Present at the Deconstruction

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Red America vs. Blue America

"An irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces" — that's how U.S. Sen. William Seward of New York described the rising strife and mounting enmity between the North and South in 1858, three years before the start of the Civil War.

It's also a pretty fair description of the relationship between California and the Trump administration today. In the growing war between blue and red America, this is the battlefield that is and will remain the most active front.

No mystery attends California's status as the GOP's nightmare-***-punching-bag. It is among the most Democratic states in the union; it is second only to Hawaii in the percentage of voters casting ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016. It is also — again, just behind Hawaii — among the most multiracial of states. Non-Hispanic whites, at just 38% of the population, no longer even constitute a plurality in California. The state's white working class, the core of Trump's base, is, in percentage terms, among the smallest in the nation.

Quite unlike Hawaii, however, California is by far the nation's most populous state. That has allowed it to become a rival power center to Trump's Washington, and it just keeps enacting policies on immigrants, the environment, taxing and spending from which other Democratic states take their lead. It's also opposing the president's diktats in court. As of last week, the New York Times counted 29 lawsuits filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra against the federal government, challenging Trump's attempts to restrict voting rights, bar refugees from Muslim countries, build a wall on the Mexican border, remove legal protections for "Dreamers," diminish the tally of immigrants in the Census, penalize sanctuary cities …

The list goes on and on. And it shows that, as in 1858, the California-Trump conflict is rooted in irreconcilable perspectives on the status of certain human beings. Trump has led the Republicans to openly embrace white identity politics (or, less euphemistically, white racism) toward which the GOP has been drifting for decades anyway. This was bound to repel a state as racially diverse as California and a party as racially diverse as the Democrats. (A Pew poll from last month showed that just 59% of Democrats were white, as against 83% of Republicans.) In Trump's Washington, but also in Republican-controlled statehouses around the nation, the governing GOP coalitions feed (and feed on) their rank-and-file's belief that whites are embattled, evangelical Christians particularly so. The way to preserve their values and livelihoods is by suppressing the interests and votes of minority groups.

Limiting minority votes requires shutting off immigration, which in turn requires some fallacious justifications. In the world according to Trump and his supporters — who disproportionately live far from any concentrations of immigrants — those immigrants cause crime. California, a real world with millions of immigrants (documented and not), knows otherwise. It saw the rates of crime undeniably plummet as the number of its immigrants soared.

Racism and xenophobia, then, lie at the heart of this irrepressible conflict, but it has other sources as well. As Ronald Brownstein has noted, "Trump won 13 of the 16 states that produce the most natural gas, 11 of the 15 that produce the most coal, 16 of the 20 that produce the most oil." California, where people moved for the weather only to find smog, has not only led the nation in formulating the strictest air-pollution and auto-emission standards, but has an economy increasingly centered on largely nonpolluting (albeit worryingly monopolistic) high-tech companies. The Trump Administration's first shots in this skirmish were to abandon rules against leaky oil and gas wells. Then it expanded offshore oil drilling. This month the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would roll back the state's auto emission standards, which the Obama administration had adopted nationally.

The auto industry isn't looking forward to years of litigation during which it may have to build parallel fleets of cars — one that meets the emission standards set by California and the 12 other states that adhere to them, and another that adheres to the laxer standards of the Trump administration. That explains why carmakers may yet help broker a deal between Sacramento and Washington.

But on the other California-Trump lawsuits, no third party has enough power to force a compromise anytime soon. And the gap between those who are comfortable in a more egalitarian multi-racial nation and those who insist on preserving the nation's historic white hegemony — chiefly Fox-fed whites in economically abandoned regions — isn't going to close.

Watching the North grow more populous in the years before the Civil War, the South tried furiously to retain its hold on federal power by expanding the number of slave states. Watching today's America grow more racially diverse, more secular, more feminist — in a word, more Californian Republicans are trying their own version of that move. They are trying furiously to retain power by rigging the census, suppressing voting, preserving gerrymandered districts, and halting immigration. They have a sufficient electoral base in enough states to keep this fight going for a long time. The weight of demographics — assuming we stay a democracy — will eventually defeat them. But until then, the conflict will remain irrepressible.







 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The article is a year and a half old, but just as relevant today if not more so.


6 Reasons Why A New Civil War Is Possible And Terrifying

Over the last few weeks a growing number of people have started wondering, "Is it possible the United States is heading for a new civil war?"
. . . .
Every time I wanted to dismiss those headlines I thought about my visit to Ukraine last year, to cover their ongoing civil war. The most common sentence I heard was, "It's like a bad dream." Up to the minute the shooting started, almost no one thought civil war was a serious possibility.

So instead of waking up one day and screaming, "Holy [redacted], I can't believe I didn't take this possibility seriously," I decided to take the possibility seriously. I talked to David Kilcullen, former Chief Strategist in the State Department's Office of the Coordinator of Counterterrorism. He helped plan the successful "surge" in Iraq, and he's seen a lot of civil wars in his time. He didn't consider a new U.S. civil war likely ... but he was also pretty damn far from ruling it out: "I think what we're seeing now is, what I would describe as a proto-insurgency situation ... the ingredients are out there, if somebody knew what they were doing, [they could] pull together an effective movement."

So in the unlikely (but possible) event the U.S. broke out in a new civil war, what would it look like? I rounded up every civilian and military expert I could find and asked them that question. To my surprise, they all got back to me, and with the terrifying thought of me now definitely being on a U.S. terrorist watch list for doing this research, I learned ...

6. The Beginning Looks A Lot Like Where We Are Right Now

Since 1972, the General Social Survey has collected data on how many Americans think "most people can be trusted." A guy named Josh Morgan graphed it, and while the south has always taken a more "we don't like your kind 'round here" position, most of America started the 70s in a pretty good place:

582049_v3.jpg


Now fast-forward to 2012:

582032_v3.jpg



"Trust" isn't just an intangible concept when we're talking about the potential for civil warfare. Sinisa Malesevic is a professor who studies the sociology of civil wars and a survivor of the Yugoslavian civil war. He's someone Marvel really should've reached out to for script advice, and he noted the breakdown of trust was one of the first traumatizing steps to war, "... in a very short period of time, there is a complete sense of fear, you do not know who is who, who is supporting which side ... that fear spreads."

Sinisa also pointed out that most civil wars start after a loss of trust in the government, particularly law enforcement: "One of the defining features of any state is a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence." In other words, if we trust the police to handle bad guys better than armed groups of vigilantes, we'll probably trust the government more than armed groups of insurgents.

"And if police are not seen as doing their job ... I think that certainly has an impact."​


So... what has Trump been trying to do? Undermine our law enforcement: the FBI, OSC, the DOJ.

He's accomplished his goal: casting doubt on the results of the Mueller investigation.

Could a civil war happen again? Even if doubtful, it's possible, considering the current polarity in this country. The mutual lack of trust from either side. I keep coming back to "It's like a bad dream. Up to the minute the shooting started, almost no one thought civil war was a serious possibility."



The rest of the countdown is at the link.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Trump's Rage Junkies

It is truly a confounding time to be alive, to be an American.

We are watching as a president of the United States openly lies, fabricates and exaggerates while two-fifths of the population cheers him for it.

He spurns our allies and embraces our adversaries and people shrug.

He, his congressional allies and his propaganda arm are waging open warfare on the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an effort to tarnish it before its inquiry into connections between the Trump campaign, family and associates and Russia can be made public.

He is a racist who disparages black and brown people, whether they be immigrants, Muslims, people from Haiti and Africa, Barack Obama, the mayor of San Juan or Maxine Waters. People equivocate about it and excuse it.

He is attacking the press in the most aggressive of terms so that what they reveal about him will be viewed with skepticism.

He is attempting to weaken our institutions, our protocols and conventions, our faith in the truth, our sense of honor and our respect for the rule of law.

And somehow, many Americans, even those disgusted by what they see, have resigned themselves to this new reality.

In fact, Trump’s poll numbers had been inching up before he created a humanitarian disaster at the border by separating children from their parents.

I guess this is how empires begin to fall. It isn’t necessarily one dramatic moment, but the incessant monotony of assaults on normalcy that slowly shift the ground beneath you, reorienting what is proper and preferable, what is outrageous and what is acceptable.

Every day in the Trump era one could start a sentence with “never before …” and end it in astonishment and exclamation. But that has a cumulative effect of erosion. The constancy of the individual outrages reduces the psychic significance of the collective.

Trump is exhausting our mental capacity for indignation. This does not help Trump in the eyes of most Americans, to be sure. The Resistance remains strong and will likely have an impressive showing in the November elections.

But, along the margins, where both support for Trump and objections to him are soft, his tactics may have greater impact.

Not to mention the fact that those tactics keep his base riled and ready. Trump is like a drug dealer who has addicted his followers to fear and rage and keeps supplying it in constant doses. His supporters have become rage-junkies for whom he can do no wrong.

Let’s be clear about the demographics of this base: While the overwhelming majority of blacks and Hispanics have an unfavorable view of Trump, just as many white people have a favorable view of him as have an unfavorable view of him, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll conducted last month.

Part of that is undoubtedly due to the increasingly racialized nature of our partisanship, but it is also because Trump has positioned himself as a white power president.

One of the things that his supporters like is the very thing that others detest: His unapologetic, unabashed crusade to fight off all efforts at racial and ethnic inclusion. They may not articulate it as such, but that is the nature of Trump’s policies: Promising to build a wall, disparaging Mexicans, separating immigrant families, the Muslim ban, decreasing even legal migration, denigrating protesting football players.

Trump has vented an American racial anxiety, giving it power and a perch, giving it permission to be vocal and even violent.

Indeed, these are all parts of what fuels opposition to Trump.

The Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked people who disapprove of Trump to put in their own words why they don’t support him. These were some of their top responses:

• Liar/Dishonest/Corrupt: 12 percent.
• Doing a poor job: 9 percent.
• The way he treats people/Bully/***/Jerk/Disrespectful: 8 percent.
• Disagree with his views/stand on issues: 8 percent.
• Lack of morals/Not a good person/Poor character: 7 percent
• Racist/Hate: 6 percent.

But no amount of moralizing from Trump’s opposition will affect the fervor of his supporters. Quite the opposite: Nothing quickens the pulse and induces the delight of conservatives more than the consternation of liberals. They would let the whole country collapse for the pleasure of spite.

And this is where we are now: at a standoff. The Trump apparatus is entrenched, and each day burrows ever deeper into the core of what made America greater, better, different: its slow but steady arc toward more inclusion, equality, openness. Only two things seem capable of offering relief: The elections this year and in 2020, or something damning from the Russian meddling investigation.

Last week, an exasperated Representative Trey Gowdy lashed out at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, saying, “Whatever you got, finish it the hell up, because this country is being torn apart.”

But that’s like blaming the doctor for your illness. The investigators aren’t tearing the country apart. They are trying to protect and save it.

Trump and his defense machine — including members of Congress — are tearing it apart.

Trump-addicted acolytes are tearing it apart.





 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
The United States of America is going nowhere. Nothing's going to cause the FBI to suddenly cease to exist, and even if it does, NOTHING is going to cause the Judicial branch to suddenly cease to exist, nor the Executive, nor Legislative branches neither. I think concern for this ending in dictatorship is as believable today, as it was previously when those vehemently opposed to President Obama made the same predictions, and provided plenty of dire examples to prove their point and make their case also. Even corruption in the FBI or the Presidency isn't fatal, we know that from experience, and recent experience at that (<<100 years ago!).

The only threat that Americans should be thinking of is a nuclear strike. If ANY country detonates one of these near a city, the . . . the word escapes me. It's like carnage, bodies, blood, devastation, megadeath, horror, nausea, shock, and abject stupidity all rolled up into one word, and I can't think of it.

Or, the risk of an asteroid or other bolide impact. But not that we're going to lose our republic, that's not happening, that's because of the balance of power between and among the three branches. It's been a very robust thing, our federal government. It even---not just survived a major secession---it got everyone back, too. It's stronger now than it's ever been, and even though we elect chief executives of the Executive branch that make half of us worry about what's happening to us as Americans, in my judgment, we are ready to start another annexation campaign, because of the robustness of the Constitution. Our founders were clever as all get out.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass

"Act Like This is a War"

A conversation with Eve Ettinger about the threat of Christian fundamentalism and life as an "exvangelical"

When reporting on religious extremism in this country for the past few years, I’ve gotten invaluable guidance from a community that calls itself, quite simply, the “exvangelicals”—people who have left fundamentalist Christianity, for various reasons, and at various stages of life. They have a unique perspective on the religious far right, having once been ensconced in it, and now, often, standing in direct opposition to its goals. They’re also uniquely suited, right now, to offer insight into the apocalyptic political situation we find ourselves in—rights gutted in the name of God.
The biggest thing that I feel like I can see because of my upbringing that other progressive folks don’t see is the organizing tactics and systems of the religious right and how they work. Kieryn Darkwater and I talk about this all the time on “Kitchen Table Cult,” and I’ve written some about it elsewhere, but the gist is that the mainstream left kind of sucks at coalition building and direct action and needs to stop assuming that the Republicans can be embarrassed into behaving graciously or playing nice. They’re not going to collaborate and the sooner we act like this is a war (because that’s how they talk about it and see it), the more we’ll be able to get done.​
Interesting interview with an exvangical. Not the first I've read, but like others, it rings very true. I don't agree with everything, don't have to; the overall underlying structure is sound. I grew up in an environment quite similar to hers, and to other accounts I've read. I went to Christian schools, and while I grew up in a very different theology, my upbringing was guided by the same fundamentalist approach to it. And, as she says in the interview: "Everything was political, even if we weren’t aware of it at the time." I can see that now, but it took so many years. TOL was instrumental in that realization.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
When I talk about the influence of fundamentalism on the right, I always have to bring it back to explaining various systems of eschatology and various practices of interpreting the Bible. How a fundamentalist Christian is going to behave politically is often motivated and informed by these two things. Do they believe that their scriptures are the literal word of God, to be taken out of context and applied willy-nilly wherever they see fit because they believe that God speaks to them directly about how to interpret various passages? That’s gonna inform everything about how they interact with the world. Do they believe that the U.S. is a nation under a new covenant with God and that Jesus’s return is dependent on the U.S. being a Christian nation? That’s gonna affect everything, too.

These things constitute what’s called Christian Dominionism—the belief that (1) the U.S. is somehow chosen by God to bring about the return of Christ for the salvation/end of the world, which means that (2) American Christians have an urgent moral obligation to “restore” the U.S. to Christian values/teachings and bring our laws in line with Christian moral edicts, and (3) when they have done so, Christ will return and the world will end and Christians who brought this about will be richly rewarded in eternity. I’m oversimplifying, of course, but that’s the essence of it. It’s often more extreme than even this sounds—there have been Christian dominionists who are on the fringe of this (called Reconstructionists) who believe in instituting “Biblical” laws along the lines of stoning disobedient sons. Understanding the extent to which a fundamentalist Christian believes which things about reading the Bible and the end times can really clarify how extreme they’re willing to get with imposing their faith and particular beliefs on the rest of the community, how racist they’re gonna be, how misogynist, how they’ll treat children’s rights, and more.



Something I came to realize with the right's understanding of 'rugged individualism' is how non-individual it is.

In actuality, what they mean by rugged individualism is "this is how I'm going to live my life - and this is how you're going to live your life too."
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
"...this is how I'm going to live my life - and this is how you're going to live your life too."
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk-show host, he switches channels. If a liberal doesn't like a talk-show host, he demands that host be shut down or cancelled.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or the name of Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it or chooses a job that provides it. If a liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his health care.

In other words, a liberal believes, "This is how I'm going to live my life - and this is how you're going to live your life too."
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk-show host, he switches channels. If a liberal doesn't like a talk-show host, he demands that host be shut down or cancelled.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or the name of Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it or chooses a job that provides it. If a liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his health care.

In other words, a liberal believes, "This is how I'm going to live my life - and this is how you're going to live your life too."
Anna's lack of self awareness with regards to her hypocrisy always amazes me
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk-show host, he switches channels. If a liberal doesn't like a talk-show host, he demands that host be shut down or cancelled.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or the name of Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it or chooses a job that provides it. If a liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his health care.

In other words, a liberal believes, "This is how I'm going to live my life - and this is how you're going to live your life too."

That list is too cartoonish to consider seriously.
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk-show host, he switches channels. If a liberal doesn't like a talk-show host, he demands that host be shut down or cancelled.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or the name of Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it or chooses a job that provides it. If a liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his health care.

In other words, a liberal believes, "This is how I'm going to live my life - and this is how you're going to live your life too."
Funny, I could have sworn that there's those on the far right who want a theocracy that would enforce all citizens to be subjugated under a set of religious laws.

As to the rest of your list, it's as anna said - too cartoonish to be taken seriously.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
First port of call for utter insanity and out there-ness: The North American religious far right...

Yeah. It's something, all right. 😐 But in recent years, there's been a line drawn between some European far right figures and ideas, like Hungary's Orbán. Tucker Carlson and CPAC are all enamored:


 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Funny, I could have sworn that there's those on the far right who want a theocracy that would enforce all citizens to be subjugated under a set of religious laws.
Every law is an enforcement of someone's view of morality imposed on everyone else. Even speed limit laws. A posted speed limit of 25mph in a school zone exists because someone thinks it is immoral to drive faster than that in a school zone.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Every law is an enforcement of someone's view of morality imposed on everyone else. Even speed limit laws. A posted speed limit of 25mph in a school zone exists because someone thinks it is immoral to drive faster than that in a school zone.
Speed limit laws are designed to make it safer for motorists and pedestrians alike and generally make sense. Having slower speed limits in school districts is sensible for what should be obvious reasons. It's been shown that a child being hit by a car travelling at 20mph has a significantly higher chance of surviving impact than 30mph.

Hardly the same as the far religious right advocating that the whole of society be held to their zealous ideal of what the law should be. You mentioned that conservatives who don't believe in God don't go to church and that liberals demand that God not be mentioned etc. Total garbage of course but some of your brethren would have everyone forced into a theocracy regardless of anyone's belief.
 
Top