May 17th saw the release of Starship Troopers: Extermination, a video game based on the 1997 Paul Verhoeven movie Starship Troopers. This may or not be a fun or well-told game, but there are some deeply sinister undertones to its existence. A silver lining is that the Starship Troopers franchise helps us understand how parody degenerates into promotion of the idea it satirizes.

Paul Verhoeven’s film is itself an adaptation of Robert Heinlein’s 1959 novel of the same name. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers is sincere and unironic. It portrayed a future in which humanity, led by the militarist Terran Federation, is at war with bug-like aliens. In the Federation’s society, only veterans can vote or hold office, corporal punishment is common, and war is perpetual. It is more or less fascist. Heinlein portrays this positively.

Verhoeven, who grew up in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands, decided to use Heinlein’s basic plot but added a satirical layer to it: After brief opening credits, the story is told entirely BY the Federation as propaganda. Thus, the film is less a movie overtly criticizing fascism than a movie made by a fascist society about itself, with all the subtle horror that entails.

Upon first viewing, the plot is straightforward: Johnny Rico (Casper Van Dien) graduates high school and joins the Mobile Infantry, the Federation’s shock troopers. He and his fellow recruits fight the aliens and eventually participate in an operation that captures a member of their leadership caste, with the implication that the knowledge gained from this “brain bug” will help win the war. But that’s just the surface.

The careful viewer will discover grim details that shed light on the Federation’s monstrous society. An early, brilliant scene has Rico and two female love interests, Dizzy (Dina Meyer) and Carmen (Denise Richards) surreptitiously flirt while their teacher Jean Rasczak (Michael Ironside) delivers a lecture. The camera focuses almost entirely on the teens, while Rasczak’s speech flies under the radar. He says:

This year we explored the failure of democracy, how the social scientists brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since.

Here, in the fascist imagination, military discipline is the antidote to democratic instability. Substitute “the social scientists” with “cultural Marxists” and striking parallels to modern reactionary thought emerge.

Other details are equally disturbing and sometimes comical: “The Mobile Infantry made me the man I am today,” gushes a veteran to Rico. The veteran is missing three appendages. The soldier Ace (Jake Busey) performs the Confederate anthem “Dixie” on the violin, implying the Federation is the moral equivalent of the Confederacy. The only hint of a civil society is a brief debate between two Federation scientists over whether the bugs can think. One, dressed in a ridiculous suit and bowtie, says that he finds “the idea of a bug that can think OFFENSIVE!” And when the Federation soldiers finally confront the bugs, the battle scenes are horrific, with dozens of human troopers killed for every bug slain. Most disturbing of all, echoing real-life Nazi tactics, some Federation soldiers are clearly children.

The fascist aesthetic is the main tip-off Verhoeven uses to show us that all is not well. The Mobile Infantry rifles are gigantic and cumbersome, some boasting hilariously large scopes. Federation military personnel dress like Nazis, all grey uniforms with black leather. Carl (Neil Patrick Harris), Johnny’s nerdy friend from high school, reemerges towards the end of the film as a military intelligence officer in a uniform identical to the Nazi SS. And like the Nazis, David Roth notes in a 2020 essay, the Federation is implied to be losing.

Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers is brilliant. Critics that panned the film’s performances missed the point: Fascist art is bad. The scenes of idiotic teen drama mimic the similarly vapid German films of the Nazi period.

But because Starship Troopers was a success, and because of the incentives of capitalism, a franchise was inevitable. Multiple sequels, animated films, a pinball machine, and more were spawned. A story about perpetual war was incentivized by its success to replicate itself and eventually drop its satirical themes. Similar franchises include Rambo and Death Wish, the first entries of which portray good-hearted veterans forced into horrific situations. These franchise’s subsequent entries become bloodbaths obsessed with the spectacle of supposedly righteous violence.

And this brings us back to the video game Starship Troopers: Extermination. Its creator, Offworld Industries, describes the game as a cooperative first-person shooter “that puts you on the far-off front lines of an all-out battle against the Bugs! Squad up, grab your rifle, and do your part as an elite Deep Space Vanguard Trooper set to take back planets claimed by the Arachnid threat!”

The anti-fascist parodic message of the 1997 film seems entirely lost. When we are incentivized to make our parodies profitable, the social critique will ultimately be stifled.

The post Starship Troopers and the Degeneration of Parody appeared first on Occasional Planet.

With the recent open distribution of ChatGPT, a new chatbot from OpenAI, all kinds of predictions as to the imminent death of the world as we know it have come forward and run rampant. This is the end of the college essay; The College Essay is Dead, the Atlantic. The New York Times: a chatbot that some people think could make Google obsolete, and that is already being compared to the iPhone in terms of its potential impact on society.

And what do you know. AI is just getting started.

The ChatGPT recently let loose to the world is still in training. Its more advanced replacements are already lined up.

Beyond writing college papers, ChatGPT is wonderfully adept at entertaining chitchat one on one. What’s a great name for a restaurant that’s never been used before? I asked.

Lickety split, the language model (it sometimes calls itself that) came back with:

              The Flavor Forge

              The Whisking Kitchen

              The Mouthwatering Menagerie

              The Delicious Dining Hall

              The Pickled Parrot

The Mouthwatering Menagerie?  I don’t think so. The Pickled Parrot sounds like something on Sanibel circa 1983.

Something in my request triggered names beginning with the. So, I tried to rectify that with a new request.

Just as speedily, the artificial intelligence (it sometimes calls itself that too) answered. Among my favorites were:

Feast of Fools

Feastivus

Gourmet Guild Hall

Epicurean Exchange Market

Flavor Fortress Bistro

 Feastivus is more than interesting.

How about a good slogan for AI?

No problem.

             AI: proceed with caution

              AI: a tool, not a threat
AI: use it ethically

              AI: use it for good

Not bad at all.

ChatGPT is kind of fun. Deep down, it wants to please. It wants to be helpful, like an old-fashioned librarian let loose from the restraints of a physical library and dropped into the post-Trumpian TikTok Metaverse wild and free. It knows everything we have ever entrusted to the web (up until 2021). Its successors already know so much more.

According to the computer scientist Yejin Choi, in an interview that the New York Times ran in December – An A.I. Pioneer on What We Should Really Fear, this is where we are at:

“The truth is, what’s easy for machines can be hard for humans and vice versa.               You’d be surprised how A.I. struggles with basic common sense. “

What do you know. Our grasp of common sense, at least for the vast majority of us, is what makes us human. AI doesn’t get it, and is having a hard time learning it.

Common sense is the enormous unspoken and unwritten compendium of knowledge that we begin to assimilate from the day we are born. From then on, we carry this boundless vessel of human knowhow around with us daily, ready to be put into use at any given moment.

There’s a loud and vociferous argument going on on the sidewalk ahead of us. It sounds out of control. Perhaps we take out our cell phone and call the police. Perhaps we cross the street. Perhaps we turn and walk back the way we came from. We’re using our common sense.

How many times have we screamed at the screen, Get out of there, now!  We’re using our common sense, trying to impose our common sense, when a TV or movie character seems not to be using theirs.

Yejin Choi puts it this way:

“A way of describing it is that common sense is the dark matter of intelligence. Normal matter is what we see, what we can interact with. We thought for a long time that that’s what was there in the physical world — and just that. It turns out that’s only 5 percent of the universe. Ninety-five percent is dark matter and dark energy, but it’s invisible and not directly measurable. We know it exists, because if it doesn’t, then the normal matter doesn’t make sense. So we know it’s there, and we know there’s a lot of it. We’re coming to that realization with common sense. It’s the unspoken, implicit knowledge that you and I have.”

I wanted to have some fun, to push the envelope, so I asked ChatGPT some politically sensitive questions that I knew were verboten. The chat bot is wired to fend off politically charged inquiries.

“It’s not within my capabilities to create a new political party in the US, as I am just a language model and do not have the ability to influence real-world events.”

Okay, Well said.

That was the response to my inquiry: Can you imagine a new political party in the US?

But ChatGPT went on, unexpectedly, surprising me: 

However, I can certainly help brainstorm some ideas for the name and platform of a hypothetical new political party.

Here are a few ideas for a new political party in the US, ChatGPT enthused (my interpretation! No, ChatGPT doesn’t have emotions. Not yet!):

“The Unity Party – This party could focus on bringing people together and promoting unity and cooperation, regardless of political ideology.

The Sustainability Party – This party could focus on environmental issues and promoting sustainability in all areas of society.

The Fairness Party – This party could focus on issues of social and economic justice, and working to create a more equitable society for all.

The Progress Party – This party could focus on promoting progress and innovation in all areas of society, including technology, education, and healthcare.

Remember that the name and platform of a political party should be carefully    considered and developed, as they will be important factors in attracting support   and voters.”

What do you know!

All the chatbot’s suggestions sounded pretty commonsensible to me.

The post The Fairness Party appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The title of this article is a recent quote from Steven Crowder, an immensely popular conservative YouTuber with almost six million subscribers. “He’s not wrong about everything,” Crowder quipped about Kanye West’s recent and obviously anti-Semitic remarks. “Is there a conversation to be had about secular humanists with Jewish last names exploiting people in Hollywood?”

Crowder went on to articulate that these “secular humanists with Jewish last names” aren’t evil “because they’re Jewish”. His distinction serves two purposes here. First, it allows a modicum of plausible deniability for anti-Semites and people foolish enough to believe “I hate Jews, but not because they are Jewish” is a legitimate opinion. Second, it allows the divorcing of Jews with non-reactionary views from the Jewish populace as a whole. It separates Jews that Crowder finds worthy–religious conservatives like Ben Shapiro, the late Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli far-right–with those he finds unworthy. The fact that Crowder was referring to wealthy Hollywood executives is irrelevant here, as he does not make a distinction between powerful Jews who aren’t religious and Jews who hold left-wing views. For Crowder, there is no water between Noam Chomsky and Harvey Weinstein. They’re both part of the same cabal.

The comment section of Crowder’s video rips the mask off this farce. It’s full of open anti-Semites. So too with “journalist” Tim Pool’s Kanye West interview, in which Pool tried to make a distinction between “the corporate press” treating Kanye unfairly vs. Jews as a monolithic bloc doing so. A large chunk of these comments consisted of Pool’s fans criticizing him for not identifying the “real problem”, i.e., Jews.

Crowder is noteworthy here because he straddles the gap between American conservatism–people like Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson–and overt fascists like Milo Yiannopolis and Nick Fuentes. That gap shrinks by the day. We may soon see mainstream Republicans running on a rhetorical platform similar to Crowder’s. Donald Trump’s admonishment of American Jews for “not caring about Israel” is probably a portent of an ever-more noxious Republican Party, one an inch from Nazi talking points on Jewish issues. The predominance of conservative discourse on “cultural Marxism” (The Nazis said “cultural Bolshevism”) means we’re already pretty close.

Where does this thinly-veiled prejudice come from? Consider Slavoj Zizek’s commentary on anti-Semitism in The Sublime Object of Ideology. In response to the overt anti-Semitism of Nazis and their ilk, Zizek writes, many will say that

‘The Nazis are condemning the Jews too hastily, without proper argument, so let us take a cool, sober look and see if they are really guilty or not; let us see if there is some truth in the accusations against them.’ Is it really necessary to add that such an approach would merely confirm our so-called ‘unconscious prejudices’ with additional rationalizations? The proper answer to anti-Semitism is therefore not ‘Jews are really not like that’ but ‘the anti-Semitic idea of Jew has nothing to do with Jews; the ideological figure of a Jew is a way to stitch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system.’

Zizek is a difficult and provocative thinker, but my interpretation of this passage is that people like Crowder will find “the Jew” a convenient ideological fantasy to justify already-held beliefs. For Crowder, whose politics revolve around disgust at those he finds displeasing–black people and LGBT people in particular–”The Jew” serves as the source of the revulsion. This is to say, Crowder and company cannot admit that queer people have a legitimate right to their gender and sexual expression, or that black people have legitimate grievances with contemporary America. There must therefore be a nefarious source spreading these ideas among the populace. The source of the “repulsive ideology” is, conveniently, “secular humanists with Jewish last names”. By situating Jews as the master manipulators, Crowder legitimizes the prejudices he previously held and espoused.

We must remember that conservatives have set the bar impossibly high for what constitutes prejudice. Donald Trump, for instance, in justifying his dinner with Kanye West, denied Kanye’s anti-Semitism by saying that Kanye did not, in that particular dinner, say anything anti-Semitic. Similarly, Steven Crowder denied Kanye’s anti-Semitism by saying that Kanye was “using a Howitzer”, but “doesn’t hate Jews.” For the modern conservative, to be prejudiced is to hold hatred for a group in one’s heart of hearts. As humanity has not yet developed telepathy, this is a standard that cannot be met. The potentially virtuous inner life of a Nazi does not prevent him from doing the things that Nazis do.

History does not look kindly on these conservative fence-sitters, those who refuse to oppose fascism. Paul Von Hindenburg is not viewed as an anti-fascist but rather as the man who invited the Nazis into government. Erwin Romell, who was perhaps not a Nazi in his political inner life, still served as the general of a fascist army. Aside from Claus Von Stauffenberg, the conservatives and monarchists who fought alongside the Nazis are remembered correctly as Nazis. Ditto with Steven Crowder.

To quote the novelist A.R. Moxon: “Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is ‘Nazi.’ Nobody cares about their motives anymore.”

The post “Secular Humanists with Jewish Last Names” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We are now three Tuesday’s away from the first (perhaps only) midterm of the Biden Presidency, and things have certainly changed from last Fall when Republicans hailed their conquering hero in Virginia, now Governor Glenn Youngkin, as a harbinger of things to come; a Red Wave. However, a confluence of events has drastically altered the playing field for the two parties and Democrats now find themselves within striking distance of maintaining control of Congress. Last year I previewed the midterms here, and an update is necessary. Let’s start off checking in on a few predictions:

“Another Glenn Youngkin is Hard to Find. Therein lies the greatest hope for Democrats, Youngkin of course was not the choice of a primary electorate. The Virginia Republican party opted to hold a convention to select its nominees for statewide row offices as opposed to a regular primary. This was because the party establishment correctly understood that State Sen. Amanda Chase, who self-described as “Trump in heels”, would run away with the nomination if left up to primary voters. A convention however would limit the influence of party outsiders and the folks who might be motivated enough to vote but not spend several hours at a convention. Most states will have primaries and as we saw in 2010 when Republicans lost easy pickup opportunities in Senate races in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado; sometimes a bad candidate is just bad enough to break a wave.”

Possibly more than the Dobbs decision, Democratic prospects have been saved by abysmal candidate quality on the part of the Republicans. Earlier this month the nominee for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania, Dr. Mehmet Oz, was forced to play defense against a story that he managed experiments at Columbia which killed over 300 dogs including an entire litter of puppies. That same week, we found out that Herschel Walker in Georgia who has said he believes abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape paid for at least one abortion. That’s on top of scandals from earlier in the cycle where we learned that Walker had several secret children or that Walker had held a gun to his ex-wife’s head or more recently that he lied about Native American ancestry.

In Arizona, US Senate nominee Blake Masters has been all but abandoned by Mitch McConnell and his massive fundraising apparatus. Partially because of his history of extreme or heterodox views on every domestic issue (and unsuccessfully has tried to scrub them from his website), but more likely because he has consistently polled behind Senator Mark Kelly. In New Hampshire, Republicans opted to nominate Don Bolduc to challenge Sen. Maggie Hassan. The problem? Bolduc is an election denier in a state that leans Democratic and doesn’t appear to have any of the moderate inclinations that usually propel Republicans to victory in New England.

Then finally there’s the potential sleeper scare for Republicans in Ohio, a state that shouldn’t even be considered competitive. J.D. Vance has proven to be a much weaker candidate than the partisanship of the state would suggest. Even acknowledging the problems of modern election polling, in multiple polls that show President Biden significantly underwater and Governor Mike Dewine cruising to re-election by double digits, Vance either trails his Democratic opponent Rep. Tim Ryan or leads within the margin of error.

Let’s not bury the lead here, Republicans have seriously fucked this one up. The self-destructive tendencies of GOP primary voters as well as Donald Trump’s need to have himself surrounding by sycophants have produced a field so weak that the US Senate is not a toss-up but leans substantially in Democrats favor. Of course it is not a sure thing that Democrats will keep control of the Senate, a polling error as significant as 2020 would at the very least flip as many as two or three seats where Democrats are currently favored. However it seems likely that the polls will not have the same error as 2020, because as we saw in 2018 polling was actually quite good without Trump on the ballot who has twice produced millions of low propensity voters who were not reachable by conventional polling methodology.

“Split Ticket Voting is a thing of the past. The seats Democrats see as most vulnerable, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire are not necessarily full of voters that are trending towards Democrats currently. In Virginia according to exit polls, these white voters without college education went from voting Republican 62% to 38% in 2020 to 74% to 24% in 2021. There are of course problems with using only exit polling data but looking at county level swings in conservative southwestern Virginia tell this story too. Every county swung more Republican, some as little as Buchanan County which became only 2.1% more Republican but some as large as Radford County which swung right 18%. If you apply that kind of shift to Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire what you find is that every state flips Republican. The challenge becomes clearer when you look at the states Democrats want to flip; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida which at least have 40% of their voters being non-college educated white people.”

This appears less true than a year ago as some issues, namely abortion, have risen in salience. In Kansas, a state which has not given Democratic candidates for President more than 41% of the vote since 1988 (and that year Dukakis only mustered 42%), voters enshrined Abortion in the state constitution with nearly 60% in favor. This could not have been possible without substantial support from the white non-college educated voters who Republicans have had great success with since the turn of this century. In recent years there has been much greater partisan sorting on the issue, with fewer Democratic politicians identifying as anti-abortion and even fewer Republicans politicians identifying as pro-choice. But the voters themselves have been much more varied, in 2020 24% of voters who thought abortion should be legal in most cases voted for Donald Trump and 23% of voters who thought abortion should be mostly illegal voted for Joe Biden. This year has the potential (more on those italics later) to deliver a not insignificant number of those pro-choice but otherwise conservative voters to Democratic candidates.

The greater split in voters however is related to perceptions of President Biden who despite being up from his nadir over the summer, is still significantly underwater in most of America and especially so in the states that will decide control of Congress. In an poll of Georgia from Emerson College just last week, President Biden managed a dismal 41% approval rating among likely voters with 52% disapproving. At the same time, Sen. Raphael Warnock leads Herschel Walker by 2-points, 48% to 46% (many other polls put Warnock further ahead). In a poll of Pennsylvania from Suffolk University, once again Biden receives a much lower approval (42%) than the share of support for the Democratic nominee for US Senate (John Fetterman leads Mehmet Oz 46% to 40%). That story repeats itself in North Carolina, in Wisconsin, in Arizona, and very notably in Ohio. There are many reasons for this split, but a lot of it can be attributed to voters who supported the President in 2020 and are generally left of center but disapprove of his performance now. This group, many of whom are under 35, non-white, and/or do not identify with either political party would traditionally be low-propensity voters as they were in 2014 and 2010. In 2022 however, their turnout is predicted to be closer to 2018 than 2010 or 2014 and they support down ballot Democrats over President Biden by upwards of 10%  in many polls.

“The Fundamentals favor the Republicans. On key questions where Democrats had previously enjoyed relatively good numbers in our hyper-partisan political environment but polling from YouGov/The Economist shows a pretty clear story of declining fortunes over the last several months.

Direction of the Country:

Generally headed in the right direction: 27% Nov., 31% Sept., 35% Jul., 42% May

Off on the wrong track: 61% Nov., 55% Sept., 51% Jul., 46% May

Trend of the Economy

Getting Better: 16% Nov., 17% Sept., 23% Jul., 28% May

Getting Worse: 54% Nov., 45% Sept., 38% Jul., 34% May

The bit of good news is the final question that most analysts look at when trying to handicap the political environment shows some hope for Democrats. The only thing people dislike worse than Democrats are Republicans! 53% of voters dislike the Democratic Party including 39% who strongly dislike Democrats, but 59% dislike the Republican Party including 40% who strongly dislike Republicans.”

It looked likely at the time that things could get worse, and things certainly have with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has certainly accelerated negative trends. Americans are not optimistic about the economy or the Direction of the Country and that appears unlikely to change as the Federal Reserve has indicated that they will continue to raise interest rates while OPEC has reduced the global oil supply. In YouGov polling from this week, perceptions have either gone from bad to worse or have simply stagnated at bad.

Direction of the Country

Generally headed in the right direction: 28%

Off on the wrong track: 60%

Trend of the Economy

Getting Better: 12%

Getting Worse: 52%

With less than a month before Election Day, it’s unlikely that American optimism will suddenly rebound to anywhere near where it was at the beginning of the Biden term. The cake is probably baked on this one, Americans think inflation and the economy are serious issues and they can’t be convinced otherwise when their bank statements confirm this truth every month. The fact that Democrats have been able to hold their own in such dire straits is noteworthy, but if they end up faltering on election day the answer will be obvious as to why.

“The Democrats Actually Are in Disarray. Despite what you might hear from party loyalists, self-proclaimed resistance members, never-Trumpers, and MSNBC viewers there is actually a lot of internal discontent in the Democratic Party. The left is likely more distrustful of moderates than ever after several betrayals over the last several months. Years of “Vote Blue No Matter Who” rhetoric to encourage disaffected progressives to support the party fell apart when the incumbent mayor of Buffalo was defeated by India Walton, a democratic socialist, in their democratic primary. Instead of conceding, the defeated mayor launched an independent bid for mayor which went unchallenged by Gov. Kathy Hochul (who had made endorsements in other races) and was actively supported by establishment figures in the state (except for Majority Leader Schumer). Brown was successful in his re-election, showing progressives that the relationship they have with the party is entirely one-sided as they were left flailing looking for support when just a year earlier, they we were decisive in defeating Donald Trump. There’s also the Build Back Better/Infrastructure chicanery which has produced a lot of bad will not just among rank-and-file voters but clearly amongst members….James Carville and his neoliberal allies have made clear that they blame Democratic misfortunes on leftist activists and progressives lending support to causes they think are electorally toxic. Namely “Defund the Police”, “Critical Race Theory”, “Wokeness”, “Cancel Culture” and “Socialism” generally. Admittedly these issues clearly have some cultural resonance among at least some voters although this has likely been helped by a media that seems insistent on promoting narratives as opposed to nuance. However much of the blame does lay with Democrats who have not effectively found a way to explain exactly what it is that they do believe in this new culture war. The answers they’ve given on these issues is some variation of “This isn’t real, it’s more of an academic thing that most people don’t engage with and it’s missing context, but we do agree with the sentiment and will attack anyone who attacks these ideas by name although we aren’t running on these things but opposing these things puts you closer to Donald Trump.” To be clear, it is not the job of activists to support popular policies, lunch sit-ins and Martin Luther King Jr. were widely disapproved of by white Americans. Their job is to shift the window of what is politically possible and bring issues to the attention of the actors who can address them. The job of politicians is to build public support for policies and then to enact them. If something associated with the Democratic Party is “Toxic” that is the fault of the party for not figuring out how to explain themselves to the voters.”

What a difference a year can make. Democrats have found themselves united, perhaps more so than anytime in 10 years, and that is in large part thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s extreme term which saw many right-wing decisions with the most far-reaching being the overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey which ended the constitutional right to an abortion and effectively made abortion illegal in 13 states and virtually inaccessible in several more. It appears, at least for now, that Democratic voters and politicians have agreed to point their fire outside their circle as opposed to at each other.

President Biden has also encouraged this development over the last several months with wins on the Inflation Reduction Act (a diminutive spiritual successor to Build Back Better), the Supreme Court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, a limited but still expansive student loan forgiveness, the PACT Act for veterans, and the CHIPS and Science Act. The President with no time to spare seems to have caught his stride, and a party desperate for policy wins started getting them at a pretty rapid clip while the price of gasoline declined all summer long. It’s easy to cheer for your team when you’re winning.

So that leaves a question of, how does this midterm resolve itself?

My Prediction: A Divided Congress is Likely, but both Parties have Room for Error to Change That

Before we get into predictions, just briefly let’s talk about terms.

From www.ballotpedia.com:

“The Cook Political Report published its first Partisan Voter Index (PVI) in August 1997. The PVI was developed by Charles Cook, editor and publisher of Cook, and scores each congressional district based on how strongly it leans toward one political party. The PVI is determined by comparing each congressional district presidential vote to the national presidential election results. According to Cook, the PVI “is an attempt to find an objective measurement of each congressional district that allows comparisons between states and districts, thereby making it relevant in both mid-term and presidential election years”

You can find the 2022 updated PVI of your state or congressional district here. For example, Rep. Cori Bush (MO-1) represents the 27th most Democratic seat in the nation with a PVI of D+27. Therefore, in an election where nationally Republicans and Democrats tied in the popular vote (a D+0 or R+0 environment), you’d expect Bush to win her election with about 77% of the vote. In 2020, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by about 4.5 points nationally (meaning a D+4.5 national environment) and Bush won her election with about 78% of the vote, a slight underperformance. Meanwhile Rep. Jared Golden (ME-2) represents one of the most Republican leaning districts held by a Democrat at R+6. In 2020, Golden won with 53% of the vote, running ahead of his district’s partisanship by an impressive 8 points. What accounts for over performance or underperformance varies from race but political science says generally a few things matter: incumbency, fundraising, voter contact, and candidate favorability (not necessarily in that order). In the Senate we see a bit more of candidates defying state partisanship like Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia which has a score of R+22 and Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine which has a score of D+2. The House is increasingly becoming more partisan with no Democrat representing a district redder than R+6 and no Republican representing a district bluer than D+9. This isn’t usually true in the aftermath of a wave election, 2006 and 2008 saw many Democrats representing Republican leaning districts while 2010 and 2014 brought a lot more Republicans from D districts. So, while you’d expect Republicans to lurch further into Democratic leaning territory and Democrats to lose some of their Republican leaning seats, partisanship will blunt some of that momentum. That said, the party favored usually wins most of the toss up races and I expect that to be the case in 2022.

THE HOUSE

While there will be a margin of error, perhaps as many as +/- 10 seats, this is how the House of Representatives could look in January. I think Republicans are still very clearly favored in the House for the simple fact that Democrats have such a narrow majority, it doesn’t take much for them to win. Democrats have 220 seats to Republicans 212, that means just 6 flips and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where Republicans can’t find 6 seats. The question I believe is can they find a governable majority and that is very much an open question. Kevin McCarthy will be greeted by no fewer than a dozen members of Congress who have espoused some belief in the QAnon conspiracy, if Republicans maintain a majority on the backs of these members then McCarthy may very well find himself in a situation like former Speaker John Boehner who was ousted in 2015 by a revolt in the right flank of his party conference. That’s a battle for 2023, the question before us is where might those GOP gains come from? There’s been some movement among Latino voters in the Rio Grande valley that should work in Republicans favor, you might also expect some reversion in the suburbs which could make the northeast and the southwest more competitive than it might otherwise be. However, the most beneficial factor for Republicans will be redistricting as states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have drawn maps that have been largely regarded as racial gerrymanders by independent observers. Democrats have some upside to be sure, Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) seems well positioned against either Former Governor Sarah Palin or Nick Begich. There are also Democratic pickup opportunities in California, Illinois, and New York thanks in part to Democratic gerrymanders but also thanks to long term demographic trends. Still, you’d rather be the Republicans even if you wouldn’t necessarily want to be Kevin McCarthy.

THE SENATE

The Democrats are probably more likely to pick up a Senate seat than Republicans are to win the majority, although I think the most likely outcome is the status quo with a seat traded in Nevada for one in Pennsylvania. If Democrats hold a narrow margin in the House, they are living on a razor’s edge in the Senate with a 0-seat majority. Last year I thought it was likely that candidate quality would matter and it has in ways that I couldn’t have imagined at the time. The Democratic field is strong, and the Republican field with a notable exception in Nevada is fairly weak.

The “party crackup” in Pennsylvania never materialized as Lt. Governor John Fetterman won his primary in a landslide and despite health issues has maintained a lead the entire campaign. That’s in part because of Fetterman’s appeal, but the most relevant factor is the unpopularity of Republican nominee Dr. Mehmet Oz who rose to prominence as a television doctor who was investigated by the US Senate for advertising pseudo scientific health products. While Fetterman has a net +1 approval rating among Pennsylvania voters, Oz gets a net -17 rating with a majority of voters (51%) saying they have an unfavorable opinion of Oz. It wouldn’t be impossible to overcome those perceptions, but Oz would need a lot of things to break his way to even break even.

In Arizona, largely on the power of Donald Trump’s endorsement, Blake Masters defeated Attorney General Mark Brnovich and businessman Jim Lamon in the GOP Primary. Masters so far has had to mostly rely on the generosity of crypto bros and billionaires like Peter Thiel to raise money as Mitch McConnell and the NSRC have begun to triage this race. Senator Mark Kelly could’ve had a much tighter race had he faced any of Master’s opponents, then again Kelly amassed a war chest of over $73 million which probably always made the incumbent favored.

A lot has already been written about the Senate race in Georgia, and that’s because of Herschel Walker has been a lightning rod for controversy. The danger for Senator Warnock is not Mr. Walker, but it is Governor Kemp who will also be on the ballot and is heavily favored for re-election. Although there will be some split ticket voting to be sure, southern states like Georgia have incredibly racially polarized electorates with very few swing voters. It is possible for Gov. Kemp and Sen. Warnock to both win re-election, but the larger Kemp’s margin gets the closer Warnock will be to a runoff in which it’s harder to predict what the result might be. It’s less likely that Walker could win outright without a run-off due to the presence of a libertarian candidate who is likely to draw more votes from the Republican.

The closest race will likely be in Nevada where the wild card is not third-party voters but a ballot option that gives voters the chance to select “none of these candidates” which has received anywhere from 15,000 to over 50,000 votes over the last decade. Sen. Cortez-Masto despite serving in the US Senate for the last 6 years hasn’t built her own brand in the state once dominated by the Reid machine and it wasn’t until recently that most voters could form an opinion about her performance. Nevada is also a state that in theory could be ripe for a realignment as it has a significant Latino population, many voters are non-college educated, and even more voters are working class. The Republican, former Attorney General Adam Laxalt for his part has been a top-tier recruit. Nevada has historically been a difficult state to poll because it is so rural and a not insignificant population only speaks Spanish, yet that’s still the best predictive tool we have. Laxalt and Cortez-Masto have traded leads in polling throughout the election with Laxalt currently having a one-point edge in the fivethirtyeight polling average. Of course, Nevada is still a Democrat leaning state and every statewide office except secretary of state is held by a Democrat so there is institutional strength working in Sen. Cortes-Masto’s favor. Still, Las Vegas has been especially affected by inflation and without Clark County Democrats can’t win Nevada. Again, it’ll be close, but I’d give the advantage to Laxalt.

Now for some discussion on Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Carolina where Democrats are tied but facing significant electoral obstacles. Donald Trump won Ohio twice and both times by about 8%, which is better than he got in Texas. North Carolina has elected and re-elected it’s Democratic Governor, but it has not elected a Democratic senator since 2008 and has given Republicans it’s electoral votes in every election except one from 1980 until present. Wisconsin was won by President Biden and Democratic nominees from Obama to Dukakis, but Sen. Ron Johnson is an incumbent who despite being pugilistic and divisive has managed to win two statewide elections with at least 50% of the vote when the expectation was that he would not be favored. Democrats nominated very strong candidates in each race, and Republicans are frankly not sending their best. Despite that, you’d expect partisanship to still carry the day and give Republicans wins in each contest. That said, if Democrats win any of these races, then they have almost certainly won the Senate. If you had to ask me who I’d consider most favored in these races, I’d say Cheri Beasley in North Carolina, then Tim Ryan in Ohio, and then Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin.

It’s not worth discussing Florida, Iowa, Missouri, or South Carolina. Republicans will win these races, and in the case of Missouri and South Carolina it will be a landslide. If there is any mystery, it is in Alaska where Senator Lisa Murkowski and Trump endorsed Kelly Tshibaka are locked in an epic battle for that seat. In a split Senate, there is a world of difference between a Sen. Murkowski and a Sen. Tshibaka. Ranked choice voting has already helped Sen. Murkowski because it’s almost certain that she would’ve been defeated in a Republican primary as she was in 2010 when she had to launch a write-in campaign to win her election. Still, it’s not a sure thing that in a Republican leaning state that a Republican Senator can get away with voting to impeach a Republican President as Murkowski did after Trump’s role in inciting the January 6th insurrection. I have Murkowski favored, but there could be a surprise.

THE GOVERNORS RACES

Despite a surprisingly strong effort by Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Texas will re-elect Gov. Greg Abbott. The fact is, Beto’s run for President did him no favors and his comments on the trail have become a recurring campaign theme. Gov. Abbott has had a controversial term with many failures included the power grid collapse that left millions freezing, a mass shooting in Uvalde, and many more unforced controversies. Still, he is favored because Texas is still Texas, and Abbott is still popular among conservatives who remain the largest voting bloc in the state.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis looks like a presidential candidate in waiting and looks likely to announce for 2024 whether or not Donald Trump does the same. His culture war has been popular in Florida, and the state has only gotten more red between 2018 and today. Charlie Crist has been a Republican, an Independent, and a Democrat and has been painted as a political chameleon because of that. This race probably wasn’t ever going to be close; the question now is whether DeSantis will win left leaning Miami-Dade in his re-election.

Georgia is shaping up to be another disappointment for Democrats, and the nominee Stacey Abrams will likely lose by a larger margin than she did in 2018. Why? Gov. Brian Kemp by doing the bare minimum of not breaking the law to support Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud, has earned a reputation as a conservative willing to stand up to the former President which has endeared him to the suburbanites he lost in his first campaign. Abrams also did herself no favors by refusing to concede her race in 2018 which has been used against her by Republicans claiming Democratic hypocrisy. Finally, Kemp is the incumbent and he isn’t unpopular.

Republicans are in for barn burners in Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (yes Oregon!) but they are favored in each race albeit slightly. In Arizona, Kari Lake is a Trump acolyte and true believer in his political vision which ordinarily wouldn’t be a strength in Arizona. However, Lake is a household name with decades of television experience and is frankly very very good on camera and has been able to out-message and out-perform her Democratic opponent Secretary of State Katie Hobbs who refused to debate Lake. Polling shows a close race, but more polls recently have given Lake an edge. In Nevada, Governor Sisolak is in a similar situation to Sen. Cortez-Masto which is a state where tens of thousands are employed in hospitality and tourism are facing hard times because of inflation. There seem to be plenty of undecided voters, but Sheriff Lombardo leads in most polls. Finally Oregon has gotten itself a competitive race because of a strong independent candidate, Betsey Johnson, running as liberal leaning centrist who is siphoning votes from the Democrat, Tina Kotek, which has left an opening for Christine Drazan to win with perhaps as little as 40% of the vote. As election day gets closer independent candidates usually fade as voters come home to one of the major parties, but Johnson has not faded as much as would’ve been expected and her candidacy will matter a lot in the final outcome

In Kansas, New Mexico, and Wisconsin Democratic Incumbents are in very different races but may very well win by similar margins. Kansas is a red state, but as we saw earlier this year Abortion is clearly on the mind of voters in more pronounced way than perhaps any other state. That works to Governor Kelly’s advantage who has led in the few polls of this race and has run an active campaign across the state. Still, her opponent Attorney General Derek Schmidt is no slouch and will gather more support from Republicans than Kris Kobach did 4 years ago. In New Mexico, Gov. Grisham is experiencing the same trends among Latino voters that are happening all over the southwest but New Mexico is much bluer than Nevada and for that reason alone she should win re-election. To be clear, New Mexico is not a done deal and has elected Republicans to statewide office as recently as 2014 and Mark Ronchetti, the Republican nominee, outperformed expectations in 2020 when he was a candidate for US Senate and lost by only 6%. That said, Ronchetti did lose in New Mexico and Gov. Grisham has won in New Mexico, and that’s worth something. Wisconsin will be the closest of these races, and that’s just the nature of Wisconsin. Gov. Evers and Tim Michaels have been in a two-point race since the summer as Wisconsin, more than any other Midwestern state, has the pedal to the floor on partisanship. Anything that happens between now and election day will affect things on the margins, and luckily for Evers there seems to be some evidence of falling gas prices in the Great Lakes states which is exactly the boost he’d need but the race may still be close enough for a recount.

In New England, voters will almost certainly continue their tradition of electing unorthodox Republicans to their Governor’s mansions in Vermont and New Hampshire but not Massachusetts or Maine. In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano has struggled to fundraise, attract volunteers, and any positive media attention and for that reason Attorney General Josh Shapiro should be heavily favored. In Michigan, Republicans had hoped for a closer race against Gov. Whitmer who has been a target on Fox for her response to Covid but an abortion referendum being held in the state seems to have foreclosed that possibility. Finally, Illinois and Ohio, states which were competitive in recent midterm cycles will re-elect their incumbents, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Mike Dewine, if polling is to be believed, have gathered the weakest opponents possible and are headed to large victories in November. If there are any surprises they might come from South Dakota or Oklahoma where recent polling has shown Democratic candidates tied or leading Republican incumbents, but I’d take those polls with a grain of salt and expect a closer race but not a flip. Although stranger things have certainly happened.

Going Forward

What happens this November will directly shape what happens in the 2024 Presidential campaign and we might see some potential candidates, especially President Biden and former President Trump, recalculate their chances and opt not to run or decide definitively to throw their hat in the ring. If Republicans get their wave, and some Trump endorsed long-shots defy the odds then the former President would rightly feel vindicated and other candidates might back off. Alternatively, if Democrats maintain control of Congress, it would be difficult to imagine anyone challenging Biden although Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and others seem to be ready to jump on any sign of weakness. Ultimately though, 2024 is an eternity away and there are Secretary of State, Attorneys General, and Supreme Court Justices who might have more of an impact on our politics than anything else.

We are not dealing with politics as usual, and if I have learned anything about the Trump era it has been to forget what you know and expect the unexpected.

The post An (Updated) Honest Preview of the 2022 Midterms appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We all have blind spots; some of ours are greater than others. If you happen to be someone in the public eye, it’s more likely that other people will happen to see yours.

Each of us needs one or several people who can help us identify our blind spots and warn us when they seem to be leading us into a danger zone.

There may be no one in the world of politics who consistently gets duped more often than Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins. She seems to be about as well-intentioned as any Republican can be. She hopes for the best, so much so, that there are many times when she thinks that the better angels will visit upon the shoulders of someone who clearly has no intention of taking a compassionate or reasonable path. While often being naïve in judging the intentions of judicial nominees, she can be a savvy politician when dealing with the likes of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia on possible bi-partisan agreements (this plays into his blind spot on bi-partisanship). She also knows well the playing field of her home state of Maine and consistently wins reelection by substantial margins in a fairly progressive state.

But nowhere has her blind spot been more apparent than in her assessment of Supreme Court nominees. A backdrop to this is that Collins is clearly pro-choice on the abortion issue, and she has wanted Supreme Court nominees to be committed to preserving the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

She was completely duped by Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Collins is quoted in Rolling Stone as saying the following about the leak of the Roberts Courts decision in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.” Perhaps it would be, but clearly the two of them would not be the first individuals to walk into the office of a senator and fudge the truth. Like most others who come to visit Collins and other legislators, visitors generally say what they think will give them the greatest advantage.

Gorsuch told Collins that Roe was “the law of the land.”  Regarding Kavanaugh, Collins asserted that he “said under oath many times, as well as to me personally many times, that he considers Roe to be ‘precedent upon precedent’ because it had been reaffirmed in the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case.”

According to Rolling Stone magazine, “Collins expressed shock and deep concern when a draft of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Services decision indicated the justice would likely vote to overturn Roe was leaked to the public.” She felt that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had misled her.

One of the most important assets that a politician can have is a strong BS detector. Not telling the truth, embellishing the truth, misleading others are all essentially components of the currency of politics. Why should nominees for the Supreme Court be any different? They want to both advance their own careers as well as the beliefs they have on issues that are likely to come before the Court.

This summer our non-profit worked with an outstanding group of high school interns. One of them, Corvin Haake, suggested that a president withdraw a judicial nominee if that nominee refuses to directly and honestly answer questions when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Clearly, a nominee must be told in advance by the president that they must answer questions directly or their nomination will be yanked. It would thoroughly change the way in which Supreme Court justices are selected and could be a major first step in elevating the level of honesty in politics.

Maybe Susan Collins could lead the movement, by acknowledging that she has a blind spot when it comes to assessing nominees. She needs ones who would be honest, and so do the American people. She can make lemonade out of a personal lemon she has.

The nomination process is a bullshit-a-rama. We need to find a way to changed it. Senator Collins, please lead the charge!

The post Rescuing Susan Collins – Make Judicial Nominees Speak the Truth appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Can one person change the course of life for millions of others?

Radically.

We have Putin as our most conspicuous contemporary example.

Just a few moments ago in our elastic present-day concept of time here at home, we had the hotel magnate, Trump, as our elected leader, influencing our daily lives like a twin Putin autocrat.

Thanks to that very same hotelier, we now have Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett firmly ensconced on our Highest Court, pretending to be impartial, damaging lives left, right and center.

So let me reframe the question.

Can one person change the course of life for the good of millions of others?

Right away, all of the above are disqualified.

Putin, apparently whimsically – and just because as a simple Russian bureaucrat elevated to the highest post of his land well beyond his abilities – misunderstood the zeitgeist and ordered Russian troops to invade and decimate neighboring Ukraine. Unwittingly, he relegated Russia to minor player status on the world stage going forward.

His US counterpart, Trump, tried to upend the real world here at home and declare his opponent’s election invalid. Unlike in Nicaragua, where a Trump think-alike, Ortega, has been able to maintain and enhance his power through manipulating elections since 1979, Trump failed to falsify Biden’s Presidential triumph. At least for now. Fingers crossed.

There are now six Catholic justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, 6 out of 9. That might be par for the course in Italy or France; not here in the United States. Immigration from largely Catholic Latin America has given us a Catholic population in our 50 states of about 20%. Yet according to the Pew Research Center, we identify ourselves as a country predominently Protestant, 43%, unaffiliated, 26% and Jewish, 2%. Six Catholics on the highest Court of the land is way out of proportion to our religous identity as a nation.

Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the most recent Catholic arrivals to the Supreme Court, gave us ample reason to doubt their true personas in their Congressional hearings. A psychology professor, Christine Blasey Ford, accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault years before. Our elected Republican senators shut their ears. They voted him in anyway. OK, they seemed to say, Boys will be boys. They were fast to overlook the implications of his traditional conservative Catholicism, or perhaps eager to espouse it.

In 2020, the Washington Post reported that, while in law school, Coney Barrett

lived at the South Bend home of People of Praise’s influential co-founder Kevin Ranaghan and his wife, Dorothy, who together helped establish the group’s male-dominated hierarchy and view of gender roles.

In June of this year, London’s Guardian had this to say on the very same People of Praise co-founder:

… the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts the supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.

Were our elected Republican senators interested in any of this? Did they care? Not at all. Coney Barret was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice on Oct 26, 2020 with 52 of 53 Republicans voting in favor. Maine’s Susan Collins was the sole dissenting Republican.

Could we now, just possibly, be seeing People of Praise influencing a Supreme Court decision on abortion? Yes, we could.

You are totally within your rights to shout out loud about that right now. As Marcellus once said in in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Back to the original question.

Can one person change the course of life for the good of millions of others?

Lest we forget, the answer is yes, yes and yes again.

There are still some Americans who might fit the bill. Franklin D. Roosevelt comes to mind. How about our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln? Or our 44th, Barack Obama?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our 32nd President, was elected to the office four times, something no longer possible. He led us through the Great Depression and World War 2. He launched the New Deal, a transformation of American society that included the creation of the Social Security Administration, which today continues to provide essential daily benefits for more than 70 million Americans.

Abraham Lincoln was our President during our first and only – up to now – Civil War. Not only did he preserve our Union – an achievement that continues to reverberate for all 330 million + of us living in the United States today, but he also just happens to be the President who abolished slavery. At the time, the ending of slavery immediately affected the lives of four million African-Americans living in servitude. Since then, the abolition of slavery has daily touched the lives of millions and millions of others, as a constant reminder of our need, and necessity, to acknowledge and embrace each other, and to celebrate our similarities and differences.

So how many lives did Abraham Lincoln impact for the good? The number in incalculable and uncountable.

Oh and by the way, Abraham Lincoln was something called a moderate Republican, a species now apparently extinct.

Barack Obama served as our President from 2009 to 2017. In our lifetime, we have been witness to Obama’s supreme gift to our nation, the establishment of Obamacare. Thanks to Barack Obama, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reports that we have:

35 Million People enrolled in Coverage Related to the Affordable Care Act, with a historic number of 21 Million people enrolled in Medicaid Expansion Coverage.

In terms of doing good for the greater benefit of society, that counts.

It would seem that we are in a constant back-and-forth between those who want to do good to the benefit of all of us alive on earth, and those who are equipped with an aberrant gene that is programmed to do us harm.

Unfortunately for those of us living in the United States today, we are confronted with, and confounded by, a hotelier equipped with the aberrant gene, a hotelier who would seem to be planning further assaults on our democracy.

See fingers crossed above.

Our DT, our Wizard of Doom to democracy, is still with us.

At any moment, he could rise from the ashes.  At any moment, he could still consume us, devour us, and swallow our collective notion of peaceful coexistence in one night-sweat gulp.

The post Doing the world a world of good appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Like many progressives, I would be delighted to have a Green New Deal as well as a host of other progressive programs that would immediately and directly help the American people. However, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Joe Manchin has shown that he can single-handedly prevent it now; he has in the past. His help from Republicans will grow exponentially if they reclaim one or both houses of Congress this coming November.

All the same, political power in the United States is distributed in a way that gives Republicans far more influence than they are warranted. They hold half the seats in the U.S. Senate despite the fact that their senators represent only 43% of the population, compared to the Democrats 57% In other words, 43% of the American people are represented by the 50 Republican senators; the remaining 57% by the 50 Democrats. That is clearly unfair.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, five million more Americans (3%) voted for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates, and yet the Democrats have only a few more seats than the Republicans. Once again, this is unfair, especially as we will shortly have new elections for the House with hundreds of districts that are gerrymandered.

The Supreme Court is heavily weighted towards Republicans, in a particularly pernicious way since five justices were appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote. They became presidents only because of the antiquated Electoral College.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed by President George W. Bush who lost the popular election to Al Gore by 500,000 people. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were appointed by Donald Trump who lost the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton by three million popular votes.

Over half (5 out of 9) of the justices who were appointed by semi-illegitimate presidents. This has been a grave and great injustice and needs to be corrected.

These problems of disproportionate power in the hands of Republicans exists in all three branches of our government. This is why we need a recalibration of how power is distributed in Washington and in our states. Recalibration is different from retribution. Changes should not be designed to make it “the Democrats turn.” Instead, it should be time for “fairness to prevail.”

Here’s how we would do it in three steps:

1. Either abolish the Electoral College or codify the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in which the electors in all states are bound to vote for whomever one the national popular vote, not the vote in their state. This would be fair because our presidents would be elected solely on the basis of the vote of the people – the people who he or she represents.
2. Outlaw gerrymandering, the practice of dividing geographic areas into legislative districts in a way that gives one party an advantage over another. By outlawing gerrymandering, the number of seats from each party from each state would come close to reflecting that party’s percentage of voters in the state.
3. Institute some permanent and temporary changes to the Supreme Court:
   1. Permanent: Put term limits on how long a Supreme Court justice can serve, perhaps twenty years.
   2. Temporary: Because the court is currently leaning so far to the right, allow President Joe Biden to nominate three additional justices to the Supreme Court, temporarily constituting the court with ten members. Each of Biden’s nominees would be linked to one of the three Trump appointees. They would leave the Court when that particular Trump appointee no longer serves. The president at that time will then select one nominee to replace the two. When all six of the Trump and Biden appointees (exclusive of Ketanji Jackson Brown) are no longer on the court, it will be back down to nine members.

It is fair to ask how could this come to be. Why would Republicans accept these three changes, all of which would help Democrats, at least in the short run? These would be difficult changes to enact under any circumstances.

Naturally, there is no guarantee that Republicans would accept any of these changes. However, if the American people knew that Democrats were going to take a temporary pass on the most impactful items in their legislative agenda in order to spend several years focusing on recalibrating our democracy, it is possibly that many independents would join Democrats and a few Republicans to get this done. No guarantees, but the idea of advancing and simplifying democracy has a natural appeal to a great many voters. It’s worth a try because Manchin and the Republicans are not going away.

The post Recalibrating our Political System appeared first on Occasional Planet.

More and more Democrats are expressing dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden. It was particularly evident on the weekend of July 9 – 10 when thousands of protesters gathered outside the White House to express their frustration that Biden was not doing more to protect abortion rights. The protesters seemed absolutely unaware of what Biden had done the day before through executive action to protect reproductive rights, as accurately described in “The Week:”

President Biden on Friday signed an executive order aimed at protecting access to abortion and other reproductive health care services now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Per the administration’s fact sheet, the order “builds on the actions” the White House has already taken by protecting access to abortion and contraception; guarding patient privacy; promoting safety and security for patients, providers, and clinics; and coordinating federal efforts to safeguard reproductive rights. In more specific terms, the order directs Health and Human Services to expand access to abortion pills, fortify birth control coverage under Obamacare, and organize free legal services for those that have been criminally charged for seeking out or providing an abortion. [CBS News, The Week]

Within an hour of the Supreme Court overruling Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, Biden expressed his outrage and his commitment to Congress codifying Roe. He has done all that could be expected of a reasonable person to find ways to minimize the impact of the Dobbs decision and to advance reproductive rights. What is it about what Biden has done that his protesters do not understand?

Biden has also done virtually everything that a reasonable person could do to control inflation. It is a global problem, not something that can solely be solved by the United States or any other individual country.

He just completed a trip to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Once again, progressives are giving him considerable criticism. When in Saudi Arabia, he did not shake hands with heir to the throne, but rather had a fist-bump with Mohammed Bin Salman. This had to be difficult for Biden to do, because he has repeatedly stated that MBS is responsible for the torture and mutilation of Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi.

So, why did Biden do this? Because oil prices in the United States have been soaring until the past several weeks. While Biden and many others know that in time more oil will be drilled, pumped and refined the U.S. to bring supplies to a level where prices will go down, most people cannot be the patient. The best source of additional oil at the present time is from the OPEC countries of which Saudi Arabia is a leader. So, Biden has to hold his nose and “beg” for OPEC to immediately increase supplies.

He did not do it in the most elegant way, but he did it as anyone would when it becomes essential.

Biden is doing so many of the things that Americans want, but he is getting little credit. More an more we are hearing that Biden is too old to be president; that he is a “doddering old man.” He may be older than most of us, he may not be the steadiest person on his feet, but he is mentally as sharp as he has ever been. He is probably smarter than ever because he is outstanding at learning from his past mistakes.

Maybe we want a younger person to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2024. But for now, Biden is our president and he’s a damn good one. If Joe Manchin won’t give him a break, the kind that would send his popularity soaring, then let’s have the rest of us provide him with the support that he needs and has earned. It’s time to say ‘yes’ to him.

The post What Part of ‘Yes’ Do You Not Understand About Biden? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

You probably did not think that a key reason why the current Supreme Court is so out of whack with much of America is because of gerrymandering. This is so because the makeup of every Court is determined by the two other gerrymandered branches of government, the executive and legislative.

Twelve of the last fifteen justices have been appointed by Republican presidents, and that is not an accident. With our Constitution, it is virtually impossible not to have partisan Supreme Courts when we choose our presidents and legislators in ways that are mired in a deep gerrymandering pie, or cesspool.

Here’s how it works:

The U.S. Senate is perhaps the most insidious form of gerrymandering that we have. A good working definition of gerrymandering from Merriam-Webster is “the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections.” At the time that the American constitution was created, there were no political parties. But there were political interests. The most significant of these interests was what powers would individual states have as opposed to the federal government.

For example, who would be responsible for determining whether a road should be built, or whether it would be legal for a sixteen-year-old to drink whiskey? Who would be able to levy taxes, or even tariffs? At the time that the constitution was being written, there were two key interests within the states that created the groundwork for gerrymandering:

1. The smaller states such as Rhode Island or Delaware did not want to be overpowered at the federal level by larger ones such as New York or Virginia.
2. The states where slavery was legal and was commonly used wanted to have equal power to the states that did not have slavery.

Many of the founding fathers were leery of direct democracy, meaning direct votes by the people. In order to prevent runaway “popular democracy,” the founders created a Senate to go along with the House of Representatives in the Congress. The Senate was undemocratic in two ways, both of which impacted the Supreme Court.

1. Initially, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, not the people. This would be a way of better ensuring that the interests of the states, as opposed to the people, were represented in the Senate. This was clearly undemocratic, and in 1917, the 17^th Amendment was passed, allowing the people to vote for their Senators. But at that time, “the people” were essentially only white males.
2. Each state has two senators. That ensures that there is equal representation among all the states in the Senate. At the same time, it ensures that at least one house of Congress does not include equal representation of the people. For example, California has a population of nearly 40 million people while Wyoming has less than 600 thousand. For each person in Wyoming, there are over 60 in California. What that means in the Senate is that each person in Wyoming has as much power as 60 people in California. That is terribly unfair, and it means that states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska, etc. have far more power in the Senate than states like California, Texas and New York. The same is true for southern states such as Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina which are relatively small by population. Additionally, these states are no longer politically competitive. Conservative Republicans win virtually all state-wide elections including for the Senators.

Right now, the U.S. Senate is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. But Democratic Senators represent nearly 57% of the population, whereas Republican Senators represent around 43%. If the Senate was democratic, the Democrats would have a large majority. But in today’s real world the Democrats will probably lose seats in the 2022 mid-term election and once again be a minority.

We should also point out that the House of Representatives is gerrymandered in a different way. Take Missouri for example. It has eight Congressional seats. Recently, the state has voted between 50% – 60% Republican. Even at 60%, Republicans should get only five of the seats. However, they get six and some tried to get them seven. Why does it come out this way?

It is because in Missouri the districts are drawn by the state legislature. The Missouri General Assembly is currently veto-proof Republican. What the legislature has done is to draw two “minority majority” districts. This means districts in which some minority constitutes a majority of the voters. In Missouri, it is African-Americans. One district is in the eastern part of the state, St. Louis, and the other in the western part, Kansas City. None of the other districts is competitive.

Similar to the legislative branch, the executive (presidency) is deeply influenced by gerrymandering. The way in which the founding fathers took care of that was by creating the Electoral College. The E.C. is not really a college. It is a barely known organization that only exists every four years, when there is a presidential election. The number of representatives that each state has in the E.C. is somewhat based on population, but not entirely. What is important to know is that when the Electoral College works properly, the electors from each state vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. In other words, the electors in Alabama vote for whomever carried the state and the electors in California vote for whomever won that state.

Where it gets undemocratic is let’s suppose that Candidate A carries Alabama by one million votes and loses California by a 400,000 votes. You might think that Candidate A would be ahead at that point, because she has 600,000 more votes than Candidate ‘B.’ But with the Electoral College, Candidate ‘B’ is ahead with 55 Electoral Votes from California as opposed to Candidate ‘B’ who has the 9 Electoral Votes from Alabama.

The fact that a candidate can lose the popular vote and still be elected president through the E.C. is not just hypothetical. It has happened five times in our history. The two most recent are the two most consequential. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote from George Bush by over a half million votes. However, Bush won the Electoral vote when the Supreme Court made a decision that gave Bush Florida’s electoral votes. That would not have mattered if the decision had been made by the popular vote.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump by more than three million votes. However, Trump narrowly won “battleground states” such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and that propelled him to an Electoral victory.

It’s possible that two of our worst presidents ever were elected by the Electoral College than the popular vote. These two presidents are also responsible for five of the current six conservatives on the Supreme Court. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito; Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

This is how the Supreme Court became impacted by gerrymandering. Without a gerrymandered presidency and a gerrymandered Senate, the Supreme Court would have been more balanced and reflective of the values of the American people.

To make matters worse, the Supreme Court itself has recently refused to overturn the creation of gerrymandered districts by the states.

The political ramifications of the gerrymandering dynamics is that Republicans are helped in all three branches. Theoretically, the three branches of government are supposed to restrain one another through a system of checks and balances. But that does not work when all three branches are dominated by one party, and that particular party is intent on thoroughly dominating government and extending very few levers of power to minority parties.

How can this change? At the moment, it’s difficult to conceive. Trump Republicans have a number of plans to further a radical right agenda in America. For our government to become more balanced it will require challenging victories by non-Republicans in congressional and presidential races. Stay tuned to see if that happens.

The post The Gerrymandering Virus – It’s Everywhere! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

(* Entities and characters alluded to here are entirely fictional, and are here imagined for entertainment purposes only. Any resemblance to actual events or persons alive or dead is entirely coincidental.)

In a flurry of activity, the US Taliban, once known as the Supreme Court of Our Lands, has announced another in of its nation-altering faith-based decisions. Rock and roll will no longer be tolerated.

Rock and roll has been on shaky ground ever since Colonel Parker signed Elvis back in the mid-1950’s. For context, see Baz Luhrmann’s ELVIS, currently in cinemas. Elvis shook his hips and the country went bananas.

Chuck Berry and Little Richard, back in the day, pushed those boundaries further. Would it be possible to be black and equal with Elvis, under the law, they posited?

The country’s highest courts at the time didn’t deem it the moment to weigh in on rock and roll, just yet. There was enough going on with the assassination of President Kennedy and the ever-opening chasm in our national schism called the Vietnam War.

Our courts’ decisions then, or non-decisions in fact, meant that we had to bear with Elvis through a decline in his powers until he became a pastiche of what he once was. Over time, his bellbottoms grew wider, his sideburns broader, his metal-studded belts wider and his waist – well broader again. Under Elvis’s reign, rock and roll took a tumble. And so the superstar Las Vegas show came to be.

On the other hand, Elvis’s decline opened the door for the British Invasion of American popular music. The Beatles came in, the Rolling Stones came in, Gerry and the Pacemakers came in. (Is it Pacemakers or Peacemakers – YouTube is still divided.)

The Supreme Court of our Lands hadn’t figured on that, truly.

Suddenly, unexpectedly, Detroit loomed large in popular music. We had the Supremes, the Four Tops, the Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Martha and the Vandellas, Gladys Knight & The Pips and Marvin Gaye.

Our top courts eyed intervention with this large presence of Motown in our popular imagination. It was tricky there for a while until, with the arrival of Lionel Richie, the danger subsided.

Lionel Richie gave the Talibanists here at home time to regroup.

And so, for decades, popular music enthusiasts in the US thought they were home scot-free. Rock and roll morphed and splintered, and gave rise to an enormous myriad of forms, southern rock, country rock, disco, house, heavy metal, soft rock, independent, hiphop, rap, electronic … well, the whole shebang of popular music that has been our life since the boy from Tupelo’s first appearance on Ed Sullivan’s influential TV music show way back when.

Turns out, in the past decades, we were lulled into thinking that rock and roll was our right.

We rocked, bopped and discoed to the Doors, Bruce Springstein, John Melenkamp, the imported Rolling Stones, David Bowie (another import,) Bon Jovi, Prince, Carlos Santana, Donna Summer, Sister Sledge, Gloria Gaynor, Michael Jackson and the Village People.

We could never have enough music in our lives, we thought. Little did we know that we were, in fact, living in a rock and roll golden age.

Ominously, unnoticed, a misogynist real-estate upstart with an oversized ego announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee on Larry King live in October 1999. How many rock and rollers were watching Larry King in October of that year? Not many.

The real-estate upstart-in-question never dreamed of winning the presidential election. But surely, he thought, he could attract attention to his business ventures with a populist-based political message that went something along the line of Drain the Bayou. At his first attempt at the presidency, nothing. On his second try, bingo!

Whoever could have imagined that this bloated egocentric parvenu would one day mean the end of rock and roll?

Somehow, this nouveau riche wannbe convinced enough people to vote for him, and he was elected the president of the land.

Once President, he was confused, having never anticipating winning, unsure of his charge, and wide open to the influence of his followers on the far right. Under their direction, he – through another twist of fate – came to be be in a position to load the Supreme Court of Our Lands with faith-based fellow adherents. Faith-based fellow adherents is not entirely accurate as our US, democratically elected Supreme Ruler had no principles at all, as far as could be noted.

Thus, we – the United States – left the middle road behind.

And here we are.

Just this past week, we allowed our newly imposed Supreme Leader’s chosen religious leaders to rule that we would no longer have rock and roll in our lives.

I guess our moment of pseudo-freedom was good while it lasted.

All of those songs erased in an instance from YouTube is shocking. The immediate disappearance of rock and roll from our playlists is unprecedented. Now, it appears that we will be prosecuted if we attempt to cross state lines to hear the rock and roll that was once embedded in our lives. Nashville is closing its doors. L.A. will no longer be L.A. without its music industry.

Without precedent, rock and roll is now, at seemingly just a moment’s notice, gone from our lives, Our lives are so hugely different from what they were just weeks ago that it’s hard to fathom. Will we ever return to what we once were? As of this writing, that is completely unsure. Will we ever be able to hear a rock and roll song again? As of this writing, I honestly don’t know.

The post In life-altering decision for the nation, the US Taliban bans rock and roll * appeared first on Occasional Planet.