through their talent and courage and perseverance. 

This Week in Bullies

We've predicted the imminent demise of Donald Trump's presidential ambitions several times now, as has just about every other politics-watcher in the business. When Trump gave a rambling, disjointed, barely coherent speech in Iowa a couple of weeks ago, insulting Iowans and rival Dr. Ben Carson, we thought that signaled a loss of interest or perhaps an oncoming psychotic break that would end his campaign. But then terrorists attacked Paris--as if knowing, better than we did, the best way to further the aspirations of the candidate least likely to ensure American security and perhaps most likely to give ISIS the full-scale ground war it wants.

After a few weeks of scrutiny, accompanied by some genuinely bizarre statements, Carson's brief surge is collapsing. Most of the support he's lost seems to have migrated to Trump and Ted Cruz (who has, in the most recent polling, passed Carson in Iowa).

Cruz has the same mix of raw cunning and phony sincerity you find in your most successful "genius" supervillains (think Lex Luthor or Hannibal Lecter), while Trump is nothing but ego-fed, insane bluster. If he stepped onstage in full Joker regalia someday, no one would be terribly surprised. Despite the obvious perils in electing The Joker to the presidency, his supporters are loyal and their numbers are growing. And that signals a disturbing trend line.

Trump's campaign got an initial boost when he used his launch speech to denigrate Mexicans as criminals and rapists. His promise to build a wall on our southern border is an appeal to racists who think keeping Mexicans out at any cost is more important than the economic benefits immigrants provide. The fact that more Mexicans are now leaving the country than entering--meaning a wall would do more to keep them in than keep them out--seems not to have penetrated Trump's hair defenses.

Lately, his racism has become more overt. A Black Lives Matter protester at a Trump rally over the weekend was knocked to the floor, punched, kicked, and possibly choked, when Trump told the cheering crowd to "throw him out." Trump defending his fans on Sunday, saying that "maybe he should have been roughed up." This is all a contrast to earlier Trump appearances, when the candidate directed the crowd not to hurt protesters. After the speech, he retweeted a Tweet about race and murder statistics--statistics that are very wrong and are attributed to a source that doesn't exist. The source of the original Tweet itself exists, sadly, and it's not one that presidential candidates should be promoting.

At the same speech, trump stoked anti-Muslim resentment by claiming that he saw "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in Jersey City, NJ celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. There are no contemporaneous news or police reports supporting that claim, but when asked about it on Sunday, Trump doubled down, leading to this exchange on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you meek – misspeak yesterday?

TRUMP: It did happen. I saw it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You saw that…

TRUMP: It was on television. I saw it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: – with your own eyes.

TRUMP: George, it did happen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Police say it didn’t happen.

TRUMP: There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down – as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As I said, the police have said it didn’t happen.

If it had been on TV then, there would be video now. If Trump claimed it happened and there was video, his supporters would have uploaded it everywhere, and every TV station would be showing it. It's not something that isn't discussed because it's not "politically correct," it's not discussed because it's imaginary. Didn't happen. Full stop.*

He wants Muslims to register with the government, Syrian refugees barred, and mosques surveilled (but only the "bad ones"). He wants to bring back waterboarding, saying, "Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would — in a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that. Don’t kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? … Only a stupid person would say it doesn’t work. … And you know what? If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing."

Yeah, no, Donald. It doesn't actually work, and it runs counter to America's ideals, its laws, its history, and its security.

Comparing one's political foes to Nazis, or politicians to Hitler, is always a losing proposition. There's nothing about Trump that makes us think he would march Muslims, Mexicans, or anyone else into concentration camps and gas chambers. We're not convinced he actually holds any deeply felt beliefs, except in his own infallibility. If a Republican were president now, Trump might be running as an economic populist, somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. We think that to a certain extent, what Trump loves is the sound of applause. The fact that the applause grows as his expressed views become uglier and more extreme is the problem, because it encourages him ever farther in that direction. Recent polling shows that half of Republican voters support the deportation of undocumented people and oppose admitting Syrian refugees--and the people holding both those views account for 3/4 of Trump's support.

The nativism he is coming to exemplify is worrying, as is the willingness of his followers to "rough up" protesters (and his endorsement of same).  Here's a description of the early days of Hitler's "brownshirts," from Wikipedia (paraphrasing John H. Toland's classic Hitler biography):

"The precursor to the SA [Sturmabteilung]  had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to helping the party to grow through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Münchener Beobachter (later renamed the Völkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbräuhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberlbrau beer hall. Some 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler's military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators 'flew down the stairs with gashed heads.' The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party's Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2000 persons at the Hofbräuhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his army friends, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed."

 Trump is playing up threats both external and internal. He's channeling the rage of a party that largely describes itself as "angry" with and distrustful of government. He's trying to project a "strong man" image, claiming that he alone can keep us safe from the "others" that are coming to get us, while warning (or promising?) that civil rights will take a beating in the name of security. He's stirring up fear and anger toward an entire minority religion.

It's worrying. What's more worrying is that people are buying it. We like to think of Americans as smarter than that, and we still hold out hope that this is just a temporary flirtation. But it's been going on for a distressingly long time, and seemingly getting stronger week by week. As long as Trump maintains his sizeable lead, the question that has to be asked is not "What's wrong with Trump?" but "What's wrong with us?"

The higher his poll numbers climb--and the more extremist the ideology he espouses--the more principled conservatives are speaking out against him. Former George W. Bush aide and speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post this week, "As denial in the GOP fades, a question is laid upon the table: Is it possible, and morally permissible, for economic and foreign policy conservatives, and for Republicans motivated by their faith, to share a coalition with the advocates of an increasingly raw and repugnant nativism?"

Other conservatives, including advisers to Jeb! Bush and Marco Rubio, have gone straight for the "fascism" label. This analysis at CNN say he hasn't yet crossed the line into overt fascism, but he's coming close and leaning ever further in that direction.

We don't think Trump can win the presidency. We doubt that he can win the nomination. But if he does, we see trouble ahead for the Republican Party, because we don't see how serious-minded conservatives could possibly support such a nominee.

But the fact remains that the Republican Party is the go-to for white racists. Non-racist Republicans have long had an uneasy peace with the racists who make up such a large part of their voting pool, especially in the South. Trump's blatantly racist message is exposing that truth and making things uncomfortable for those in the party who don't hold racist views; however, decades of silence on the matter has made the racists comfortable in the party and now makes it hard for more enlightened conservatives to denounce or expel their most loyal bloc. 

 

*Ben Carson says he saw the film. Of course, Ben Carson also says Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution (and that "every signer of the Constitution had no elected office experience"), so his memory is not always spot-on. Later the same day, Carson's campaign said that, oh, no, Carson was thinking about celebrations in the Middle East, not in New Jersey. But same diff, right?

Side Note 1: Is Trump himself a racist? Not if you ask him. "I'm probably the least racist person on earth." Uh huh. And the most self-aware.

Side Note 2: Reporters might go for the "fascist" tag now that the Trump campaign requires them to have "bathroom escorts" if they leave the press pen to address bodily needs.

Side Note 3: Can Trump win the nomination? Nate Silver says probably not. Alan Abramowitz says maybe.

This Week in Fear

Of course, Trump isn't alone in his demagoguery of Syrian refugees and other Muslims. Sen. Marco Rubio says he wants to shut down "any place where radicals are being inspired," which could include mosques, the internet, street corners, and basements. It could also apply to the mouths of politicians who express nonsensical and offensive ideas about "radical Islam," like Marco Rubio does. Come to think of it, we're in favor of shutting that down.

* * *

Former governor Jeb! Bush isn't always childishly simplistic, and when he is, it's not an attractive sight. Last week he suggested that America should discriminate against Syrian refugees on the basis of their religion. If they're Christians, he said, we should let them in, but otherwise we should bar them from our shores. Pressed on how this incredibly un-American concept would work, he tried to explain. "By name, by where they’re born, their birth certificates. There are ample means by which to know this."

What, one has to wonder, would he make of a man named Barack Hussein Obama, who was born in Hawaii (or was it Kenya)? Or of Steven Demetre Georgiou, born in London (who later recorded as Cat Stevens, and is now known as Yusuf Islam? Or of Malcolm Little from Omaha, NE (who became Malcolm X and el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz)? Names can change, and so can religious identity. Who or what one is at birth doesn't define one's entire life. And religious identity, at any stage of life, does not necessarily indicate a propensity toward violence or terrorism. Jeb! hasn't thought this through very well.

* * *

Former Governor Mike Huckabee has an aw-shucks manner that makes people think he's a nice guy. He's not.

* * *

One doesn't have to be an elected politician or even a candidate to sow fear. As the Dallas Morning News reports, "An anti-Muslim group that brought guns to an Irving mosque has published the home addresses of dozens of Muslims and “Muslim sympathizer[s]” in the city.

* * *

And in a vote where 47 Democrats joined with 242 Republicans, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would require the heads of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI and the Director of National Security to personally vouch for each individual refugee who wanted to enter the country. Just voting for that tells us those representatives aren't serious about national security, because if they were, they would know those people have considerably more important things to do. As do the members of the House. AUMF, anyone?

As we reported last week, those refugees are already more thoroughly vetted than any other visitors or newcomers to this country, and the years-long process would discourage terrorists from slipping into the country as refugees when they could far more easily enter as tourists (or they're already here, being radicalized by the vitriol spewed by Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, et al). Even the Libertarian Cato Institute comes down on the side of truth and reason, for a change.

This Week in History

It's worth remembering, during this period of overheated anti-Muslim rhetoric, that we've been at war with Muslims in the past without ever calling it a war against Islam. We have also--far more often--not been at war with Muslims. In 1777, the first country that recognized the independent United States was Morocco. In 1797, after warring with the Muslim Barbary Pirates, President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (unanimously ratified by the Senate), which included Article 11: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This is no time for a "war with Islam." There never has been such a time, in our history, and there never will be.

This Week in Climate

We mentioned Sen. Ted Cruz above, and admitted that he's supposed to be a pretty smart guy (if conniving, underhanded, and weasely). But in some areas, his ignorance is pronounced, at least according to eight climate and biological scientists who were provided with anonymous comments on climate from the major presidential candidates.

"'This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner,' Michael Mann, a meteorology professor at Pennsylvania State University, wrote about Cruz's comments, according to the AP. 'That sort of ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president.'"

Here's the AP's chart of how the candidates fared:

 

This Week in Theft

According to the FBI, burglars stole about $3.5 billion in property in 2014.

Police stole $5 billion in property, via the mechanism of civil forfeiture, which allows police departments to seize property from people who haven't yet been convicted of crimes, or even charged with them.

There are lots of twists and turns to the tale, and the stats vary depending on how you look at them. But the Washington Post's conclusion is "In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary."

In the immortal words of somebody wise, "Shit is wrong."

This Week in Cancer

Early diagnosis of cervical cancer is crucial to surviving it, and to preserving chances for fertility later in life. What effect has the Affordable Care Act had on outcomes? According to researchers from the American Cancer Society, "very remarkable."

Think about that next time some Republican politician expresses a fervent desire to "repeal Obamacare."

This Week in Gun Safety

In case you're anticipating the traditional Thanksgiving argument about guns with your crazy relatives, The Trace helps you counter the most common pro-gun death talking points with actual facts. (Meanwhile, Vox.com shows how to deal with arguments over a variety of topics, including vaccines, Benghazi, Donald Trump, and Black Lives Matter.)

* * *

NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson remind us that the easy availability of guns in this country--even to people on the terrorist watchlist--is a far more dangerous situation than the potential of future Syrian refugees being secret ISIS moles.

* * *

The FBI predicts that gun sales on Black Friday will break all previous one-day records. Remember when Thanksgiving was a time of peaceful reflection and gratitude?

This Week in Bears

Because who doesn't love happy bears having fun? 

And in international bear news, here are polar bears in Canada engaging in good-natured horsebearplay, and a tribute to Wotjek, a soldier bear who served honorably in WWII.

This Week in America (Vol. 3, Week 48, Nous Sommes Tous Les Parisiens Edition)

You'll notice a new banner at the top of the page--part of the never-ending effort to define just what TWiA is and what it should look like. Comments are welcome. Also, late in the week travel means this only goes through Wednesday of this week. We'll try for a weekend or mid-week update, at least to discuss Bernie Sanders's important and spirited defense of "Democratic Socialism."

 

This Week in Terror

For some reason, it's a big applause line when Republican politicians declare that we're at war with "Radical Islam," and it's even bigger when they decry the unwillingness of some Democrats, including President Obama, to use that term.

The reason not to use it, of course, is obvious. We're not at war with Islam, the religion. Islam has more than a billion followers, and those people believe all sorts of things. The teachings of Islam are contradictory at best--some declare violence to be a worthwhile tool, others condemn it. Muslims have to decide for themselves which to accept and which to reject.

Christianity's official teachings--especially in the New Testament--tend more toward peace, but it's not hard to find examples of violence being used to solve problems in Christian teachings. David didn't beat Goliath by negotiating a truce, after all. He beaned him in the noggin with a rock.

But when we talk about Westboro Baptist Church, or the Ku Klux Klan, or the Salem Witch Trials, or the Crusades, do we complain about Radical Christianity? No, we recognize that those who commit violence in the name of Christianity are using their own twisted interpretation of it. We don't pretend that their actions represent the entire faith, or that they represent the faith at all. To a contemporary audience, they stand outside mainstream Christianity, not as part of it.

ISIS wants all Muslims to accept their caliphate, and ideally to live within it, spreading its borders across continents. We want Muslims to feel welcome in America, at home, and to think of themselves as Americans first and Muslims second. Other countries want the same for their Muslim populations. The Muslims who are dangerous are those who are disaffected, feeling separate from the communities they live in. Those are the ones who fall prey to ISIS's manipulation.

Tarring all Muslims with the same brush--even so much as acknowledging the bogus claim that the terrorists represent the religion--is the surest way to send disaffected young Muslims down the path of radicalization. We should call those who use terror as a tool what they are--terrorists. It serves their aims, not ours, to paint them as "radical Islam." It's too easy to not hear the first word, but only the second.

But over the weekend, Sen. Marco Rubio (R/FL) said, "We are at war with radical Islam."

That's what ISIS wants. They want to provoke tension and hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims, because then they can say, "See? The infidels hate us." Which is precisely why we shouldn't give it to them. ISIS is not a religion, they're not a state, and they aren't, as Rubio amd Jeb! Bush have suggested, a threat to "Western civilization." But they would love for western powers to treat them as if they were, to conflate them with all of Islam, and to magnify their importance in the world all out of proportion.

* * *

Also over the weekend, presidential candidate Tailgunner Ted Cruz (R/TX) complained about President Obama, saying, "I recognize that Barack Obama does not wish to defend this country."

Here at TWiA World Headquarters we value free speech, so Cruz can utter whatever moronic drivel his hateful mind can dream up. He should be ashamed of saying something so wretched and so wrong, but his capacity for shame appears nonexistent. Nonetheless, we would like him to remember how many terror attacks have occurred within our borders since President Obama took office. We would ask him to remember which president let Osama Bin Laden get away, admitting that he didn't really care about him, and which pursued Bin Laden until he was killed. We wonder if he recalls which president launched a destabilizing war of choice in Iraq, leading directly to the creation of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS. Even with all his mistakes, we would never say that President Bush didn't "wish to defend this country." He wasn't that good at it, but he wasn't unwilling. Obama, on the other hand, has a slew of foreign policy successes to his credit.

Even for Cruz, that's a vicious, slanderous thing to say--and Cruz sets a high bar in that arena. The president is not interested in defending this country? That's why conservative writer Jeffrey Goldberg called him the "greatest terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency?"

The current crop of Republican presidential candidates should be reminded that President Bush never used the phrase "radical Islam" to define terrorists. Shortly after 9/11, Bush said, "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."

His administration put out a memo that Washington Monthly describes this way: "In fact, Bush/Cheney issued guidelines, entitled 'Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication,' urging officials to stop describing extremists as 'jihadists' or 'mujahedeen,' and to drop 'Islamo-fascism' altogether.' 'It's not what you say but what they hear,' the memo said in bold italic lettering."

Karen Hughes, one of Bush's closest advisors, added, "We ought to avoid the language of religion. Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."

These are words of wisdom that folks like Rubio and Cruz should study up on.

* * *

Conservatives are attacking the president this week, saying he's not interested in "American leadership" or "America winning."

You don't need to have been around for more than about 10 minutes to know that's not what the president said. Here, in full context, is the remark they're seizing on in order to shamelessly twist its meaning.

"What I do not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to somehow in the abstract make America look tough. Or make me look tough.

"And maybe part of the reason is because every few months I go to Walter Reed and I see a 25 year old kid who is paralyzed or who has lost his limbs and some of those are people I've ordered into battle.

"And so I can’t afford to play some of the political games that others may. We’ll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it’s entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisers are better than the chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate.

"But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership, or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with, that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people. And to protect people in the region who are getting killed. And to protect our allies in people like France*. I’m too busy for that."

He was responding, at least in part, to yet another Ted Cruz gem. When asked if he had a counterterrorism strategy, Cruz said, "It's simple. We win. They lose."

Anyplace except in the safety of Ted Cruz's rec room, playing with his GI Joes, that's not a "strategy." It's not even an idea. It's a simplistic, useless slogan, with all the intellectual weight of a semiliterate bumper sticker. That's what President Obama said he's not interested in, and for good reason.

Watch the video of the president's remarks. Listen to the emotion in his voice when he talks about those soldiers in Walter Reed. He knows this is about real things--real sacrifice, real courage, real danger. He knows you don't beat terrorists with ignorant slogans. If Ted Cruz thinks you do, then people should think long and hard about whether they want such a fool to be President of the United States.

* We've known a person named France, but we don't think that's what the president meant to say.

* * *

These are the victims of the Paris attack.

Below the fold: Much more on terror, plus climate, guns, slime, geography, and bears. Keep reading!

 

This Week in America (Vol. 3, Week 47)

Far too much media coverage of politics focuses on the horserace angle--who's ahead, who's behind, who's up or down. It relies on false equivalency: if Politician A says X, then the reporter goes to Politician B, who's sure to say Y. That's lazy journalism, and it doesn't actually inform the public about which position (if any) is actually true, or adheres to the facts as we know them. At TWiA, our mission is to discuss politics through the prism of policy--to look, in other words, at the real-world implications of the things that politicians say and do, to make connections others might miss, and to explain it all in language a lay person can understand. Also to offer suggestions of how you can help somebody in need, to report on what's awesome, and to keep tabs on bears. If you like TWiA, share or repost or tell a friend, and be sure to leave comments, even if they're arguments. Especially if they're arguments.

 

This Week in Truth and Consequences

Last week, we wrote about the outbreak of dishonesty that's spread like Ebola through the Republican primary process. This week, everybody else is writing about it, too. The Washington Post thinks it began with the traction Donald Trump's absurdly dishonest statements have provided him. We think it goes back further than that, to the fact that in 2012, although some of us were trying to keep track of Mendacious Mitt Romney's serial prevarications, the sheer number of them seemed to exhaust fact-checkers, and Republican voters didn't mind a bit. Having seen one rich guy get away with saying anything that swam into his head with absolutely no regard for the truth, Trump realized that he could build a whole campaign around the same strategy. Sadly, he seems to have been right--at the last debate, the biggest applause came when candidates dishonestly called out the media for telling the truth.

Carly Fiorina jumped on board the untruth train and it propelled her off the kiddie stage and on to the main one (though she has struggled since then to come up with appropriately spectacular lies, so her numbers have bottomed out again). And Ben Carson has such a long history of dishonesty mixed with kookiness that it's hard to say whether he's lying or telling what he believes is the truth, in many instances. The New Republic points out that in Carson's case, his apparent inability to distinguish what's only true in his head from what is or isn't true in the real world is not just a problem when discussing the past, but when talking about the future. His policy ideas are filled with magical thinking that bears no resemblance to reality.

* * *

Ben Carson is a unique case in presidential primary frontrunners. Some, like Romney, have been consistently dishonest. But Carson combines a lack of respect for honesty with an almost staggering cluelessness. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo nails it by calling him a "self-awareness Mr. Magoo." The latest example? Back in 1970, Carson fell victim to a prank, and he has spent the ensuing decades not realizing that it was a prank, believing it was all as he'd been told it was, and using it as a self-glorifying example of his own honesty.

This Week in Debates

Another Republican debate took place this week (transcript), so dishonesty and nuttiness once again went on display. Ben Carson whined again that no one in the history of presidential campaigns has ever been subjected to the kind of personal scrutiny that he has, proving that Ben Carson has never paid attention to a presidential campaign in his life, and isn't watching this one very closely, either. (Historically, the only candidate on a major-party ticket coming close to matching Carson for cluelessness was John McCain's 2008 running mate, Sarah Palin, who in fact was not scrutinized nearly enough before being brought onto the ticket.) Jeb! Bush showed us again that the most exciting thing about his campaign is the ! that he put on his Jeb! logo. And John Kasich is turning into the angry old man of the pack. The "Get off my lawn!" factor might have helped McCain secure the nomination (though not the election) in 2008, but 2016 ain't 2008.

* * *

Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio both offered almost stunningly false narratives about the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Fiorina said, "I understand that you cannot allow families to go bankrupt if they truly need help. But, I also understand that Obamacare isn’t helping anyone. We’re throwing more, and more people into Medicaid, and fewer, and fewer doctors are taking those payments. The point is Obamacare is crushing small businesses, it is not helping the families it was intended to help. So, let us allow states to manage high risk pools."

And Rubio said, "we have a crazy health care law that discourages companies from hiring people."

Let's take a deeper dive into these statements. First to the point that Obamacare isn't "helping anyone," we'd have to say that allowing something like 17 million people and counting to have health insurance, many for the first time in their lives, is indeed helping people. Saving lives is helping people. We're not sure what Fiorina's definition of "helping" is, but it's not ours.

As for throwing people into Medicaid, government isn't doing that. A minimum wage with less purchasing power than it had 30 years ago is. An economy being prevented from reaching its full potential (more on that in a moment) is. But at least Medicaid is there for them--in those states that embraced it. It's almost uncanny how Fiorina could mention Medicaid almost immediately before a pitch to give the states even more power, when Medicaid points up precisely the danger of letting states make certain health care decisions on behalf of their residents. What makes her think they would do a better job with high-risk pools? Unless she imagines some federal law would require them to, and set standards for those pools--like, say, the ACA?

And Rubio's comment doesn't pass the simplest smell test. Dan Diamond observes in Forbes that we're enjoying the longest streak of private-sector hiring ever--a streak that began in March 2010, the month that the ACA became law. That streak isn't entirely due to the ACA, of course. Some of it can be attributed to the auto industry bailout, the stimulus package, and the fact that we have a president who understands that the best way to grow the economy is from the middle out. (On the other hand, progress could be better if not for austerity measures at various Republican-led statehouses, and if the Republicans in Congress didn't refuse to invest in America.) So the ACA isn't growing jobs by itself--except in one important area: health care employment was up 50% in 2014 compared to 2013, and so far this year it has done better than 2013 and 2014 combined. But it surely isn't preventing hiring at any level.

* * *

In many instances, it seemed like the candidates simply couldn't hear or understand the questions that were asked. Look at this Q&A for Rubio:

BAKER: Meanwhile, with factories run by robots and shopping done increasingly on smartphones, many traditional jobs are just going away. How do you reassure American workers that their jobs are not being steadily replaced by machines?

RUBIO: Well, you know, that’s an excellent question, because what we are going through in this country is not simply an economic downturn. We are living through a massive economic transformation. I mean, this economy is nothing like what it was like five years ago, not to mention 15 or 20 years ago.

"What we are going through in this country is not simply an economic downturn?" There is no measure by which one can claim this country is going through an economic downturn at all. We're recovering from a near-Great Depression level disaster. He's right that we're not where we were 5 years ago, since we are considerably better off now. But his economic plan--Tax cuts favoring the rich! Cut spending! Cut regulation!--would put us right back there in no time.

Then there was this one for Rand Paul:

BARTIROMO: Senator Paul, you were one of 15 republicans to vote for an amendment which states that human activity contributed to climate change. President Obama has announced an aggressive plan to cut carbon emissions. At the same time, energy production in America has boomed. Is it possible to continue this boom, and move toward energy self-sufficiency, while at the same time pursuing a meaningful climate change program?

PAUL: The first thing I would do as president is repeal the regulations that are hampering our energy that the President has put in place.

In short, Q: Our energy production is at an all-time high, so how do we continue that and address climate change? A: Make the president stop slowing down energy production. The rest of his answer goes on in the same vein--it's as if he was asked about how to increase energy production, not about the link to climate change. And his answer never acknowledges the boom that led off the question.

And this for Ms. Fiorina:

BAKER: Now, in seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added an average of 107,000 jobs a month. Under President Clinton, the economy added about 240,000 jobs a month. Under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000 a month. If you win the nomination, you’ll probably be facing a Democrat named Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?

FIORINA: Well, first of all, I must say as I think about that question, I think about a woman I met the other day. I would guess she was 40 years old. She had several children. And she said to me, you know, Carly, I go to bed every night afraid for my children’s future. And that really struck me. This is America. A mother is going to bed afraid for her children’s future. And the reason she’s afraid for her children’s future is because we’ve had problems for a long time. Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats.

Again, the short version: Q: How do you respond to the true fact that Democrats are better at creating jobs than Republicans, as demonstrated by the last three presidential administrations? A: Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats.

The mind reels.

Incidentally, Baker's question is carefully phrased to make Obama's record look worse than it is, by going back to the beginning of his administration, when we were still shedding jobs because of the Bush recession. Since Obama's policies took effect, job growth has been closer to or over 200,000 a month.

* * *

The economic foolishness displayed at this debate was enormous and terrifying. From Ted Cruz arguing for reinstating the gold standard to multiple candidates claiming that raising the minimum wage kills jobs (it doesn't) to the continued voodoo economic contention that cutting taxes and regulations grows the economy, it's almost as if the history of the last 40 years has been entirely forgotten (much less the current example of Kansas). Obviously, it's hard to run a campaign by saying, "The president I want to replace has been a much better shepherd of the economy than anybody my party has offered up." But if they can't honestly address the real issues preventing even greater economic growth, they have no hope of solving them.

Side Note: Study after study show that confronting people with facts that contradict their opinions, in many cases, only seems to solidify their preexisting positions instead of changing their minds. In the case of Republican politicians, the problem is that they're offering non-facts to buttress the fact-free positions of their base voters.

* * *

There was also a kiddie table debate the same night, featuring Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and Rick (Don't Google Me!) Santorum. It happened. Christie wasn't bad. The end.

This Week in Holiday Shopping

The malls are about to get crowded, if they aren't already. If you're still wondering where to shop, Donald Trump makes the choice a little easier by suggesting a boycott of Macy's.

If you're looking for us, we'll be at Macy's.

Side Note: Trump might finally have gone off the deep end. The Washington Post reports, "The usually punctual executive was nearly 40 minutes late. His voice was hoarse, his hair mussed, his tone defensive. He promised to take questions from the audience but instead launched into a 95-minute-long rant that at times sounded like the monologue of a man grappling with why he is running for president — and if it's really worth it or not. Even for a candidate full of surprises, the speech was surprising."

In the speech, he called Ben Carson "pathological" and compared the neurosurgeon to a child molester. He said he knows more about ISIS than the generals do, and promised to "bomb the shit" out of oil fields benefiting them. He called Carly Fiorina "Carly whatever-the-hell-her-name-is." He asked--in Iowa--"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" The Post says he "appeared to unravel." That's putting it mildly. It sounds like a complete breakdown, and we have to wonder if this will finally be the moment that ends his campaign.

This Week in Inappropriate Responses

When an audience member at a candidate's appearance threatens of suggests physical violence against a rival candidate--even if said audience member is clearly employing hyperbole, the candidate who's present has a duty to try to tamp down that impulse, not to reward it. We hope that Hillary Clinton apologizes to Carly Fiorina, and soon. Fiorina said she has no problem with it, but we do. The language of physical violence shouldn't be applied toward public figures in that way.

This Week in Cheneyville

Former VP Dick Cheney's daughter Liz is once again considering an effort to ensure that there's a new generation of warmongering, vile-spitting, pro-torture Cheneys in elected office. We think Liz has just as twisted a perspective on what it means to be an American as her father does, and we hope her popularity rivals his (13% at the end of his eight years in office).

This Week in the Crazy

Remember that time an undocumented African immigrant seized control of the executive branch of the United States government, declared martial law, banned interstate travel, took away everybody's guns, and put American citizens in concentration camps?

Neither do we. But these jokers have been expecting it for years, and they still think it's just around the corner. And if "Hitlery Clinton" becomes president, they'll be ready, because she'll be just as bad if not worse. We feel a whole lot safer with geniuses like this walking around carrying weapons. Don't you?

This Week in Bears

A man went into the water to save a black bear from drowning. The bear--being an intelligent animal--cooperated. Humans who are drowning don't always do that.
(Thanks to TWiA special Ursa Major correspondent Marcy Rockwell for the tip.)

Last year, we shared video of a New Jersey bear who walks upright. Now, we've learned that the bear has a name: Chris Christie Pedals, and that locals want to make sure Pedals is healthy and safe this winter.

This Week in America (Vol. 3, Week 45)

TWiA explores the intersection of policy and politics, and most importantly, how that intersection affects real people. It's dedicated to the proposition that good government is possible, it matters, and taxpayers deserve nothing less. Its starting point is that facts are facts, science is real, data are real, and we can and must learn from history. Below you'll find facts and opinions that derive from fact, informed by a close and careful study of these issues that began in 1968 and has never stopped. Note, when we discuss generic "Democrats" and "Republicans" or "conservatives" and "liberals," etc., we're generally talking about elected officials, unless otherwise noted. Also, bonus bear news and other awesomeness. We appreciate comments and arguments, so please chime in, and if you like it, spread the word.

 

This Week in Are You Better Off?

Gallup has done a series of surveys, asking Americans--white Republicans, black Republicans, white Democrats, and black Democrats--to describe their quality of life during the Obama years. Turns out, every category surveyed feels better off than they were pre-Obama. Separately, the stats of Americans without political party factored in show the same result--the "All US Adults" category feels better off, as d0 whites, blacks, and Hispanics individually.

So why all the polarization and division, if we each feel like these years have been good for us? Blame the bubbles--the way people can isolate themselves inside ideological communities in which they hear only voices they already agree with. These voices, online and in the media, are too often focused on dividing us, because they want to keep their audience share. Politicians take advantage of those bubbles, and embrace them rather than trying to burst them (even to the point of repeating things they know aren't true because they also know those within the bubble believe them).

This is not to imply a false equivalence between the parties. Analysis shows that the Republicans have moved considerably more to the right than Democrats have to the left. According to this report, "Nonetheless, we should be careful not to equate the two parties’ roles in contemporary political polarization: the data are clear that this is a Republican-led phenomenon where very conservative Republicans have replaced moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats. Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein do an excellent job of navigating these trends in their new book: It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism."

The authors continue, "The public policy consequences of polarization are immense. Bipartisan agreements to address looming issues like the budget deficits, spending on entitlement programs, and immigration are now almost impossible to reach. In contrast, during Ronald Reagan’s administration, about 40% of the members of Congress could be described as moderates. Reagan was thus able to forge major bipartisan agreements to cut taxes in 1981, raise taxes in 1982, fix Social Security (the Greenspan Commission) in 1983, and pass immigration reform (which included amnesty) and major tax simplification in 1986."

But while Republicans moved first and furthest, they're not alone. In the House, the "Blue Dog Caucus" of moderate Democrats, which had 54 members in 2010, is down to only 15 (including one of TWiA's local favorites, Arizona's Rep. Krysten Sinema).

And it's not just politicians. The Washington Post reports on even more recent research showing that voters now tend to be more ideologically driven than in times past. "Ordinary Americans increasingly view members of the opposite party with contempt and scorn. They see them as less intelligent and more selfish, according to pollsters and political scientists. And a parent is more likely to say she wouldn't even want someone in the other party to marry her child."

The American swing voter may be another relic of the past. The parties are so polarized now that even people who pay scant attention to politics know--or think they know--what the parties represent. People who bother to vote have pretty much already made up their mind which party they identify with. That leaves politicians less inclined to try to broaden their appeal by compromising or taking centrist positions, and more likely to worry about playing to the base.

We see the result of this every day in a Congress that's unwilling to work with the president, that rejects any semblance of compromise, that careens from crisis to crisis instead of doing the real work of governing the country.

Another new poll, from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, asked Americans how they feel about the country and the direction it's moving. The results were instructive. Consider these two points:

1) I feel cautiously optimistic about where things are headed. It is important to remember how bad the economy was just a few years ago. The economy is improving, more Americans now have health insurance and those with pre-existing conditions are covered, more jobs are being created, and things seem to gradually getting better.

89% of Democrats said that describes their feelings fairly well or very well. Only a quarter of Republicans agreed, with only 1 in 20 saying "very well."

2) A lot of what is happening today makes me feel uneasy and out of place in my own country. Things seem to be heading in the wrong direction with our letting millions of immigrants into the country illegally, letting religion slip out of our public life, and moving to be more accepting of gay and lesbian rights.

70% of Republicans said this one describes them fairly well or very well, but only 30% of Democrats did.

Of course, these are trying to measure feelings, not facts. The fact is that illegal immigration has slowed considerably. Americans are marginally less religious today than in years past, but not by any huge margin. Yes, we are more accepting of gay and lesbian rights, and yes, the economy is improving, jobs are being created, and many more Americans have health insurance.

We here at TWiA World Headquarters think those sound like generally good things, and we're proud of the country's improvement in those areas. But Republicans don't agree that some of them are good. We're sure they'd like to think the economy is improving, but they don't believe it. They don't seem to like the idea of more Americans being insured, and they definitely don't believe illegal immigration is down.

The fact that Republican voters relate to #2 but not #1 is what Donald Trump and Ben Carson have keyed in on. Voters in general are angry about the direction of the country, and hold politicians accountable for that--hence the "outsider" appeal this year.

Republicans should heed this, though: according to the polling, much of the anger out there is because of a sense that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful. The Republican economic plans offered up so far push ever more of the country's wealth and power in that direction. Bernie Sanders-style populism (which Hillary Clinton also espouses, though less radically and less forcefully) is the only antidote proposed thus far. Some Republican voters won't understand* or believe that Republican plans overwhelmingly favor the rich, but independents are more likely to--and a majority of the independents polled agree with statement #1. They're optimistic, and if they want to feel more optimistic--if they want to slant the playing field closer to even--they're not going to respond to the Republican candidates.

We are, overall, better off now than we were in January 2009, when Obama took office. Some don't feel it, and some refuse to acknowledge it. And for some, the idea that people should be able to marry within their own gender is so awful that the rest of it doesn't even register.

We believe progress is inevitable and worthwhile. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Sometimes it feels very long, indeed. But it's bending.

 

* Here's a somewhat lengthy and convoluted article that offers an explanation for why low-information voters so often vote against their own self-interest, and why the Republican Party wants to encourage economic inequality. In brief, in democracies with strong unions and good public education, people in every strata of society have the opportunity to learn about and discuss politics in an informed fashion. As a result, those democracies lean left, and inequality is low. In democracies like ours, with weak unions and often inadequate public education, the well-off are much better informed than the poor. Those democracies lean right, and inequality is high. Republicans want that rightward lean to continue, so they take advantage of their overwhelming strength in state governments to further dismantle unions, disenfranchise voters, and block educational improvements that might enable those low-information Americans to understand what's being done to them. Unless we can halt or reverse these trends, the author warns, the Republican Party might be dominant for decades to come, and inequality will continue to worsen.

(An alternative theory is that Republicans face an overwhelming demographic disadvantage--that the party is too old, too male, and too white to mirror the country, and as current demographic trends continue the party will fall further from favor. And the schism taking place in Republican politics this year may weaken it still more.)

Below the fold: Terror, craziness, the 2020 presidential campaign (yes, it's already started), truth and lies, heroin, and international bears.