Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hmm. I fear Yglesias is right...

This a rather muddled article. There really isn't any reason to cite Watergate, as Yglesias himself acknowledges when he reminds us how different the political climate of today is from the political climate of 1974.

What brought Nixon down in 1974 could very well bring Trump down in 2020. But that has little to do with protests, and everything to do with political maneuvering.

I think Yglesias is attempting to argue that protests might enable politicians to act against Trump. Specifically, that'd be a number of GOP senators, as they are the only political actors who matter in the impeachment. This is a bit fanciful. Those people are only going to be swayed by their voters primarily, the existence of really bad facts (I mean seriously bad), and the lack of a credible defenses. The standard most R senators will apply will be something far above beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be more along the lines of, "guilt absolutely proven, without any other plausible explanation."

Protestors are not going to move the dial with these senators any more than Occupy moved the dial on Wall Street malfeasance or wealth inequality.

First, the voters at issue are dispersed. For an R senator to think he or she were in peril, significant unique protests would have to take place in each of their states. That's impossible to organize.

Second, not enough people care about this issue to even protest in significant numbers in Washington. Occupy and Vietnam protests recurred and grew because people had skin in the game. People's economic futures and the possibility of dying in a mindless foreign war are compelling. On the other hand, marching to unseat a "lawless" President? You'll get a few hundred thousand once or twice. The typical pros who show up to protest things. But beyond that, few are going to invest the significant time and travel required. Of the small minority of the public educated enough to understand the situation, most look at it cynically, assuming its just politics, and it'll will work itself out. These people also have other shit to do. They have schedules. People who go to protests have a thing a typical successful educated person does not: Free Time.

I'm not going to list the reasons successful protests in Spain and Iceland differ from the protests Yglesias contemplates. I assume those are obvious. What I will say is that most protests do not succeed. Even the most noble ones seeking to unseat truly repressive regimes, like the Green Revolution in Iran, and Tianenmen Square, tend to fail. Hong Kong is a happy example of one that has succeeded, but again, there the people had serious skin in the game. The Chinese sought to defy the intent of the "two system" structure and send people to the mainland for criminal trials.

To Yglesias, Trump's an existential threat. Maybe he's right. But not enough people agree with him to spend the time and energy to protest at the level needed. Yglesias is a smart guy, and he's writing to informed people. But I think for those reasons, he's in a bit of a bubble. He grossly overestimates the percentage of Americans exercised about Trump's malfeasance and sophisticated enough to even understand why Trump may be impeached. This could change, of course, if something like Roe's overturning, or Trump asking for re-institution of the draft, were to occur, or if some horrible 2008 scenario replayed. Then, faced with immediately loss of their own money, or rights, people would protest. But mass protests for the nebulous concept that a President must face justice for abusing his power for political advantage? That's not going to happen at anywhere near the level required to make a difference.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Umm, and what would the whistleblower be prosecuted for?

Yes, classic, Les. Classic.

So you and Pelosi also supported the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg?

LessinKathmandu, Nepal

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

So you and Pelosi also supported the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg?

LessinKathmandu, Nepal

I don't know about Nancy, but I've been around a long long year. I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys" when after all it was you and me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't know about Nancy, but I've been around a long long year. I shouted out "Who killed the Kennedys" when after all it was you and me.

Kennedys killed as many Kennedys as everyone else.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Kennedy’s killed as many Kennedy’s as everyone else.

These are the best Kennedys: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xV97NB2v6aQ

(It’s disheartening that most of their stuff would be horribly misunderstood these days, and they would be deemed insensitive, if not flat out bigoted. Which is 180 degrees from their actual message.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This a rather muddled article. There really isn't any reason to cite Watergate, as Yglesias himself acknowledges when he reminds us how different the political climate of today is from the political climate of 1974.

What brought Nixon down in 1974 could very well bring Trump down in 2020. But that has little to do with protests, and everything to do with political maneuvering.

I think Yglesias is attempting to argue that protests might enable politicians to act against Trump. Specifically, that'd be a number of GOP senators, as they are the only political actors who matter in the impeachment. This is a bit fanciful. Those people are only going to be swayed by their voters primarily, the existence of really bad facts (I mean seriously bad), and the lack of a credible defenses. The standard most R senators will apply will be something far above beyond a reasonable doubt. It will be more along the lines of, "guilt absolutely proven, without any other plausible explanation."

Protestors are not going to move the dial with these senators any more than Occupy moved the dial on Wall Street malfeasance or wealth inequality.

First, the voters at issue are dispersed. For an R senator to think he or she were in peril, significant unique protests would have to take place in each of their states. That's impossible to organize.

Second, not enough people care about this issue to even protest in significant numbers in Washington. Occupy and Vietnam protests recurred and grew because people had skin in the game. People's economic futures and the possibility of dying in a mindless foreign war are compelling. On the other hand, marching to unseat a "lawless" President? You'll get a few hundred thousand once or twice. The typical pros who show up to protest things. But beyond that, few are going to invest the significant time and travel required. Of the small minority of the public educated enough to understand the situation, most look at it cynically, assuming its just politics, and it'll will work itself out. These people also have other shit to do. They have schedules. People who go to protests have a thing a typical successful educated person does not: Free Time.

I'm not going to list the reasons successful protests in Spain and Iceland differ from the protests Yglesias contemplates. I assume those are obvious. What I will say is that most protests do not succeed. Even the most noble ones seeking to unseat truly repressive regimes, like the Green Revolution in Iran, and Tianenmen Square, tend to fail. Hong Kong is a happy example of one that has succeeded, but again, there the people had serious skin in the game. The Chinese sought to defy the intent of the "two system" structure and send people to the mainland for criminal trials.

To Yglesias, Trump's an existential threat. Maybe he's right. But not enough people agree with him to spend the time and energy to protest at the level needed. Yglesias is a smart guy, and he's writing to informed people. But I think for those reasons, he's in a bit of a bubble. He grossly overestimates the percentage of Americans exercised about Trump's malfeasance and sophisticated enough to even understand why Trump may be impeached. This could change, of course, if something like Roe's overturning, or Trump asking for re-institution of the draft, were to occur, or if some horrible 2008 scenario replayed. Then, faced with immediately loss of their own money, or rights, people would protest. But mass protests for the nebulous concept that a President must face justice for abusing his power for political advantage? That's not going to happen at anywhere near the level required to make a difference.

In other words, voters are just like you, in that they don't really care. Thanks for that postcard from America.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In other words, voters are just like you, in that they don't really care. Thanks for that postcard from America.

Yglesias suggested a technique to force out Trump. I commented on the likelihood of its success based on facts.

A reasonable view of the facts compels recognition that Trump can be removed through careful political maneuvering. The Ds have to throw a perfect game, and they have to get a lot of R help, but it can technically be done. A reasonable assessment of the facts leads to the conclusion that protests, OTOH, are not likely to succeed, or to even occur to a significant extent.

Just because you feel very strongly about removing Trump for his efforts to solicit information from foreign powers does not mean anywhere near a majority of Americans agrees with you. We both know this sort of information is acquired by politicians through back channels all the time. What do you think opposition research is? The only difference here is Trump is so dumb, he tried to make a trade for it. And since he has no access to discreet back channels, rather than wash such a transaction as skilled politicians and research providers would, he had a fool like Giuliani out there soliciting the information.

I see in Trump, and I suspect this is a majority view of voters, the living embodiment of the nation, "It's not necessarily being criminal, but being dumb, that gets people in trouble." Trump is dumb. He sounds dumb. He speaks like a child. He has ludicrous hair. It's impossible not conclude he's just a blundering thug, exposing himself where others would have gotten away with things. I don't think people march against buffoons.

The closest analogue for Trump's recent malfeasance is the Iran Contra situation. Do you recall marches congealing around collective upset at Reagan having funneled weapons to a nation that had just years earlier held 50 of our State Department employees hostage? No. That never happened. And if it didn't happen there, why on earth do you think it'll happen in response to an allegation Trump held up foreign aid to a nation most Americans still think is called "The Ukraine" to get dirt on Biden?

Schiff is an ex-prosecutor. I think some of those guys think people are as doggedly interested in pursuing all "wrongs" as they are. This is a delusion. I think even the simplest grasp that life is complex, systems are complex, and the letter of the law and ethical considerations are more malleable than perhaps we'd like them to be.* And that sometimes, a fool is elected President.

_______
* ETA: If not for there being "ways things are actually done" separate and apart from the way the rules, and certain of their stewards, assert things "must be done," the world would grind to a halt. Even at this age, I'll read an agreement literally only to later find "industry practice" deviates from its terms. If you've plead out a criminal case, you've seen the divergence between the law and "what happens" in its most stark relief. I'd suspect that 59% of Americans polled saying they support impeachment of Trump are doing so not because they're incensed about what's been alleged, but because anything that might get the guy off their televisions sounds great to them. (Shit, I'd love to see him impeached and removed if not for the fact that we'd then have President Pence for a few months.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yglesias suggested a technique to force out Trump. I commented on the likelihood of its success based on facts.

I re-read his piece to understand how one could take from it the idea that he's suggesting a "technique" but I still don't get it.

A reasonable view of the facts compels recognition that Trump can be removed through careful political maneuvering.

Yglesias and I disagree. Re-read.

The Ds have to throw a perfect game, and they have to get a lot of R help, but it can technically be done.

Did you read his piece? Maybe not.

A reasonable assessment of the facts leads to the conclusion that protests, OTOH, are not likely to succeed, or to even occur to a significant extent.

Did you read his piece? Maybe not.

Just because you feel very strongly about removing Trump for his efforts to solicit information from foreign powers does not mean anywhere near a majority of Americans agrees with you.

You've said this to me so many times -- if you don't think I've ever understood before, why do you bother repeating yourself? Conversely, does it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, I have some understand that in my preferences are not always shared?

I see in Trump, and I suspect this is a majority view of voters, the living embodiment of the nation,

I guess I have a higher opinion of the nation.

The closest analogue for Trump's recent malfeasance is the Iran Contra situation.

That's not a close analogue at all. Maybe there is no good precedent for a lawless President leading a polarized party, and we have to find a new solution to a new situation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I re-read his piece to understand how one could take from it the idea that he's suggesting a "technique" but I still don't get it.



Yglesias and I disagree. Re-read.



Did you read his piece? Maybe not.



Did you read his piece? Maybe not.



You've said this to me so many times -- if you don't think I've ever understood before, why do you bother repeating yourself? Conversely, does it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, I have some understand that in my preferences are not always shared?




I guess I have a higher opinion of the nation.



That's not a close analogue at all. Maybe there is no good precedent for a lawless President leading a polarized party, and we have to find a new solution to a new situation.

Maybe you need to recognize where you're wrong. I understand I have a capacity to write in manner that compels one to disagree with me even when he's kind of agreeing with me, but you need to develop a capacity to admit when you're on thin ice, or just flatly wrong.

You're just doing the "Ty being haughty" default here. You cited an article where someone suggested that protests in conjunction with impeachment might succeed in ousting Trump. I explained why I think Yglesias is way off in that assessment. In response, you first whined and called me a cynic. I replied, evenhandedly, and you now accuse me of not having read the article.

Look, I'm happy to go back and forth with you on this. But you're not offering much. Maybe you don't have time. OK. Reply when you do. I've a meeting in 30, so I might not reply until tomorrow. But if you must insist Yglesias is on to something in suggesting protests are needed and could work (contrary to the tacit admission he's wrong which you coughed up in calling me a cynic), explain why. Tell me why we're going to see mass protests and they're going to succeed in removing Trump.

(I'm also interested in how Iran Contra is not far worse than what Trump has done. Here, a novice is fucking up. There, a group of pros subverted Congress and gave weapons to an enemy. Were the people involved in that actual conspiracy not "lawless"? I think some were actually convicted of crimes.)

[Hank Chinaski]

RIP John Conyers. In the 1990s I flew to DC every other week for work. Due to a certain fact I was always able to fly First Class. Congress gets free upgrades so I was always around Congress people (Senators get free upgrades too but they were aware of the optics and sat in coach). Anyhoo, congress people, Dems and R's both, seemed the most self-absorbed grand standing asses, working the Crowd- then I saw I was sitting next to Congressman Conyers and he was next to what I assumed was his grandson (found out later likely his son, but still). He was in the moment being with the young man, oblivious to the crowd, not a second of grandstanding. I certainly didn't agree with many of his positions, but he just seemed this real human being- very rare in that job. I was impressed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Maybe you need to recognize where you're wrong. I understand I have a capacity to write in manner that compels one to disagree with me even when he's kind of agreeing with me, but you need to develop a capacity to admit when you're on thin ice, or just flatly wrong.

I'm wrong all the time.

You're just doing the "Ty being haughty" default here. You cited an article where someone suggested that protests in conjunction with impeachment might succeed in ousting Trump. I explained why I think Yglesias is way off in that assessment. In response, you first whined and called me a cynic. I replied, evenhandedly, and you now accuse me of not having read the article.

Look, you did not "explain" anything. You're under no obligation to respond to his article at all. You have every right to say you disagree. You certainly may be right. But if you mischaracterize what he says ("technique") and assert in a few sentences that what he says in several paragraphs is not right, don't pretend that you have "explained" why you think he's way off. There are obvious answers to what you've said in what he says, which shows you are not engaging with him. Again: maybe you're right and he's wrong. But you haven't bothered to explain it.

Look, I'm happy to go back and forth with you on this. But you're not offering much. Maybe you don't have time. OK. Reply when you do. I've a meeting in 30, so I might not reply until tomorrow. But if you must insist Yglesias is on to something in suggesting protests are needed and could work (contrary to the tacit admission he's wrong which you coughed up in calling me a cynic), explain why. Tell me why we're going to see mass protests and they're going to succeed in removing Trump.

Well, he doesn't say that "we're going to see mass protests" and he doesn't say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump."

Here's the paragraph that (I think) captures his thesis:

A lawless government cannot be constrained by the institutions of the law alone. It is popular mass resistance that creates a crisis point and forces action. And if Democrats want to beat Trump’s stonewalling tactics in 2019, they should consider doing it again.

Here is some of his explanation of why he thinks mass protests can work:

Democrats entered January 2017 with extremely little formal political power. They controlled neither the House nor the Senate nor the White House, and Trump’s victory also dashed their hopes of securing a majority in the Supreme Court.

But a huge segment of the public was, rightly, outraged by the ability of a manifestly unfit president to assume office on the basis of the absurd mechanics of the Electoral College. His inauguration was met with the largest mass demonstrations in American history, demonstrations that served to deny him the traditional “honeymoon” of public opinion that would have made it easy for him to ram legislation through.

Grassroots resistance organizations began to form, many operating under the Indivisible label, with a basic goal of maximizing the political price the Republican Party would pay for every forward step. The climate of resistance helped inspire courts to slap down several versions of Trump’s travel ban, helped keep the DACA program alive to this day, inspired civil servants to leak damaging information about Trump’s misconduct, and contributed to the defeat of the Affordable Care Act repeal. ...

The mechanisms through which protest works seem multifaceted, with some of the impact driven by direct personal participation, some driven by witnessing the protest themselves, and some driven by media coverage which serves to rebroadcast key elements of the protest message. The key to it all, however, is that bothering to show up to a march is a moderately costly investment of time and energy. When a bunch of people do that, it serves as a powerful signal to the rest of society that something extraordinary is happening.

Democratic Party officials of course can’t just conjure up mass protests with the snap of a finger, but their words and actions do matter. If they want people to believe profound constitutional issues are at stake, they should abandon their aversion to mass politics and embrace tactics that worked for progressives before the midterms.

Does he say that "we're going to see mass protests"? No, and he points out that institutional Democrats are uncomfortable with them. Does he say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump"? No, but he offers reasons to think that they have promise.

(I'm also interested in how Iran Contra is not far worse than what Trump has done. Here, a novice is fucking up. There, a group of pros subverted Congress and gave weapons to an enemy. Were the people involved in that actual conspiracy not "lawless"? I think some were actually convicted of crimes.)

I think the problems with Trump go far, far beyond "a novice fucking up." Among other things, he rejects any oversight or obligation to be bound by the law. (He literally just argued to a federal court that he could shoot someone and be immune to prosecution or investigation while he is President.) If there are mass protests, they won't be protesting the hold-up in military aid to the Ukraine. Try asking yourself, what will they be protesting? How is it different from Iran-Contra?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sergino Dest FTW!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm wrong all the time.



Look, you did not "explain" anything. You're under no obligation to respond to his article at all. You have every right to say you disagree. You certainly may be right. But if you mischaracterize what he says ("technique") and assert in a few sentences that what he says in several paragraphs is not right, don't pretend that you have "explained" why you think he's way off. There are obvious answers to what you've said in what he says, which shows you are not engaging with him. Again: maybe you're right and he's wrong. But you haven't bothered to explain it.



Well, he doesn't say that "we're going to see mass protests" and he doesn't say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump."

Here's the paragraph that (I think) captures his thesis:



Here is some of his explanation of why he thinks mass protests can work:



Does he say that "we're going to see mass protests"? No, and he points out that institutional Democrats are uncomfortable with them. Does he say that "they're going to succeed in removing Trump"? No, but he offers reasons to think that they have promise.



I think the problems with Trump go far, far beyond "a novice fucking up." Among other things, he rejects any oversight or obligation to be bound by the law. (He literally just argued to a federal court that he could shoot someone and be immune to prosecution or investigation while he is President.) If there are mass protests, they won't be protesting the hold-up in military aid to the Ukraine. Try asking yourself, what will they be protesting? How is it different from Iran-Contra?

1. It is a technique. The whole point of the piece is protests are a neglected technique that ought to be used.

2. I explained why it’s not neglected but actually rejected. If people were going to use it, to effectively (emphasis there) protest any policy of Trump, we’d have seen tons of it. Outside the govt employees defying Trump, we’re not seeing much in the way of protests. As you and I note, people don’t know, care, and are too busy.

3. If not mass, what sort of effective protests would work? A small protest is nearly an oxymoron. (You even admit Yglesias is suggesting that “mass” protests can work, btw.)

4. The distinction between saying mass protests can work vs. will work is a frivolous one to raise. Clearly, Yglesias desires them to work and thinks they can. That is not even close to likely unless Trump does something truly extreme or we have a significant recession.

5. On the last point, one man’s lawlessness is another man’s battle against the establishment. The victimized savior narrative is worn by few more effectively than Trump. This impeachment helps him more than it hurts. Nancy knew this, and among all the Ds who find ways to lose, she’s an annual 20 game winner.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Why must Katie Hill resign? There’s no suggestion even that she used a position of authority to force subordinates to sleep with her.

These are adults in their 20s. They can make choices. And having a consensual relationship with one’s boss and her husband is a choice. We do not assume coercion until proven otherwise. We assume a consensual relationship until proven otherwise.

(Insert every sneering comment Mencken offered about the remnant Puritan sensibilities in American society here.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why must Katie Hill resign? There’s no suggestion even that she used a position of authority to force subordinates to sleep with her.

These are adults in their 20s. They can make choices. And having a consensual relationship with one’s boss and her husband is a choice. We do not assume coercion until proven otherwise. We assume a consensual relationship until proven otherwise.

(Insert every sneering comment Mencken offered about the remnant Puritan sensibilities in American society here.)

Iron Cross tat?