“L'État, c'est moi”

Trump supporters rush to make their dire predictions come true

 

When the news channels announced the 34 guilty convictions against former Donald Trump, I was both happy and sad. Happy that our system worked, that a person who spent a lifetime bending and breaking the rules was finally being held accountable, and that the trial itself had ended without any vigilante deciding to take out one of the people involved. 

That may sound overly dramatic. Given the state or our nation, I don’t think it is. Trump’s followers are fed a constant media diet of outrage and grievance, and many of them are heavily armed. 

But I was also sad that our nation is at this point. Again. 

It’s just been one sad moment after another ever since a reality TV star and shady real estate developer floated down an escalator and declared he was running for president because evil brown people were invading our country. 

We should have no illusions: this is not the fatal blow it should be regarding the presidential race of 2024. We know this because we’ve been here before. When news of Trump’s Access Hollywood tape came out in 2016, many were convinced that it was the end of his campaign. 

But he survived that; he can probably survive this. The question is, can the United State of America survive another four years of Trump? 

 

On the day after, another sad and depressing moment of déjà vu is occurring: Republican political figures are outdoing themselves in posturing outrage about the jury ruling. One favorite theme: the fact that the leader of a political party is found guilty proves that America is becoming a third-world, corrupt government. 

“Banana Republic,” they scream. The case was based on clear abuse of campaign laws, actions that already sent one person to jail? Doesn’t matter: “Banana Republic!” Donald Trump’s signature was literally on the checks that helped to pay off a porn star in order to avoid yet another public humiliation? Doesn’t matter: “Banana Republic!” The case was heard before a jury of his peers and they unanimously ruled him guilty on every single charge? Doesn’t matter: “Banana Republic!” 

 

You really want a Banana Republic? How does a presidential candidate who is a convicted felon seeking to become the most powerful person on earth while promising to punish his enemies sound?

How about a party that is at war with its own justice system—a system that is right now prosecuting at least two Democratic members of Congress and the son of the current Democratic president? This directly refutes the claim that the justice system is out to get anyone or favors one party over the other. 

Republicans are laying the groundwork for the very thing they say they fear. They have made an idol out of privileged, self-important tyrant. They reject any person or institution that does not blindly follow Trump. The justice system follows health care, climate science, educators, and the military on the long list of enemies for ardent Trump supporters. 

 

One of the many ridiculous “it’s different for Trump” talking points is that he shouldn’t be tried in New York City, because the people there usually vote Democratic. So, we need a partisan litmus test to find justice? We have to cherry pick jurors who are more sympathetic to the accused? 

No one knows Donald Trump better than the people of New York City. They have lived with his presence and seen his actions. They knew him before he had a TV show. They are very much his peers.  

 

I listened to much of Trump’s remarks on the morning after the verdict came down. The 40-minute speech was all about him, of course. He’s the victim. The system is out to get him. Corrupt judges and attorney generals—kind of weird how there are so many of them, isn’t it? Maybe don’t commit so many crimes. 

 

But it’s not a crime, if you’re the president… or want to be, I guess. This is a presidential candidate who thinks that anyone who is against him is against the United States. Over and over again, he conflates himself and the nation. He’s right. We’ve never seen anything like this. And I’m tired of looking at it.

During the speech, Trump mentioned three times that he was up six points in one poll. Well, three times that I heard, I didn’t listen to the whole thing. When I hear these speeches, part of me thinks the more he talks the worse he looks. But not to his followers, apparently. They can’t wait for that banana republic.  

A few thoughts on the recent South Carolina Republican Primary

A lot of attention was paid to this primary, probably because it was seen as a test of Nikki Haley's ability to pull some votes away from Trump's base. Haley was governor in S.C. for six years, so there was some thought she might get more support because of that.  

But it wasn’t really a surprise when he won, 60% to 40%. The MAGA movement once again dominated a GOP race. (But… dominated? Is that perhaps too strong a word for a 20-point victory?)

Few political movements in U.S. history have been studied more closely than the current Republican base. We know who they are. We know what they want. We know what they believe. None of it is very pleasant stuff, but there are reasons we've developed such a grievance-ridden, misinformed, discontented set of voters. That is probably better addressed in another post. 

What struck me were a couple points. For one thing, it reinforced a point that has probably not gotten enough attention. Aside from the MAGA base, Trump is in trouble with two groups that he needs to win: moderate Republicans and independents. 

According to exit polls (all following numbers are percentages) those two groups went 70-29 for Haley among moderate R's and 53-46 for Haley among independents. In addition, first-time primary voters went for Haley 57-42. That last number is interesting; hard to say exactly what it means, but it could signal an increased anyone-but-Trump position among people who normally aren't tuned into the presidential elections this early. 

To me, another interesting number was the exit polling on race. The Washington Post exit polling showed that only 8% of voters were people of color. The polls showed that 92% of the voters in the Republican primary were white. 

African-Americans, by the way, make up 26% of the population of South Carolina. So, some segment of that 8% of the non-white people were African American voters. 

This does not seem to support the idea that that people of color have become more open to voting for Trump. There have been some polls suggesting that, but in this primary, the R voters where overwhelmingly white. And “overwhelmingly” may not be a strong enough word. 

On Feb. 23, Trump, speaking at conference for Black conservatives, had some things to say about this, including that “the Black people” like him because he has been charged with a lot of crimes. Also, they like him because he has a famous mug shot from being indicted. All the suggestions that Black people relate to criminals is probably not going to do Trump any favors with that voting group. 

A lot of the MAGA movement is based on delusion, so I guess it’s not surprising that Trump and his supporters want to believe that people of color are warming to him. But I question whether Trump really cares much about how many Black voters actually support him. I think it’s possible that his patronizing comments about Black people are mainly a sop to the feelings his white base. All those white folks don’t want to admit that racism exists in America—that’s become a de facto plank of the Republican Party, right? White conservatives frequently get very insistent that racism either no longer exists or that it has become irrelevant (Nikki Haley even has made those kinds of comments frequently in her campaign). 

Few things get white conservatives more agitated than a discussion of race. I have encountered this firsthand in social media, where the angriest outbursts of white conservatives usually come when I suggest that someone or something could be racist. It’s almost like you hit a nerve when you bring it up. 

So, Trump and the whites who support him want to bolster the narrative that race is not a problem for the country, or for their party. Or their candidate. And they want to believe that supporting someone like Trump couldn’t possibly be racist in any way. Look, Black people love him! Or at least, they are liking him more these days. So, we don’t have to think about racism. All fixed. 

The numbers don’t really seem to support that. I mean, even if we ignore the many African Americans who have spoken out on this issue, there just isn’t much real evidence that people of color are changing their minds about Trump. Again, we know who he is. We have a pretty good idea of what his policies will be. And they are decidedly not about diversity, tolerance, and social justice. He is simply not popular with most people of color. Comments about how the system is out to get him is not going to change that. Selling ugly sneakers is not going to change that. I am pretty sure nothing is going to change that. 

 Example One Million*

*= It’s just a rough estimate. 

 

I certainly have lost count, though, of the times I’ve had to make this point. It’s not an easy one to talk about—as noted below, too many white Americans simply don’t want to hear about racial inequities. But that doesn’t mean such inequities should be ignored. 

The example this time concerns Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Some of the more radical House Republicans recently pushed through an amendment to a House spending bill reducing Austin’s annual salary to $1. 

 

I guess the good news is that the amendment will eventually be dropped as the budget process plays out. (Hopefully it will eventually play out)

So, it’s symbolic. But what does it symbolize?

The Republican lawmakers in question say they’re taking this dramatic step because of their displeasure with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which is widely seen as having been rushed and resulted in several bad outcomes. These include the deaths of American service members and civilians, and the abandonment of millions of dollars’ worth of equipment. 

But Austin is not the only Secretary of Defense to preside over a chaotic withdrawal or the loss of American lives and treasure. During the Reagan administration, we lost hundreds of troops in a bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. An entire building was destroyed, nearly 250 Americans were killed, and the American mission eventually withdrew. 

 

No matter how disastrous the policy or how strong the political disagreements have been, though, no Congress has voted to try to humiliate and punish a Secretary of Defense in this way. 

 

And unlike Reagan’s Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, who was a civilian, Austin is a former general who served in the military for 41 years. And, as this article in The Hill notes, Austin “is the first African American to lead the Defense Department.”

So, an African American who has ascended to heights in the military that no other American from his background has achieved in our country’s history. And then we see this outrageous attempt to punish him.

Not that it’s about race, right? One thing we know for sure: when white American conservatives come up with some creative and bizarre new way to punish or attack prominent African Americans or political figures who are people of color, it’s never about race. I’m sure it wasn’t when Barack Obama was accused of being born in Kenya. Or when the right spread vicious rumors about Kamala Harris. Or with the treatment of Colin Kaepernick, who was quite firmly blacklisted from the NFL for exercising his 1^st Amendment rights. 

 

Or maybe it was. But it’s difficult to make that point in a civil way. White conservatives get quite upset when their cruel and over-the-top antics aimed at Blacks get called racism. They become very indignant and start talking about playing the race card.

 

When I try to make this point with white conservatives, you can imagine how it’s gone over. But in this latest case, I think it’s relevant to ask again. If you were Black, and you saw how this successful, highly respected African American was being treated, the extremes that white conservatives are going to in order to single him out for an unheard-of punishment… would you think race had nothing to do with it? Really? 

If you were a young African-American considering going into military service, or political service, and you saw how this groundbreaking role model was treated, what would you think? How welcome would you feel?

 

The reason white conservatives get called out on this stuff is because of their actions, which speak louder than their protestations of innocence. When your political party or movement is uniformly hostile to people of color, with just a few exceptions, it is not unreasonable to ask if race is a problem here. And I think it pretty clearly is. 

 

Again.

A very limited dip into the well of lies
From the Trump MTP Interview

NBC has been getting a lot of heat for its Meet the Press interview with former president Trump on Sunday, where Trump continued to double down on the lies he has spread on the 2020 election—and on his other potentially criminal activity. 

I did not watch the whole interview. Life is too short, and already too filled with unpleasant experiences, to voluntarily jump into that mudhole. However, two items did catch my attention. 

First was the outright, bald-face lie that Trump told about Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who recorded the phone call where the former president pressured the SOS to come up with fake results (“I just want to find 11,780 votes”) in order to overturn the Georgia presidential results. 

In the MTP interview, Trump said: “That was a phone call made in front of, I guess seven or eight lawyers. Brad Raffensperger, the head – who, by the way, last week said I didn’t do anything wrong; he said, ‘That was a negotiation.’ Brad Raffensperger, who I was dealing with, I appreciate that he said that. But he said last week, I didn’t do anything wrong.” 

The CNN fact check on that statement duly noted that there is no record of Raffensperger saying any such thing. But that is irrelevant: for Trump, the important thing is to muddy the waters and plant the claim that he was exonerated. Now, his followers can repeat the lie—they will fill social media and conservative news programs with the statement that Raffensperger said something that he didn’t say. And it won’t matter that they have no proof he said it. It has become a Trump talking point, and so, gospel. 

 

It was also illuminating listening to the former president bob and weave on the question of who convinced him the 2020 election was rigged. The answer? Some people, but mostly just himself. 

 

“I was listening to different people, and when I added it all up, the election was rigged,” Trump told [NBC’s] Kristen Welker in the interview, again pushing the false claim as he seeks the 2024 Republican nomination for president.

“You know who I listen to? Myself. I saw what happened,” Trump said.

Of course, we know who he should've listened to. His Attorney General. His Vice President. The election officials of the states in question, who were mostly Republican. His campaign officials. The Department of Homeland Security experts who oversaw election security. The audits. The recounts. The 60+ court cases where it was established that fraud had not happened. (In the one case where the Trump campaign prevailed, fraud was not charged; it was simply a matter of deadlines for mail-in ballots.)

That's not who listened to. He listened to a cherry-picked group of lawyers who were telling him what he wanted to hear. Which was, basically, that he could not lose, and if he did lose, it had to be because it was rigged.

The “I listened to some people/I listened to myself” is another transparent attempt to muddy the waters and evade responsibility for his actions. And it is very much in line with the MAGA philosophy overall: believe what you want to believe, don’t pay attention to so-called “facts,” or “experts.” After all, who are they to tell us what is true and what is false?

What is reality, anyway? 

We can only hope that a judge and jury will decide that yes, there are knowable facts. That it matters what election officials and those in charge of election security say about the election. But the bigger problem is that too many Americans have bought into this mindset—that we can ignore the facts and just bend reality to our will. If we say it, it’s so. 

It's a crazy way to live. But not that uncommon these days. And I am forced to agree that the mainstream media is part of the problem. I think the new host of MTP, Kristen Welker, should get a chance to redeem herself after this spectacle. But she’s got some work to do.  

Nancy Mace is a truth-teller

Just a short note--I welcome a moderate Republican recognizing that the takeover of her party by the MAGA movement is going to have consequences. 

"'I’m pro-life. I have a fantastic pro-life voting record, but I also understand that we cannot be a**holes to women,' said Mace, who has been vocal about including exceptions for rape in measures to restrict the procedure."

Unfortunately, this is out of step off with the majority of Republicans, who have embraced the concept of being "the a**hole party." Not all, not by a long shot. But judging purely on polling results, with the majority supporting the biggest a**hole of them all, and putting pro-a**hole candidate Ron DeSantis in second place... it's very much a race to the, um, bottom. 

Rep. Nancy Mace says Republicans in swing districts are ‘walking the plank’ because of abortion restrictions

"They call it run-off because they 'run off' with your money... "

There's a lot going on this week in politics, but there's one number I can't get out of my head:

$1.4 Billion.

That's how much money was spent on the two Georgia Senate seats in the 2020 and 2022 elections. 

Two Senate seats. Six elections, because Georgia's system, created so that white conservatives could stay in power, requires you to win NOT ONE BUT TWO elections if no one gets 50% of the vote. So they have run-off elections--that in Warnock's case produced the same results. (Warnock's original term was two years because he was replacing an appointed Senator, who had replaced a resigned blah blah blah.)

Warnock won in Nov., 2020. Then again in Jan., 2021. Then in Nov., 2022. Then again in Dec., 2022. 

All this time, money was pouring into these races. Democrats ended up spending a lot more, but that in part was because they could raise a lot more. People all over the country sent money to Warnock. I did, once. And my emailbox exploded with pleas for more money for not only Warnock but a bunch of other D's. 

It's a messed-up system. Nobody likes it. Everyone will agree there's too much money in politics. The problem is that politicians don't have much incentive to change it, and plenty of incentive to keep asking for more money. And I hate when people blame "the media" but... the media also profits, a lot, from this system. So we see relatively few questions there about whether this is a good way to spend our wealth. 

$1.4 billion. That's a lot of money. I can think of a few better places we could've spent it. 

Waiting for the red wave

A few days after the 2022 midterm elections, the consensus is that the consensus was wrong. The media, the polls, and many politicians were predicting that Republicans would have a huge day and take over the U.S. House of Representatives easily. The Senate was also in play, with the Democrats' slim majority in danger. In addition, Governor and state officer races were dominated on the Republican side with headline-grabbing election deniers who could wreak havoc with state election system if they were voted in. President Biden had a high disapproval rate. A Red Wave was coming.

Things look a lot different now. 

Despite the historical tendency for midterm elections to be bad for the party who holds the White House, the Democrats outperformed expectations by quite a bit. Three days after the election, we still don't know which party will control the House of Representatives. Same story with the Senate: votes are still being counted in some states, and Georgia will go to a runoff election. It seems very possible the Democrats will hold on to the Senate. And they also held off a lot of those election-deniers in state races. 

Here in Minnesota, Democrats have won re-election for Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General, ensuring that election-deniers will not meddle with our electoral system. Minnesotans also voted in a DFL majority in both the House and Senate, a development the Minneapolis Star Tribune called "a stunning upset." Previously, the Republicans had a slim majority in the Senate and were thought to be positioned to compete for control of the House. But Minnesota now has one party in control of state government. 

How did this happen? The reasons are complicated but I think one word sums up the biggest answer: hubris. 

Both political parties are guilty of living in their own bubbles at times, but in recent years Republicans seem to have had an especially strong tendency to create their own reality. There was even the infamous "alternate facts" expression from the previous presidential administration, and it seemed to fit: many top Republicans seemed to think they could just say something to make it so. 

Part of this was enabled by a media system that endlessly told Republican voters what they wanted to hear. Fox News was a nonstop Republican hype machine this year, and had their own favored pollsters--who always seem to have Republican candidates a little higher up in the numbers than other pollsters. 

In the end, not only Republicans but the political mainstream started to believe the hype--helped by the reasonable assumption that this midterm would follow historical trends. 

It didn't. 

Democratic and independent voters were unusually motivated by things like Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Women, in particular, were outraged by the prospect of politicians taking away their liberty to make their own reproductive choices. Younger adults, who tend not to vote in large numbers in midterms, were also much more involved this year. Other issues, such as gun violence and protecting democracy, also have risen in importance for Americans--they aren't at the top of the polls, but they are polling significantly higher as important issues to voters. 

Yes, the polls showed the economy and inflation were top-of-mind for voters, but that did not translate into Republican support amongst a strong majority of voters. People can be concerned about more than one thing. And it seemed clear that a lot of voters simply did not see the Republicans as presenting good solutions and ideas about our current set of challenges. It's also possible that enough voters were paying attention that they knew Biden and the Democrats had taken several steps to help Americans with pocketbook issues.

I think it's also likely that many independent voters have figured out that the Republicans--some of them, anyway--don't seem to care much about governing. The animating issues among the Fox News/MAGA crowd seem to be things like conspiracy theories and settling political scores. "Owning the libs" is a term we've heard a lot. 

I think a significant number of voters are tired of this type of politics. They want serious people representing them, who will work to find solutions for the many issues we face. It's not even a "bipartisan" hand-holding ideal that they want--they just don't want the endless chaos and bickering that the Trump wing seems to enjoy so much. They want adults in the room, and in the MAGA world, adults are always the exception, not the rule. 

I've had many political discussions with MAGA supporters in recent years, and it's always: "Just you wait." 

Just you wait, Trump will arrest Hillary and Obama. John Durham will come up with blockbuster charges against Mueller and other Trump enemies. It will turn out that Antifa was behind January 6. There's going to be a red wave. Just you wait. 

Delusion has its limits. If you build a house on sand, it will fall. Real facts, eventually, will beat alternative facts. That's the story of the 2022 midterm election. 

Meeting Alex Chilton

(I've been meaning to revisit an old article from Motion magazine, as part of promoting the upcoming "Big Star's #1 Record at 50" tribute. It took me quite a while to dig it up, but I finally found one copy. Being a pack rat does pay off, at times.)

Motion magazine was one of several great publications that Deone Jahnke helped create in the 80s and 90s, and not long after I moved to Milwaukee, I was bugging her to let me contribute as a writer. 

I *think* this article was the first piece that I wrote for Motion, and writing it was a complete stroke of luck. I was living in Milwaukee, but I traveled south one weekend to visit a friend in Bloomington Indiana, where I had gone to college for a year. 

We were considering things to do, and I saw that Alex Chilton was playing the famed Second Story. I had been introduced to Chilton’s band Big Star in Bloomington—at the tiny record store Gulcher Records, owned by Bob Richert, who became a bit of a mentor to me. Richert had recommended the “#1 Record/Radio City” double album re-release to me, and as the cliche goes, that record changed my life. 

I was eager to go to the show, and on an impulse, decided to call the club and ask if I could interview Chilton for Motion. It was by far the most productive use of the line, “I’m a music writer from Milwaukee” in my lifetime. The club asked Chilton, Chilton said yes, and I dashed over to meet with him in the club’s dressing room. 

 

Chilton’s cynical side is something he was known for, but I have met famous musicians with *far* more attitude than Alex Chilton. If anything, he was very polite and generous with his time. He answered my questions and seemed to enjoy talking about music. He mentioned The Replacements as one of his favorite bands at the moment. Well, more accurately, he said the Replacements were one of the few currently-popular bands that he could stand...

So, here is the article I wrote for Motion, based on that interview with Alex Chilton, in a bare-bones nightclub in Bloomington, Indiana. It was never digitized, so I’m just providing a photo file of it, with a favorite anecdote at the end. I have been sharing this story lately, and I realize that in my re-tellings, I have said Chilton played solo. The story says he had a trio--I wish I could remember who was playing with him that night. As with so many things, time has made those memories a little blurry. 

But man, am I glad I met him. 

(Blogger is not allowing me to recreate the article in a form that's very readable. Contact me directly (I suggest Facebook Messenger) if you want to see a jpg of the article.)

Don’t look back

Checking in with Fox News, Jan. 6, 2022:
A snapshot of coverage on the anniversary of the insurrection/riot at the Capitol

Time and station: Fox News, along with CNN and MSNBC, via Sirius satellite radio, from approximately 3 pm to 4 pm EST. 

Context: In Washington, D.C., several events commemorated the anniversary of the attack on the US Capitol by protestors on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot or insurrection led to the deaths of at least five people and is considered the worst attack on the U.S. Capitol since the War of 1812 and one of the worst cases of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, not the least because it took place as Congress was counting the electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election. The insurrection resulted in the historic second impeachment trial of President Trump and is the subject of ongoing investigations. 

And in other news:
Although other mainstream outlets carried extensive coverage of the events marking the anniversary of Jan. 6, Fox’ coverage was much more limited, and it cut away early to cover other stories such as a teacher’s strike in Chicago. It also spent a good deal of this time segment on editorial comments about how COVID-19 relief money was being spent. 

Say what, now? 
A common feature of Fox News commentary and reporting is the insertion of questionable or outright false statements by pundits who breezily make these assertions as though they are accepted facts—and there is seldom pushback, correction, or fact checking from anyone at the network. 
 
In this case, Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal, while lambasting Democrats for politicizing the Jan. 6 insurrection, said the following (emphasis mine): “Democrats have decided their best weapon is associating Donald J. Trump with [the insurrection] …  That’s what they did with Russian collusion narrative that lasted for four years, John Durham finally said there was nothing to it, but I didn’t see too many Democrats apologizing for what they put the country through with that.”
 
Um, hold on. John Durham did not say that. And nothing in his ongoing investigation has cast serious doubt on the findings of the Mueller investigation—an effort that resulted in convictions, guilty pleas, and prison sentences for several top Trump aides. Durham is a special prosecutor looking at whether government agencies overstepped their bounds in the investigation—and so far, he has not found much wrongdoing—in fact that investigation has gone month after month with almost no developments. A couple of individuals have been accused of false statements, but it is simply incorrect to claim that Durham has found there was “nothing” to the Russia investigation. 

Found the pony!
Fox News personalities do sometimes tell the truth, but it can be startling when they do so. And it’s also deeply frustrating—I have felt like tearing my hair out during the pandemic at times, when one hour on Fox News features guests promoting vaccines and masking, and the next features a conservative downplaying or even denying the importance of vaccines and masking. This whiplash-inducing coverage on Fox is less common than it used to be, as more traditional and ethical journalists leave the station and are replaced by demagogues, but it still happens. 
 
For example, the same segment that included Henninger’s whopper also included the comments of Guy Benson, political editor at the very-conservative TownHall.com site. Benson offered up the usual talking points about how incredibly partisan Democrats were for talking about Jan. 6 on the anniversary of Jan. 6, but then, having gotten that out of the way, launched into an impassioned defense of recognizing the importance of Jan. 6: 

“Because it’s the anniversary, I think it’s important to speak and remember clearly what happened a year ago: we witnessed a national disgrace that can never be allowed to happen again,” Benson said. “We had an angry mob, that was too often violent, storm the US capitol and try to shut down and disrupt the counting of the electoral vote; the peaceful transition of power—that’s sacred in this country. And that mob, those rioters were inspired by a series of lies about the 2020 election. Lies that were told primarily by the former President, Donald Trump.
 
“He had an opportunity, with his team, to prove his claims about the election in court. They couldn’t, they couldn’t come close, but those claims persisted anyway, and some people took that very seriously. And the result is history, and it’s a history that we look back on and reflect on today. It’s very sad to think about, I was sickened at the time, I was sickened again thinking back on it, and I think we have to acknowledge what really happened that day and tell the truth, even when it’s painful. And this truth—it’s pretty damn painful.” 

Benson is right about all of that. And that kind of truth-telling is far too rare on Fox News. 
 
Fair and balanced—on another channel:
The constant repetition of the claim that Democrats were being partisan about Jan. 6 is ironic coming from Fox, which started decades ago as a conservative-leaning network and has gradually morphed into a blindly partisan propaganda channel. 

There were no Democrats or anyone from outside the usual suspects at Fox News commenting on the Jan. 6 anniversary during this time segment. Juan Williams, who not so long ago gave up his seat as a moderate punching bag on “The Five,” one of Fox’s most egregiously obnoxious programs, did pop up during this hour, but even he carried on with the party line of slamming Democrats for recognizing the seriousness of an attack on our democracy. Apparently, Williams decided to mute his recent strong criticism of Trump in this appearance. It’s not an uncommon occurrence with Republicans who know the cost if they fail to stick to the approved narrative. 

On the other hand, CNN featured the perspectives of two Republicans: Charlie Dent, former U.S. Congressman, and Stephanie Grisham, a former White House official who resigned on Jan. 6 in protest of President and Melania Trump’s unwillingness to speak out against the violence. On MSNBC, toward the end of the hour, former RNC Chairman Michael Steele talked about the irresponsible way Republican office holders have been downplaying the Jan. 6 insurrection. 

But on Fox News, they were back to complaining about mandates and lockdowns. For them, the insurrection was in the rearview mirror. At least, they hoped it was. 

###

Are Trump-supporting areas seeing higher rates of COVID? A quick look at four counties

Lately, there has been a number of stories in the media about how COVID-19 rates are worse in Red states. The narrative is that Trump-supporting areas—where people are more likely to distrust vaccines and scorn safety precautions such as mask wearing—have higher rates of COVID infections and deaths. It does stand to reason—and the data seems to be backing it up. 

The story is relevant because it is yet another piece of evidence on why public health measures matter. Vaccinations and masks have become so politicized that it’s depressing to even debate it anymore, but since these actions continue to have life-and-death consequences, it seems that presenting the evidence is still important. 

I have a number of conservative friends who don’t trust the numbers, of course. Media, scientists, health care providers, government, industry—everyone is lying to us. It’s nearly impossible to argue with that mindset. But a lot of Red-state Americans are not blindly loyal to the MAGA approach to politics and public issues. They are still reachable. 

So, I did a quick look at four counties. One, Howard County in Indiana, is where I was born and raised. A reliably conservative area. Another, Hennepin County in Minnesota, is where I live now—about as Blue a county as you will find in the Midwest. 

For comparison, I included a Blue county in Indiana, Lake County. And a Red county in Minn., Douglas County. Those last two were chosen somewhat at random, I just picked areas that were likely to be Blue or Red. Douglas County is mostly rural but does include a relatively big town, Alexandria. Lake County is one of the rare Blue counties in Indiana. Its northern half is part of the Chicago metro area, but the county also includes suburban and rural areas. 

The findings were pretty much in line with what others have found: higher cases per 100,000 and higher deaths per 100,000 in the red counties. I’ve also included the vote percentages from the 2020 election, to help establish how conservative/progressive the area is in general. In addition, I’ve included vaccination rates—and found a surprise there. Lake County’s vaccination rate is still pretty low. But it does have a lower rate of cases than the Red counties. 

Hennepin comes out as the lowest in cases and deaths. Howard edges out Douglas in terms of cases—but Douglas just barely has a higher death rate than Lake, which is interesting. The two also have nearly identical vaccination rates. 

 

The comparison does not include hospitalization data, or the rate of breakthrough infections for those already vaccinated. So there’s more to the story—but this does provide some useful data. 

 

Here’s the link to the CNN site that gives county-by-county COVID numbers (the interactive graphic is from the much-maligned MSM site, but the numbers are from John Hopkins, which is a pretty good source, if science matters… ) The election numbers were found just by googling county and state websites. Another good resource is COVID Act Now. 

These COVID-19 numbers are too high in all four counties. There is more we could and should do to be responsible in protecting our communities. But in this small sample, Blue counties do have better numbers. 

Hennepin County (MN) 
Cases per 100K: 12,879
Deaths per 100k: 156

Vaccination rate: 71%

Biden: 70%

Trump: 27%

 

Howard County (IN)
Cases per 100K: 18,520

Deaths per 100K: 366

Vaccination rate: 47.3%

Trump: 65%

Biden: 33%

 

Lake County (IN)
Cases per 100K: 14,021

Deaths per 100K: 246

Vaccination rate: 56%

Biden: 57%
Trump: 42%

Douglas County (MN)
Cases per 100K: 18,243

Deaths per 100K: 249

Vaccination rate: 56%

Trump: 65%

Biden: 33%

The Rodgers Deal

Sports legends commonly have comeback stories. So perhaps Aaron Rodgers can recover from his disastrous decision to put teammates at risk and lie to the public about his “immunized” status—and his worse reaction to being found out.

I mean, who knows—in a year maybe he will have dyed his hair blond and gone to a Halloween party as SNL character Dr. Weknowdis. “Vaccines are safe and effective. Weknowdis.” Big laughs.

 
But right now, it looks like he has put at risk not just the health of those around him, but his own reputation and legacy. And he has only himself to blame—though you wouldn’t know it from the bitter, sarcastic language he used to defend himself on Friday—language that dripped of privilege and wounded pride. Rodgers has always had a reputation of having an ego, which is not at all uncommon among elite athletes, but the defensiveness he showed on the weekly radio show that he is featured on was another body blow to his image as a good-natured, likable guy.

To me, the worst aspect of that spectacle was his cynical use of MAGA terminology. “Witch hunt.” “Woke mob.” “Cancel culture.” This brazen play to the worst instincts of the Fox-News-watching Joe Six-Packs out there shows a cold, calculating side to Rodgers, one that would rather turn to divisiveness and lashing out rather than admit a mistake.

For all Rodgers' talk of bodily autonomy and doing research, the choice that both elite athletes and average Americans have faced is pretty straightforward—respect the expertise of the medical and scientific community and take steps to protect themselves and those around them, or indulge conspiracy theories or self-serving “research” that is reliant on the kind of things that Rodgers touts: alternative treatments that have little evidence of efficacy. 

The math here is not hard:
*Millions of human beings have been vaccinated against COVID-19. 
*The incidence of serious negative reactions is extremely rare. 
* Tens of thousands of athletes have been vaccinated. 
*Again, almost none have reported serious reactions or side effects. 

Instead of using common sense, Rodgers has shown a profound lack of respect: for the safety of those around him, for the intelligence of his fans and the public at large, and for the institution of football, which emphasizes teamwork and playing by the rules. 
 
Rodgers thought he was above the latter. He was wrong. The sooner he comes to terms with that, the sooner he can begin to repair the damage. 

 

 

Just in time for Halloween,Trump followers ramp up the violent rhetoric 

Last Monday, a man in Boise, Idaho asked a question that summed up where many Trump supporters’ heads seem to be these days:

“’At this point, we're living under corporate and medical fascism. This is tyranny. When do we get to use the guns?’ the man asked, to applause from the crowd. ‘No, and I’m not – that’s not a joke. I’m not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?’”

 

“When can we start killing people who don’t follow Trump?” may not be the question that *every* Republican is asking. In fact, the Boise Trump supporter was immediately rebuked by the host of the conservative forum. But the fact that conservative events draw people asking this kind of question, in public, with cameras rolling, is pretty concerning. 

Because some of them eventually may decide there’s no time like the present. 

Don’t believe me? Think it was just some lone nutjob blowing off steam? 

“Tell the truth or your three kids will be fatally shot.” That’s the threat a Republican election official received in Philadelphia—because he didn’t try to overturn results showing Biden winning the election there last November. The threat included the official’s address, the names of his three kids, and a picture of his house. 

Or, how about this: a school board president in Nevada has received death threats, including messages saying she should be hung or shot, along with disturbing images, after a school board meeting where a large crowd demanded that the local school district not enact a mask mandate. 

This at a time when some states are seeing rising cases of COVID among kids creating a dynamic where more children are testing positive than adults. This report from Michigan noted that schools and classes are shutting down because of the new infections. 

But let’s not think about the sick kids; there’s tyranny to oppose, and non-Trump supporters to threaten. 

I know this is unpleasant and troubling stuff to think about. I know I’m presenting it in pretty stark and pessimistic terms. But this is based on events that are really going on, right now. It’s not fearmongering if there is a real threat. And how can we not see this river of abuse and promises of violence as anything but a credible threat?

On a daily basis, we hear Trump supporters express anger about those who voted for Biden, or those who support vaccination and mask mandates to prevent COVID-19, or those who don’t want to censor teachers for being honest about racism in the USA. 

The fact is, the leaders of the Republican party have created an extreme atmosphere of hate and fear among their followers. They have pushed a storyline that an election was stolen from Republicans, when they know that is not true. And they have done it intentionally, because they believe it will motivate their voters—at a time when conservative voters are declining in numbers overall. They have to get as many voters as possible out to every election, by any means necessary. They lose power otherwise. 

So, it’s come to this. A rancid, hateful undercurrent of violence among conservatives, especially among fervent Trump supporters. They stormed the Capital, calling for Mike Pence’s life. They come to conservative events begging for permission to start executing people they disagree with. They are sending death threats on a regular basis to public officials. 

I want to believe that we can come back from the brink. In fact, I have to believe that—I have to have hope that this country is not as scary a place as it seems to be. Whether that hope is justified rests on the decisions and judgment of the conservatives in this country. They can continue to wallow in a political cesspool and indulge the worst elements of our society, or they can choose to value truth, human rights, and the principles of democracy. 

What will it be?

###

 One day to go

I generally make predictions for these things.  I'm gonna forgo the 270 to Win maps and other claptrap and just point out what I've been saying for four years:

Donald Trump was not popular when he won the presidency. He has never been a popular president. He is not popular now, not with the majority of the American people. This is the foundation. 

People are turning out in historic numbers to vote. Why? Because they think the economy is great? Because they think the current administration has done a great job protecting us from COVID-19? Because they feel good about where the country is re: race relations? 

A fair number of people support this President. Many of that number support him strongly. I don't understand that. I don't understand how any decent person could vote for Donald Trump. But I know some decent people who will. So there's something happening here that I don't understand. I admit that. 

But I don't think we will see a repeat of 2016. The polls that year were off, though not by much. They were showing an upswing for Trump in the days before the election. Undecideds broke for Trump. Dissatisfied progressives voted third party or stayed at home. 

This year there are few undecideds. The progressives have lined up strongly behind Biden. From what I am seeing, they are not staying home. They are not voting third party. They are not holding back in working for the Democratic candidate. They are all in. 

There are a significant number of independents who voted for Trump last time who will not this time. These voters may lean conservative but they are appalled by the appalling record of the last four years. 

The polls were wrong in 2016. The pollsters have corrected their models to give more weight to working class whites. I think there is almost certainly some over-correction in these models and that working class whites will be more mixed in their support for Trump this year, although he still will win a majority of them. And several groups, including minorities and young people, will vote in much higher numbers. These groups will heavily favor Biden/Harris. 

That's how I see it. It could be very close. We may, God help us, once again be stuck with an Electoral College result that rewards the person who comes in second. But I think the data supports a Biden win, maybe a big win. 

A week to go

Yes, the Supreme Court news is grim. But that is out of our hands, and the focus right now should be on the election, which is still something we can all play a role in. There are solutions to a packed court. The Biden Administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress will be well-positioned to enact those solutions. 

In the meantime:

* This academic analysis of the polls reveals important trends: unlike 2016, people are not sitting this one out. And they’re not voting 3rd party. And the people who did those two things in 2016 were, and are, Democratic-leaning voters. They are showing up in droves this year to vote for Biden.

* (From CNN) “Across the country, Black voters are turning out in huge numbers. The stakes this year are especially high, they say, and nothing less than their health and safety is on the ballot.” And you know who they’re voting for at an 80-20 percent margin. 

*Don’t worry, Trump’s outreach to African American voters is going great. Or… maybe not. 

*Down-ballot races are also looking good for D’s. Also, control of the Senate. 

*The R’s who are realizing that Trump is a disaster for our country are doing the right thing and endorsing Biden. There should be more of them—but even a small percentage will be yet another difference-maker. 

*The main issue on voters’ minds? COVID-19. And we know how that’s going. 

*BTW, Joe told us so. Today, the Trump Administration continues to host super-spreader events. Thanks for infecting people in my in my state, Mr. President. Will you pay for them to get the same treatment you received? 

A week to go… don’t forget to vote!

 

Two moments from the worst presidential debate in US history

It seems a little incredible to say, “well, that went worse than any of us imagined it could.”

 

But there is one unavoidable truth about this President: he maintains his ability to surprise. 

Last night’s presidential debate went poorly for both men, of course. Trump’s decision to throw a 90-minute tantrum as a way to drag down and/or diminish the front-runner will get most of the attention and discussion today. But Biden didn’t do terribly well, either. Some will argue that he managed to maintain some dignity and rode it out the best he could. Others will point to a couple gaffes (he was both for and against the Green New Deal) or say his occasional response-in-kind (“Shut up, man,”) made him look nearly as bad as Trump. 

 

But after all the sound and fury, there were two moments that stood out to me. The first was a statement by Trump that drew a lot of attention last night and will probably go down as one of his greatest hits; the “I would tell them to stand back and stand by” comment in reference to the Proud Boys. 

As many have noted, Trump here is signaling yet again that he embraces and encourages the worst elements of American society: the white supremacists, Nazis, and other hate groups (such as the Proud Boys) that have surfaced during his presidency. His indifference to racism and bigotry has given permission to these groups to consider themselves just another normal part of life in the United States. 

Just as Hitler used the Brown Shirts to violently suppress his opposition, Trump is signaling violent hate groups that they may be of use, if the election night results don’t go his way. This is, of course, terrifying to all of us who want the American experiment in representative democracy to survive and thrive. The prospect of the United States becoming another authoritarian, failed state has never been closer. 

I was struck by the phrase—it seemed too well-constructed and succinct to have been spontaneous; I suspect he had this in his pocket just in case he was asked directly to reject the idea of violence after this election. If it was planned, of course, that makes the use of this kind of language all the worse—but it’s clear that Trump went into this debate determined to dive headlong into the gutter. 

It's difficult to say why exactly he thought this nod to violence in front of the entire nation was a smart move. It’s hard for most rational people to see the method to his madness. But I suspect it makes perfect sense to him. God help us all. 

Biden also had a moment that he seemed to have prepared for—the defense of his son Hunter from Trump’s low-blow attack on Hunter’s drug abuse problem in past years. 

Trump and his closest cronies have spent a lot of time and effort trying to make Hunter Biden an issue, so it seems likely Joe Biden’s team had done their best to prepare for attacks concerning Hunter. In the chaotic give-and-take of the debate, the measured comments that Biden had probably prepared went out the window, but he did grab the opportunity to make a point that resonated with me, at least. 

 

Biden had begun talking about his late son, Beau, and his service in the military. Trump tried—pretty successfully—to shift the discussion to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s other son. “I don’t know Beau,” Trump said dismissively, again showing his contempt, or at least indifference, towards those who have served in the military.

“Hunter got thrown out of the military… he was dishonorably discharged… for cocaine use,” Trump said.  

Honestly, I think this was the point where most people would’ve lost it. No amount of preparation can truly take the sting out of that kind of crass, personal attack. 

As a matter of fact, Hunter Biden was administratively discharged, not dishonorably discharged, for failing a drug test. But Joe Biden did something interesting here. He didn’t get into the weeds about exactly what happened to Hunter. He didn’t get into the mud about the improprieties and ethical questions surrounding Trump’s own children. 

Instead, he admitted the truth: his younger son had struggled with a drug addiction. He noted that many Americans have had similar problems, and like many, Hunter had overcome his addiction. “I’m proud of my son,” Joe Biden said. 

Have you ever heard Donald Trump speak with humility and compassion in this way? Have you ever even heard him say he’s proud of a family member? Maybe it’s happened. Certainly not in this type of situation, or on this type of stage. Whatever else we can conclude about the two men in this debate, one thing is clear: Hunter Biden has a good father. 

Humility, compassion, and grace are not the tools of trade that Donald Trump uses. He bullies, he rants, he lies, he brags. He will continue to do these things during this election season; he will continue to do these things if he is re-elected. 

With the polls clearly showing him behind and likely to lose, President Trump has decided to attempt to drag down his opponent, and the country, in such a way that the election itself will be as muddled and chaotic as his presentation Tuesday night. He has signaled, again, that he is willing to plunge the country into civil war rather than give up power. 

That is his intent. 

The only question that remains is, will we let him? 

 

A few more words on the 4th of July

I don't want to spend a lot of time on President Trump's 4th of July speeches. They weren't great, and the fact that he felt he had to make TWO of them speaks to the desperation he's been showing lately. That desperation also shows in the fact that the speeches were clearly aimed at dividing people and whipping up racial animosity. 

The President’s rhetoric, as this CNN piece notes, painted a frightening, simplistic view of current events and American history. “Trump's 40-minute speech was a master class in rhetorical deception. He lumped together the racists of the Confederacy with the figures on Mt. Rushmore, insisting they are all being reconsidered in the same way,” wrote Michael D'Antonio. “Several elected officials have ordered the removal of Confederate monuments in an effort to recognize the painful legacy of slavery, while the debate over monuments of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt is more nuanced, given their positive contributions to the nation. No sweeping effort is being made to remove all of these monuments and to suggest one exists amounts to sounding a false alarm.”

 

Kind of like yelling fire in a crowded theater. And Trump’s incendiary rhetoric continues to inflame some Americans. In Trump’s world, peaceful protestors are called “criminals” and “terrorists.” The leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement are branded “Marxists” (which some of them are) and therefore deemed to hate America (they don’t), under the assumption that no good American can be a Marxist (they can). 

This Red Scare tactic has become very popular on the right, it is a depressing reminder that the more things change, the more things stay the same. Not only do white conservatives reflexively resort to the Love It or Leave It construct, where any criticism of our obviously imperfect union means that we hate our country (we don’t), the critics have to be tarred with that tired cliché of Marxism—whether it fits them or not. 

When considering the speeches made by Trump this weekend, I was reminded of two other speeches, written 168 years apart, both made on or near the 4th of July holiday. One was by the freed slave Frederick Douglass, the other by the first African-American President, Barack Obama. Both men noted that our nation is far from perfect, Douglass, understandably, was more critical of the country he lived in than Obama was of the USA in 2008. But both are worth reading.   

Douglass noted that the BLM of 1776—the American Revolution—was not for the faint  of heart--that the Founding Fathers were willing to turn to violence, even (gasp!) willing to destroy private property, to pursue justice and freedom. 

“To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies,” Douglass wrote. “It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when, to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men.” 

 

“…They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny.”

Douglass, an escaped slave living in a time where slavery was legal and accepted in many parts of the US, goes on to deliver a blistering critique of our country at the time, one where whites celebrated the 4th of July while blacks remained in chains. Douglass described nothing less than a kind of reverse-image American exceptionalism in 1852.

“Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”

The speech is a reminder of how horrible the sin of slavery was—and what an affront it was to the founding principles of this country. The speech also reminds us that racism and discrimination should be the enemy of every American. We fought a war over this issue; in many ways that war is not over. We all have a role to play to deciding whether the United States can live up to its ideals today, in this time. 

 

Obama came from a different time. He, much more than Douglass, had reason to support American exceptionalism. Although his detractors then and now called him a socialist and a radical (he is neither), Obama was a product of middle America and was proud of his heritage; his speech from 2008 describes his grandfather, who fought with Patton’s army in WWII, and his grandmother, who worked in a factory as part of the war effort.  

 

Obama explored the concept of what being an American patriot really means. “It is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together,” he noted. He added that as a politician, he would not question the patriotism of other Americans—and took pains to note that he was running against a great American patriot, John McCain. 

Ah, for the days when the leaders of our country showed this kind of civility when running for office. It wasn’t that long ago. It needn’t be considered a lost art. 

But Obama also delivered a message that seems timely now—that dissent can be patriotic. “Precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy,” he said. “As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, ‘Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.’

“We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”

 

It's easy to talk about American exceptionalism—nothing is easier than saying, “We’re No.#1.” And few things are more mindless, or meaningless in the long run, that simply boasting about your own tribe. 

If American exceptionalism means anything, it means that we have ideas that stand the test of time, that rise above the petty politics of the day. Surely the idea that all people are created equal is one of the greatest ideas any nation has embraced. And it is one of the hardest to put into practice. 

Our current strife in the streets, during hard times of pandemic and economic challenges, is simply an attempt to make the United States live up to its ideals. Donald Trump doesn’t understand that. Some of his followers will never see it and will never even try to grasp the idea that dissent is patriotic. 

But most Americans do see the patriotism of the BLM movement. Most do recognize that our nation has fallen short of its ideals, and that if we are truly patriots, we must join the struggle to make our nation great—not just in the words of a slogan, but in truth. We must work to make real the message of the BLM movement—that in America, black lives matter just as much as white lives do. 

Douglass and Obama understood the challenge. Trump wants to retreat to an illusion that ignores the challenge, and thus deepens the injustice. 

 

One year from now, on July 4, 2021, what will each of us say about how we individually rose to this challenge? Which vision did we embrace? What road did we choose? 

 

 

The lesson Democrats learned from Trump supporters:

You don’t always have to love the guy at the top. It’s the base that defines the heart of the party. 

My conservative friends, who consume mostly right-wing media sites, are convinced that Democrats don’t enthusiastically support Joe Biden. With Fox News and other sources feeding them the usual tales of Democratic disarray, chaos, and dissent, they are asking questions like, “Will left-wing Democrats mount a write-in campaign against Biden?”

This breathless wishful thinking can be understood, to some degree. Biden certainly is not perfect. His age stands in stark contrast to the youth movement that has been a hallmark of recent Democratic politics. He is white, at time when racism and race relations have become the most pressing issues of the day. He’s consistently more moderate and cautious than his base. And he can be awkward, blurting out things that have to be walked back at times.

But the polling shows no disarray or second thoughts about the presumptive nominee. Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters are solidly behind Biden. And he leads Trump today in both national and swing-state polls. 

So the question rings from a million social media posts: “How can Democrats and liberals support a guy with so many flaws??”

Hey, have you noticed who is in the White House right now?

Running from the President

It’s become a cliched part of political theater in the Trump era: Republicans, both elected officials and rank-and-file voters, dancing as hard as they can to make the point that, even if they don’t support the President’s actions or words, they still support Donald Trump!

Clips of Republican lawmakers literally running away from cameras as journalist ask their thoughts on the latest outrageous tweet from Trump have become the norm. Unlike Trump, GOP officials are not always comfortable with alienating voters who aren’t in their base. They don’t want to say publicly that they support the racism, the misogyny, the bullying, the temper-driven policies. Yet they know they can’t stay in office if they go against Trump—the base will not stand for any sign of disloyalty, and Trump has no loyalty himself; he will turn viciously against any GOP official who crosses him in the least.

The base itself does a slightly different two-step: they concede that Trump is rough, crude, a “salty sailor,” but they like him because he “gets things done.” And the fact that many of those things being done consist of policies that are divisive and hateful, well, the GOP Man-On-the-Street doesn’t know the details, he’s not a scientist/doctor/legal scholar. 

It’s a kind of circular process that Trump has used to his advantage: feed the emotions, starve the intellect, ride the whirlwind as long as he can. He really does believe you can fool most of the people most of the time.

The GOP base also ignores the head-scratching contradictions of Trump’s story: a New York City elitist millionaire who went to tony East Coast schools and partied with the rich and famous has been embraced as a Man of the People by rural and small-town voters. As with so many things in modern politics, it works better if you don’t think too much about it.

Protests and primaries—Biden becomes a figurehead for a larger movement

It’s often been noted that Biden has been relatively quiet as he moves steadily toward nomination. This is of course partly a result of events on the ground: the pandemic  and now protests have sucked the oxygen out of the room to a large extent. The COVID-19 crisis also made a drawn-out primary logistically unworkable, as the base—especially African Americans—rallied around the most electable candidate. And with our current president creating so many problems for himself, it makes sense for the former Vice President to sit back and let Trump self-destruct.

But another element is in play: Biden has thrived as a politician who is willing to subsume his own ego to a larger movement. He relished his role as the #2 man in the Obama administration, finding ways to support his boss, stepping up occasionally to break ground on issues that were tough for Obama to take a stand on (gay marriage comes to mind), and generally providing a softer, human response to the riotous warfare of modern American politics.

It could be said he is doing the same today—softening the hard edges of the American Left, providing a more moderate and soothing counterpart to the AOCs and Al Sharptons on our screens. What many Americans—and Democrats most particularly—long for is a more civil society, one that has a place for compassion, empathy, and decency. For all his flaws, Biden can provide that.

He may not be on the barricades; he will not call for revolution. But the bottom line is that the base knows Biden has their backs, just as he had Obama’s back. Just as with Trump supporters, the Democratic base knows his heart. And they think it’s in the right place.

What that statement suggests about the two parties is something for another post.