Who Are You Going To Hate Next?

The 2001 film Conspiracy has stuck with me for nearly two decades. It's based on the Wannsee Conference where the Nazis developed what became known as The Final Solution. The script is taken from the only surviving transcript of the meeting.

The film contains two elements that haunt me. First, the meeting is conducted in a matter-of-fact manner with a working lunch. The arguments are never about whether genocide should occur but how to most efficiently implement it.

Second, Kenneth Branagh who plays Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi who conducted the meeting, retells a story designed as a warning. 

The story's moral is that hate should not become so all consuming  so that when the object of hate is gone one has nothing left to live for.

The story is becoming more salient in 2020 as I foolishly read the comment threads on various blog posts or Twitter threads. Anyone to the political left of Joseph McCarthy is a communist who threatens to destroy the American Republic and anyone to the political right of Angela Davis is fascist who threatens to destroy American Democracy.

Politics has gone far beyond the "tastes great/less filling" type of debate. In fact, the political vitriol has become closer to the religious hatred satirized in Gulliver's Travels where arguments over whether whistling being a vice or a virtue could lead to war. In short, for some, political opponents are now someone to hate.

I don't know how widespread the hatred is or how deeply it has set in. I'm certain, however, that once hatred becomes entrenched as part of a pseudo-religious doctrine, there will always be a new target to hate. If that entrenchment occurs, we may all look back at 2020 with nostalgia.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate And A Pandemic, A Minor Musing

When I was a fair to middling debate coach instead of a retired debate coach, I had the opportunity to work with a number of great Lincoln Douglas debaters. For the nine or ten folks who read this blog and are not familiar with high school Lincoln-Douglas debate, Lincoln-Douglas debaters argue resolutions such as Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security. The affirmative and the negative debater usually begin her case with a statement like "Today, I will be upholding the value of justice" or "In this round I will be valuing human dignity." Each debater then supported the premise with practical examples, utilitarian philosophers, gerontological philosophers, virtue ethicists, or postmodern cultural critics.

My debaters used scores, if not hundreds, of values over the course twenty debate seasons, but valuing civility never provided the success I thought it should.

We tried using the concept as defined by Stephen Carter who asserts civility is "the sum of the many sacrifices that we make for the sake of living our common life. Thus civility isn’t only good manners (although it is that) and it isn’t only how we think about and talk about others (although it is that, too). Civility resides, for example, in acts of charity, particularly when they are truly costly to us." Elsewhere Carter asserts, civility is“a set of sacrifices we make for the sake of our common journey with others, and out of respect for the very idea that there are others … who are every bit our equals before God.”

I believed that debaters could win a round by arguing valuing civility, as Carter defines it, allowed individuals to use their freedom responsibly, preserve the common good, and respect the dignity of others. It was not a successful argument.

Now, in the midst of a pandemic and a summer of protest, both peaceful and violent, I wonder how I could have been so naive to believe the argument could have worked. There are, I am certain, numerous citizens who perform "acts of charity . . .[that] are truly costly to [them.]" Those acts, however, are drowned out by customers who refuse to follow the posted policies about waiting to enter a hair salon or customers who who scream at a teenage barista who asks them to follow a mask policy or those who use the cover of a peaceful protest to begin looting neighborhoods.

The idea that there are others who are our equal and that co-existing with our fellow citizens requires sacrifices that may be costly didn't win many debate rounds when it was discussed in the abstract. It doesn't seem to be valued in the real world when its needed most. Both facts make me wonder what will happen when he idea of a "common journey" is totally replaced by "my way or the highway." 

A Chart, An Old Song, And An Older Poem

I probably should have entitled this a post that will change no one's mind.

The Chart:

The Song:

The first stanza of Thomas Hardy's "The Man He Killed":

"Had he and I but met

By some old ancient inn,

We should have sat us down to wet

Right many a nipperkin!

It appears that Hardy may have been an optimist unless Covid-19 has caused Americans to desire sharing drinks with those they consider brainwashed, hateful racists.

A Post Wherein I Try To Understand One Of Governor Noem's Favorite Cliches

In recent months, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has repeated two phrases "trust your citizens/constituents" and "one size does not fit all." Both have made her a darling of the populist right.

If I am being cynical, her use of the former phrase reminds me of Hulk Hogan's injunction to his little Hulkamanics: "say your prayers, take your vitamins, and you'll never go wrong." Hogan infamously went wrong in ways that indicate he didn't believe his talking points. Likewise, Noem's push for "riot boosting" laws indicate she doesn't trust her citizens to exercise their free speech rights responsibly. Either that or she believes they are overly susceptible to the wiles of out-of-state agitators, a belief that again belies a lack of trust.

Perhaps I am being unfair to the governor, free speech and pandemics are not the same thing. She may well be expressing the belief that Shakespeare was correct when he wrote “This above all: to thine own self be true,/And it must follow, as the night the day,/Thou canst not then be false to any man." If that sentiment is correct, citizens will naturally want to be true to themselves and, therefore, do no other person harm. 

The quotation, however, presents several problems. Polonius, the character who utters the phrase, is a windbag not a source of wisdom. Even if one accepts that Polonius, like the cliched broken clock, can be correct at times, the context of his speech is about personal finance and being true to oneself financially not emotionally, spiritually, or morally. Further, the context is about a trip from Denmark to London not about a pandemic. A string of cliches that may be sufficient for the former is hardly likely to suffice for the latter.

Noem's phrasing seemingly implies that citizens are to trust each other because she trusts them. This implication too causes some problems. South Dakotans are not a monolith. Some believe that Covid-19 is no worse than the flu. Some believe the virus was created in military labs or in Wuhan. Those people may believe that its sole purpose was to create a cashless society so that the government could track its citizens more easily. (That those same citizens believe that Donald Trump, who seems to be ignoring the pandemic, was chosen by God to save save Americans from such a fate reflects a weird cognitive dissonance.) Others may believe information posted on Facebook by someone with Jethro Bodine's intellect and education. Others take information from sources that assert wearing masks is ineffective while others may accept some scientists' assertion that virus is airborne, a term that itself seems promote confusion.

In the middle of pandemic, which citizens are Governor Noem or other South Dakotans supposed to trust? The one's who say mask mandates aren't about safety? The folks who deny Covid-19 entirely? The Governor doesn't seem to trust those who advocate wearing masks. She seems to deny the possibility that wearing a mask keeps others safe, so even she is being selective about which citizens she trusts.

If Noem's claim that she "trust the citizens" is, in reality, a claim that she trusts only those who agree with her, then her phrasing is merely a cliche designed to get her on Fox News, not a policy proposition to keep South Dakotans safe from the pandemic.

A Minor Musing About Blogging

Perhaps I should have titled this post "A Minor Musing About Everything I Do Wrong When Blogging."

It springs from Scott Ehrisman's decision to shut down his South DaCola blog and The Dakota Free Press's coverage of that decision.

I have been writing, albeit irregularly, since 2007. Obviously, one thing that any successful online endeavor requires is a regular publishing schedule. That said, here are a few other observations.

First, blogs have entered their zombie stage; they likely will never die out, but blogging will never regain the clout it had in the halcyon days when Andrew Sullivan and others demanded attention multiple times per day.

Second, Cory may lament that old folks are the only ones who seem to be writing blogs, but they may also be the largest audience regularly reading blogs. The politically active young'uns I know are using Twitter, Snapchat, or Instagram stories to spread their message. They are consuming podcasts or YouTube, but few seem to reference blogs. (I realize that anecdotal evidence may not be the best source of information.)

Third, blogs need a laser focus. South Dakota War College could easily rename itself South Dakota Republicans R Us (The demise of Toys R Us renders this suggestion an example of a bad marketing strategy.) At Dakota Free Press Cory follows a simple mission: be South Dakota's true liberal media. The blog is a consistent counterpoint to the views espoused by the state's Republican hegemony. 

In short, the successful bloggers don't chase shiny objects. One of my blogging failures is that comic books, folding knives, fountain pens, or Greek myth retellings all seem as interesting as South Dakota politics. The area where those interests intersect in a way to prompt regular blogging or create an audience is minuscule. 

Fourth, successful blogging requires a sense of mission, a belief that one's words can make a difference. That sense of mission comes from an ideology rooted firmly in either the right, left, or populist camps. In a sane political universe, I'm a centrist. In the current climate, I'm too far to the left for Republicans, too far to the right for Democrats, and too elitist for populists of either stripe.

Fifth, regular blogging seems to demand adherence to Marie Kondo's spark joy philosophy. Ehrisman alludes to  the lack of joy in his post.  I seem to exist in mental space that views work as work and play as work. Combine that personality quirk with the aforementioned shiny object syndrome and one has created the perfect storm for irregular blogging.

Sixth, style matters. Dr. Newquist  consistently writes like an academic. Cory's style reflects his passion. I use terms like "young'uns" and quote people like Marilynne Robinson. Once again, the audiences that appreciate these contrasts don't overlap.

Finally, successful blogging requires an ability to accept vagaries. A random post tossed out as an afterthought may well generate far more views than a post that demanded hours of research.

These observations create neither a resignation nor a resurrection post. I'll keep pushing out random musings or rants erratically. Serving as a bad example is something I usually do well.

Quotation Of The Day: Governor Kristi Noem's Favorite Scientist Edition

Yesterday, Governor Noem sent out the following tweet.

No.

People should have the freedom to wear masks if it makes them feel safe, but the science on masks is very mixed.

The media should ask scientists like Stanford's John Ioannidis and Scott Atlas whether we've gone too far on masks for everyone at all times. https://t.co/F90ir6uzf0

— Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) July 9, 2020

Via Seth Tupper and The South Dakota Standard, this Wired article about John Ioannidis. 

First, the background.

Let’s face it, the field of epidemiology hasn’t so far covered itself in glory with regard to the coronavirus crisis. The field was for the most part fatefully slow to recognize that a pandemic was aborning; later on, it produced a stream of conflicting and sometimes wildly off-the-mark assessments of infection and mortality rates, and where they might be heading. 

 But even in this fast-paced and sloppy context, Ioannidis’ study is seen as standing out. Not just for its methodological weaknesses but for the apparent wrongness of its main conclusions—and the risk that these could have a harmful influence on public health recommendations. In a nutshell, Ioannidis and his study coauthors tested about 3,300 residents of California’s Santa Clara County for antibodies to the new coronavirus. The results, according to Ioannidis, imply that the disease isn’t nearly as deadly as believed. “Based on what we’re seeing now, the fatality of the virus is more or less the same as influenza, about 0.1 percent,” he says. “Most of the earlier data was completely bogus.”

The study, posted as a preprint on April 17, has been pilloried nonstop. Critics noted problems in the way subjects were recruited, potential defects in the antibody test, and apparent mistakes in the statistical analysis. Ioannidis might have received a pass if his involvement went no further than being listed among the suspect study’s 17 coauthors. But he’d already needled colleagues with an essay that he wrote in March, calling the response to Covid-19 “a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco”; and now, again, he took to the airwaves to hawk these new results as evidence that stay-at-home measures are misguided.

Now, the money quote:

Other epidemiologists’ assessment of Ioannidis’ claim, that staying at home will likely kill far more people than Covid-19, might best be summed up the way physics giant Wolfgang Pauli is said to have dismissed the lesser work of a colleague: It’s not even wrong. To be promoted to wrong, the Ioannidis position would have to be based on data and analysis that scientists could argue over. Even allowing his 0.1 percent fatality rate for the disease—which most epidemiologists think is way too low, but not beyond-the-realm-of-possibility low—there is almost no data to go on for the likely cost in human life of the lockdown. We know Covid-19 is killing tens of thousands of people, and that staying at home is slowing the spread; but we know virtually nothing about the number deaths caused by staying at home. As such, what Ioannidis is promoting simply isn’t science, says Loren Lipworth, a Vanderbilt University epidemiologist. “It’s impossible to do that risk-benefit analysis,” she says. “It’s just relying on anecdote and common sense.” In other words, Ioannidis is pitting his gut against the collective data-driven wisdom and analysis of medicine and public health.

 

Some Questions Prompted By Recent Events

When I was teaching and coaching debate to earn my bread, the young'uns often thought the only reason teachers asked questions was to determine if students knew the right answer. (There were, of course, some young'uns who thought that teachers asked questions because the teacher did not know the answer and needed help.)

While I often asked questions to determine if students knew the material, I also frequently asked questions to determine how they arrived at the conclusions they did. It is in that spirit that I offer the following questions for consideration. 

A. How should a just government deal with situations when an individual's exercise of her rights prevents or impedes another person's exercise of her rights?

B. What is incorrect about the following David French analysis?

1. Slavery was legal and defended morally and (ultimately) militarily from 1619 to 1865.

2. After slavery, racial discrimination was lawful and defended morally (and often violently) from 1865 to 1964.

3. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not end illegal discrimination or racism, it mainly gave black Americans the legal tools to fight back against legal injustices.

4. It is unreasonable to believe that social structures and cultural attitudes that were constructed over a period of 345 years will disappear in 56.

5. Moreover, the consequences of 345 years of legal and cultural discrimination, are going to be dire, deep-seated, complex, and extraordinarily difficult to comprehensively ameliorate. 

It’s hard even to begin to describe all the ramifications of 345 years of legalized oppression and 56 years of contentious change, but we can say two things at once—yes, we have made great strides (and we should acknowledge that fact and remember the men and women who made it possible), but the central and salient consideration of American racial politics shouldn’t center around pride in how far we’ve come, but in humble realization of how much farther we have to go. [Emphasis mine]

C. How does one discern the point where the activists one supports have become the Mirror/Mirror image of the extremists one despises? (Yeah, I went to Star Trek for that one.)

D. What is the source of the right to refuse to take steps to prevent the spread of contagion, either wittingly or unwittingly? I am particularly interested in sources available to America's founders such as Locke, Hobbes, Hume, or Rousseau. Sources such as the Federalist Papers or Anti-Federalist Papers are also acceptable.

E. What is the reason to celebrate and commemorate leaders of the Confederacy who rebelled against the United States in order to preserve slavery?

F. Finally, a multipart question: Define community. Explain whether community is important and the reason for your answer. If community is important, what does an individual need to do to help create and preserve it. If community is unimportant, how can isolated individuals thrive in a 21st Century state of nature?

Any anwers should be in complete sentences. Please avoid the use of a color crayon when answering.

A Minor Musing About Trump's Visit To Mount Rushmore

In two days, the forty-fifth president of the United States will use Mount Rushmore as a backdrop for a political dog and pony show.

Some easy contrasts between the current president and those whose faces are chiseled into the mountain exist. George Washington led America's fight for independence from Great Britain. A young Donald Trump sought deferments from military service claiming he had bone spurs. Further, the myths surrounding Washington have him eschewing lies. Trump's lies are legion.

Theodore Roosevelt provides another easy comparison. He was shot while he giving a speech. Roosevelt told the crowd not to harm the man who attempted to assassinate him. While a candidate, Trump promised to pay legal fees for those who physically attacked people who protested at his rallies. (Protesters who exchange high fives seem to anger Trump more than others.)

More importantly, it is one history's of great ironies that Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong slave owner, could pen "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Eighty-seven years later, Abraham Lincoln would declare that the nation was "conceived" and "dedicated to the proposition" that all men are created equal." 

No evidence exists that the current president has the cognitive or rhetorical skills to use language the way that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln did. Distressingly there's a similar dearth of evidence that he believes all are created equal or that the nation is dedicated to the proposition supporting that fact.

Finally, Trump seems totally incapable of asking Americans to convincingly appeal to the "better angels of their nature" or to adequately copy Lincoln's call at a time our nation needs to hear it:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Current discussions about monuments and their significance are politically and morally fraught, and those around Mount Rushmore will continue to be so. For the purposes of this post, however, the mythos surrounding the four presidents on Mt. Rushmore illustrate a vital reminder about the failings of the current occupant of the Oval Office. 

 

What's Next?

On Monday, the peaceful protesters were attacked so that President Trump could walk across the street to hold up a Bible, the text requiring one "to  act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" blithely ignored. On Tuesday black squares proliferated on Instagram. Yesterday, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis issued a rebuke to his former boss.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. 

George Floyd's memorial service is being held today. It would be remiss of me not to mention rioting, looting, police brutality, a continuing pandemic, and an unemployment rate approaching 20%.

It has been an eventful week, but what's next? Will any politicians look past the next election to propose and pass meaningful reform legislation? Does anyone have a plan to help looted businesses? How many people who posted black squares will remember George Floyd in September? Will Black lives still matter when the hashtag is no longer trending on Twitter? Are any states stockpiling PPE so healthcare providers won't run short if there's a second or third coronavirus wave? Is anyone saving a bit of extra money to assist an unemployed neighbor when unemployment benefits run out?

In 2020 T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men" seems prophetic:

Between the idea

And the reality

Between the motion 

And the act

Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom 

Between the conception

And the creation 

Between the emotion 

And the response

Falls the Shadow

Life is very long

Between the desire

And the spasm 

Between the potency

And the existence

Between the essence

And the descent

Falls the Shadow

For Thine is the Kingdom 

For Thine is

Life is

For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but with a whimper.

A Post Wherein I Ask A Question About Stable Geniuses And Pandemics

I believe the following facts are not disputed:

1. Donald Trump has asserted he is a very stable genius.
2. Donald Trump took his oath of office on January 20, 2017.
3. China placed Wuhan province on lockdown on January 23, 2020.
4. The number of days between the inauguration and the lockdown is 1,098.

For the purposes of debate, let's stipulate to the following

1. The Obama administration left the nation's pandemic response capabilities in the horrendous shape Trump claims that it did.

Those facts and stipulations leave me with a nagging question: Why was a self-proclaimed stable genius not able to recognize and rectify the alleged gaps in the nation's pandemic response capabilities within those 1,098 days?

I know I am not the first person to ask a question such as this, but I have yet to see a serious answer. Please leave any serious responses in the comments.

What Have We Learned?

The question posed in the post's title has been nagging at me for the past week. Over 70,000 Americans have died from the virus and the unemployment rate has jumped from 3.5% to 16% in less than a month. I fear that the death and sacrifice may be in vain.

The sardonic angel on my left shoulder wants to me to type "Americans value toilet paper and haircuts more than anyone realized" and hit publish. The better angel on my right shoulder wants me to think about an answer or answers. Therein lies the stereotypical rub; each answer or partial answer produces yet more questions.

One thing seems obvious, the nation remains divided. One of the most obvious Covid 19 related examples is the disagreement about the death toll. An Axios poll shows that most Americans doubt the published numbers, but a majority of Democrats believe the totals are too low whereas a plurality of Republicans believe the numbers are too high. In short, Americans are now arguing about what the facts are not the implications of the facts. 

One's politics may and probably should color one's interpretation of the facts, but it should not color what the facts are. The death toll should not be a debatable proposition. It should be the same question as "is it raining?" It is either raining or it isn't; the death toll is 70,000 or it it isn't.  One can argue whether rain is timely or one can argue about how to best respond to a novel virus that has killed 70,000 Americans. Arguing about the numbers, however, precludes discussion about the best way to respond to the pandemic.

Second, sound bites have replaced solutions. These paragraphs from an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner illustrate the situation. First, 

Those arguing for a more rapid lifting of coronavirus restrictions have a refrain that goes something along the lines of: "Isolate the elderly and more vulnerable populations, and let everybody else go on with their lives."

However,

The problem is that those advocating such a strategy have not done a very effective job of explaining what that would look like in practice. 

The most obvious way to "isolate" older and more vulnerable Americans would seem to be to put them in specialized living quarters along the lines of nursing homes. Yet these homes have been proven to be absolute death traps. 

Well done soundbites confirm one's views or trigger those who hold opposing views, but they solve nothing. Carefully considered plans based on the best facts available may ameliorate the current problems, but as noted above, Americans disagree about basic facts.

Third, Americans may have perverted the meaning of freedom. I'll let this Tom Nichols tweet speak for itself and urge the reading of the entire thread.

This is how Americans now interpret freedom: Not as a political condition in a democratic society, but as a constant chant of "you're not the boss of me." This is not freedom, or at least not freedom in any political sense. It's a child-like understanding of autonomy. /1 https://t.co/lB7Xth6KCP

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) May 3, 2020

Finally there's a lack of leadership. Damon Linker writes about a "quality" that he has "come to appreciate, admire, and miss terribly through the civic desert of the Trump administration: the capacity of a president to rise above partisanship to speak from and to the nation as a whole."

Linker continues,

This isn't just some idle quality that sentimental Americans like their presidents to possess. It's one of the two fundamental responsibilities of the presidential office — to serve both as head of the executive branch of government and head of state. The second of these duties is as essential as the first — and for all of Trump's difficulty handling the managerial and policy challenges of running the executive branch, his inability to speak in high-minded terms about the good of the nation as a whole, about the need to rise above factionalism, and about our capacity to feel a part of a whole that's larger than ourselves is total, is one of his greatest failings as president. And it's been even more glaringly obvious since the pandemic took hold in mid-March.

Our education seems woefully inadequate to the task of fighting the virus and responding to the economic troubles that beset the nation.

Quotation Of The Day: 2020 South Dakota Republican Legislature Edition

I have been reading What Are We Doing Here?, a collection of essays by Marilynne Robinson. Robinson is the author of Gilead, a novel that I contend is one of the best novels of the century.

In the essay which gives the book its title Robinson writes a seemingly perfect description of the Republican majority in Pierre during the 2020 session.

. . . these lovers of country, these patriots are wildly unhappy with the country they claim to love and are bent on remaking it to suit their own preferences which they feel no need to justify or fully articulate. Neither do they feel any need to answer the objections of those who see their shaping and their disciplining as mutilation (23).

As Iowa Democrats Caucus, I Worry

Democrats will caucus in Iowa tonight to begin the process of nominating their 2020 candidate for president.

I have numerous fears, but I will list only a few here.

First, the two front runners, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are too old. One hopes that with age comes wisdom, but tech has changed the world in ways that make it difficult for folks over 60, let alone folks approaching 80, to adapt.

Second, and much more importantly, both of the front runners have a cult problem. Trumpism has illustrated many faults in America's current system, but none may be more dangerous than the tribalism fueled by the cult of personality.

The Bernie Bros of 2016 have not gone away. If Sanders in the nominee, their fervor will ratchet up exponentially and promote an overblown Trumpist response that will take fear mongering to unprecedented heights. The McCarthy era will seem tame and civilized in comparison. (If he is not the nominee their fervor may still ratchet up exponentially but their target will be the Democrats' nominee.)

Whenever one points out that Trumpism is a cult, one is faced with the response that Obama's popularity also fueled cult-like behavior. Whether the charge is true or not, Republicans will turn out the base by contending that Biden is trading on or attempting to revive Obama's legacy and, therefore, Obama's cult of personality.

In either instance, the fear their "chosen one" will be replaced by someone they fear has a personality cult will elevate Trumpists' zeal to new, more dangerous, and insane levels. (As a side note, Democrats do not seem to understand how much fear motivates Trump's most fervent supporters.)

Third, Democrats are looking at the fact that Trump "is the only president in the history of Gallup polling who has never had the support of a majority of Americans for even a single day" as a reason to believe that they have an easy path to win the popular. If 2016 showed anything, it's that the popular vote doesn't matter. Trump's election team is likely targeting key precincts in swing states and charting a path to another minority victory. Democrats seem blissfully and dangerously oblivious to the electoral map.

Finally and most importantly, Democrats seem focused on purity rather than defeating Trump. Defeating Trump and his authoritarian tendencies should be a primary goal; it should be the only goal.

HB 1078 And Exempting Guns From The Sales Tax: A Minor Musing

It's difficult to take  HB 1078, a bill to exempt guns, bullets, and gunpowder from sales tax seriously.

First, some of its sponsors frequently seem more interested in triggering the libs than they are in passing productive legislation.

Second, it's entirely possible the bill is merely a vehicle for a scorecard issuing group with a name like People Perpetuating Pistoliers into Perpetuity to point out someone they deem a Republican in Name Only (RINO) lacks perfect fealty to the Second Amendment.

For this post, let's stipulate that Representatives Pischke, Hammock, Mulally, and Weis along with Senators (Phil)  Jensen and Monroe have every intention of passing this legislation.

Their argument likely proceeds as follows.

1. The right to self-defense is a human right.


2. That right is enshrined in the Second Amendment.


3. With rights come responsibilities and citizens have a duty to carry firearms to protect themselves.


4. When South Dakota taxes guns and ammunition, the state places an onerous burden on citizens' efforts to exercise that right and fulfill their duty.


5. No state should place onerous burdens on the exercising of rights; therefore, items necessary to exercise a right, in this case guns and ammunition, should be exempt from the sales tax.

One wonders if sponsors Pischke, Hammock, Mulally, Weis, (Phil)  Jensen, and Monroe have thought through the ramifications of the argument because points 4 and 5 tacitly admit that South Dakota's sales tax is regressive.

Further, if humans indeed have an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it follows that they have a right to items, like food,  that are necessary to exercise the right to life. If the solution to solve regression is exempting items from the sales tax, then there shouldn't be any argument against exempting groceries

I haven't heard the the bill's sponsors speak on the issue, but they may believe guns are more necessary than groceries. That's a tough argument to win. People need to eat more frequently than they need to use a gun for self-defense or any other reason. I'd wager that they and everyone who reads this post has eaten more often than they have used a gun in self-defense.

Perhaps their argument is that states as an entity should protect guns and not protect butter. That analogy has a fraught history.

In short, legislators Pischke, Hammock, Mulally, Weis, (Phil)  Jensen, and Monroe seem to have been too clever by half. In creating legislation that tacitly admits that South Dakota's tax structure is regressive, they are laying the groundwork necessary to eliminate the sales tax on food. I doubt that was their intention.

Republicans In United States Senate Prove South Dakota Republicans Fail Self-Reliance Test

Over at Dakota Free Press, Cory posted about Senate Bill 54, legislation written to prevent South Dakota communities from banning plastic bags and straws. I commented on his post that South Dakota Republicans, some of whom must be part of the every day carry (EDC) community, should show their dedication to preparedness supporting the carrying of metal straws and reusable grocery bags.

Today, Republicans in United States Senate have shown South Dakota Republicans the error of their ways. North Carolina Senator Richard Burr handed out fidget spinners to some of his colleagues for their edification, enrichment, and enjoyment during the Donald Trump Impeachment Trial.

Let's leave aside for the nonce the worry that these spinners may violate the rules the Senate established for the trial. Let's ignore the fact that that these spinners may be a not so subtle message that the Senators using them are not taking seriously their oath to be impartial jurors. Instead, in a spirit of bipartisanship, let's celebrate the fact that Republicans in the United States Senate are demonstrated their dedication to preparedness, albeit belatedly, by making fidget spinners part of their EDC.

Maybe South Dakota Republicans can follow that example and drop their opposition to individuals making metal straws and reusable grocery bags part of their everyday carry.

I Have To Pay Myself $50 Because I Erred

. . . .in an unuttered prediction about the South Dakota Legislature and Drag Queen Story Hour.

During the spring and summer of 2019, conservative intellectuals engaged in an internecine conflict because they disagreed about how to best conduct the next phase of the Great American Culture War. One could tell they were intellectuals because they used terms such as "appeasement" and did not accuse each other of being "cuckservatives."

On the one side, conservatives steeped in the traditional liberal order believe that the power of the state should not be leveraged in matters of morality. Others, led by Sohrab Ahmari, assert,

"Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. " 

Government, Ahmari asserts, can be a tool to "enforce our order and and our orthodoxy." The catalyst for Ahmari's desire for government intervention was a Drag Queen Story Hour held at a public library. (This Wall Street Journal article describes one such story hour and, miraculously, doesn't seem to be hidden behind a paywall.)

When I read Ahmari's screed or manifesto or disjointed musings, I said to myself, "Self, I bet you $50 that the at least one South Dakota legislator will file a bill banning Drag Queen Story Hour or sponsor a resolution condemning Drag Queen Story Hour on the first day of the session."

This morning, I skimmed the list of bill titles. I saw nothing related to drag queens or story hours. I did see two bills about libraries, but the text did not ban story hours, drag queen or otherwise.

I don't know how Speaker Haugaard or Representative Deutsch missed this opportunity to prove their cultural warrior bona fides, but I went to my wallet, my change jar, the cup holders in my car, and my couch cushions and found $7.89. I still owe myself more than $40. 

The MAGA Church Ad: A Minor Musing

It's Sunday morning, so let's mix politics and religion.

During the 2016 campaign, some American Christians voted for Donald Trump because they believed him to be a King Cyrus figure. In the Bible, Cyrus is the Persian king who ended the Babylonian captivity. These same people likely saw Hillary Clinton as a Jezebel analogue. At the time, I saw Trump to be closer to Rehoboam, the king of Israel whose actions literally divided the kingdom. Trump's actions as president have intensified my belief.

Recently, the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, has released a campaign video entitled "The MAGA Church." The video begins with the scriptural reminder to beware wolves in sheep's clothing and closes with the tagline "If this is the best American Christians can do? Then God help us all." The ad juxtaposes statements by prosperity gospel preachers and sons of famous preachers with some of Trump's more hubristic  or outlandish comments. It is a powerful well-done ad that will matter not a whit.

First, the ad demonstrates Trump's hypocrisy. Trump's religious base has made peace with that hypocrisy and now sees it as a mark of faith. They did not need Jim Bakker to tell them that supporting Trump was a sign that one is saved. They already believed it. (The ad has a clip of Bakker's utterance, so I am not going to provide a link.)

Second, the ad shows many of the prosperity preachers laying hands on Trump in the Oval Office. Those unfamiliar with charismatic, Pentecostal, or full gospel churches will find the act peculiar at best. Members of those churches who are full-throated Trumpists will take pride in being a "peculiar people." More importantly, they will see the ad as evidence that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

In short, the ad will merely reinforce existing beliefs. Those who believe Trump is a B.S. artist conning the faithful will have a lot of evidence in one place. On the other hand, the ad will likely deepen Trumpists' belief that American Christians are a persecuted minority and that Trump is indeed a modern day Cyrus sent by God to protect them from worse persecution.

A Minor Musing On Populism, Work, And The Common Person

I keep trying to understand the right wing populist bent, and I end up failing. (To be clear, I don't understand left wing populism either.)

As I understand it, populism in its current iteration is based on an idea that wealthy, well-educated elites who have held the levers of power for the past few decades have failed. It is, therefore, incumbent on the populace to remove elites from power and replace them with leaders who will do the will of the common folk.

That sentiment brought Donald Trump to the White House and Kristi Noem to South Dakota's Governor's Mansion. The fact that common folk support either politician is one of the the universe's ultimate ironies.

This Dakota Free Press post about South Dakota's Week of Work reminded me of an exchange I had with PNR when he blogging in South Dakota. He replied to one of my comments on his blog (which has sadly been taken down) with phrasing something like "there's a way to ensure that there's dignity in work without feeding people to maw of capitalism."  The post points out, Noem, a woman who seems to be becoming a darling of many Trumpists, will have students "engage with employers" but not with workers. They will be told how they can work for South Dakota or some corporation and become a means to a another's end. There will be little talk of workers' dignity or the dignity of work. In short, they may well be urged to hurl themselves into the capitalist maw whether the action is in their best interest or not.

If populism as a movement or a philosophy is to make any sense at all, it needs to be predicated in the belief that individuals ought to be viewed as ends unto themselves not means to governmental, corporate, or social elites' ends.  However, we're approaching the third anniversary of Trumpism as a governing philosophy and those three years have been nothing if not Orwellian, not in the 1984 sense but in The Animal Farm sense. Orwell's fable concludes, "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Just as Orwell's men and pigs became indistinguishable, the policies of the elites that populists believe failed them and Trump are nearly identical. Damon Linker, writing for The Week, makes the case:

. . . . On policy substance there has been a single actual change: the GOP is now far more nativist on immigration than it was from 1980 to 2008. Other than that, the only significant shift has been at the level of style. Trump is a lying, trash-talking BS artist who treats trolling as his preferred form of presidential address. A day during which he manages to "trigger the libs" is a good day for the Trump White House (and the days when he doesn't are exceedingly rare). That is the only meaningful respect in which Trump is a populist: He talks down to and encourages the meanest sensibilities of Republican voters rather than seeking to elevate them and the rest of the country with exalted rhetoric. 

That's it. In every other respect, the Trump administration might as well be the third term of George W. Bush.

Linker may be underselling the effect of nativism and "encourag[ing] the meanest sensibilities" of voters.  Both likely make it easier to view others as means to an end rather than an end unto themselves and, therefore, deepen the irony that populists support those who have little regard for the people who elected them and may well make the lives of common folk worse.

Justifying Political Pessimism

On my previous post, Donald commented that my predictions were "depressing." I prefer realistic, but I can see how one can conclude my "the glass is half empty, cracked, and leaking" worldview is a bit depressing.

I offer the following two bits of support that I'm being realistic. First, the gap between the parties is wide and growing wider.

Stolen from "What Happened to America's Political Center of Gravity?"
New York Times, June 26, 2019

In a sane political universe, I would be close to the center or probably a step to the political right. In the world viewed by most Republicans I am far to the left. (South Dakota Republicans likely view me as someone to the left of Karl Marx.) In the world Democrats see, I'm too far to the right to be considered a reliable voter.

Second, an angry moral certitude dominates the current political zeitgeist, The following Tom Nichols tweet sums it up pretty well.

Many conservatives, when it came to things like gay rights, used to say: "You have tolerance and acceptance, you cannot ask us for enthusiastic support." But when it comes to gun culture, they're snowflakes who'd make you bake a Glock-shaped cake if they could figure out how. https://t.co/7ypC43muwo

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) December 31, 2019

Nichols, in fewer than 280 characters,  illustrates how the political focus has moved from asking how can one work to ensure liberty for all to asking how can one stop others from exercising freedom in ways that one dislikes.

Both the chart and Nichols's tweet illustrate another problem: our current political vocabulary is inadequate to the task.

The chart shows that words like centrist have no real meaning. If one is in the center of American politics, one is farther to the right than many voters in the rest of the world and farther than Republicans were in the Reagan era.

When Nichols uses the term "conservative," he is referring to Trumpists who are not conservatives; they are populists far removed from the tradition of Hayek or Buckley. Populists in the Trumpian tradition are much more driven by the emotion of the moment than any conservative principle.

A widening gap, hubristic moral certitude, and a political vocabulary that is woefully inadequate for the current situation does not lead me to think optimistically.

2020 Predictions

I am happy 2019 is over, but I doubt 2020 will be a better year politically. Many, if not all of these, are pretty safe predictions. (I will try to avoid all 20/20 vision or 20/20 hindsight puns.)

1. The Noem administration and the Republican legislature will place a priority on social issues and work diligently to avoid finding ways to fund roads, bridges, nursing homes, or schools.

2. Noem will continue to resist industrial hemp. The legislature will not override her veto of any industrial hemp legislation that they pass.

3. The legislature will discover a mythical liberal enclave in South Dakota that has allegedly limited the rights of a Trumpist. They will pass another Republican version of rights for me but not for thee to prevent said imaginary violation from occurring again.

4. Mike Rounds and Dusty Johnson will both be re-elected. Their eventual Democratic opponents will each get less than 25% of the vote.

5. Democrats will lose 2 seats in the state legislature.

6. There will eventually be an impeachment trial in the Senate, and Trump will remain in office.

7. Democrats will not nominate Bernie Sanders. Their national convention will be marred by protests.

8. Trump will lose the popular vote but win a second term.

9. In December, Republicans will rediscover the deficit after four years of profligate spending and begin to work diligently to dismantle the social safety net programs that remain.

10. The results of the 2020 census will be challenged in court in at least 5 states.