Something strange is happening in American politics. I freely confess that I have no idea how it is going to play out but it seems to me almost certain that we are heading for some kind of major realignment in the two-party system. This is of course not the first time this is happened. I leave it to those who are versed in the details of American history to recall each of the several major shifts that have taken place since the late 18th century.
The most immediate and in some ways the most striking
evidence that the Republican Party is undergoing a fundamental reconstruction
is the fact that Senate Republicans are openly and quite vocally at war with
House Republicans. Mitch McConnell is clearly beside himself at the prospect of
losing any chance for retaking the Senate in 2022. Kevin McCarthy is yet the
latest in a series of feckless House Republican leaders unable to organize and hold together his caucus. How on earth the Senate and House Republicans can
reunite in order to fight an election campaign in 2022 I do not know.
I am also at a loss to figure out what platform or
collection of positions on issues the Republicans can put together that will
bring to the polls the 30% or 40% of their supporters completely in the bag for
conspiracy theories and quasi religious fantasies and also the large number of
more or less ordinary Republicans whom they need to have any chance of winning
even House elections let alone those for the Senate.
I also do not know what to think of the violent rhetoric
being spewed by those who are armed to the teeth with military grade weaponry.
On the one hand, they scare the living daylights out of me. On the other hand,
I am struck by the fact that only a handful of people were killed during the
January 6 Capital insurrection, and if I am not mistaken, the only one killed
by gunfire was one of the insurrectionists. I do not think we are facing
anything remotely like a genuine coup in which large numbers of well armed and
trained revolutionaries make war on the police and the armed forces of the
state. There is clearly a great deal of ready for prime time macho posing on
the part of the insurrectionists who show up with automatic rifles, flak
jackets, helmets, and – oddest of all
– camouflage gear that makes sense only if you are in the woods, not on a city
street. They are dangerous, to be sure, but probably actually less dangerous
than the individuals who shoot up a church or mosque or synagogue or school or
supermarket.
This is clearly the time for the Democrats to adopt a big
tent approach and Biden seems to be ideally suited to that end. Lord knows, he
faces some delicate problems. His control of the Senate rests on the compliance
of Joe Manchin, who won his Senate seat in a state that voted for Trump by
almost a 40 percent margin. The progressives in the party appear to understand
this perfectly well and are pushing for progressive programs and actions rather
skillfully.
Once Trump's Senate trial is over and he is not convicted, we
shall have to wait to see whether he develops personal troubles that make it
impossible for him to continue to exercise his sway over the Republican Party. But this
is an unstable situation and I think we are likely to see some major shifts
taking place long before the midterms.
At the age of 87 I have somewhat less interest in
generational change than I had when I was in my 20s so I would welcome some
short-term blowups. But that is a purely personal preference, not an expression
of my deep analysis of structural changes in what I persist in calliong late-term capitalism.
43 comments:
Paul it should be clear by now the republicans will be fine. A plurality of voters like them. Even if the democrats enact policies that improve their lives a plurality of white voters will vote for republicans which has decided to become the white supremacist party. Also the republicans have been aided by a media which covers horse races not what their policies or lack of really are. Many conservatives lie to themselves and others about what they truly want and value because it will be unpalatable to themselves and others. They want to perceive themselves as something different from who they are. Plus all the voter suppression and dismantling of democracy is something thy are doing they just want to turn the country back into a white settler state with socialism for white folks. None of this should be difficult to see or needs to navel gazed at. With how close the electoral college vote was and the muted response to the terrorists who attacked the US capitol and various state houses they will succeed at the next go round
I wish to pose a question to the professors/associate professors who manage, read and comment on this blog. The question has nothing to do with Prof. Wolff’s current post. Rather, my question relates to the role that a posting for a job opening for a professor at a community college would play. Consider a job posting which lists 2 required qualifications: (1) at least a masters degree in the subject which the prospective professor will be teaching; (2) experience teaching the subject in question, or a related subject. Consider further that the posting lists 3 qualifications which are designated “Strongly Preferred”: (1) 2 years’ teaching experience at the community college level in a related field; (2) experience in creating courses, course materials and content; (3) experience in building programs and creating partnerships.
My 1st question is, does the job posting constitute a form of a “promise” that among competing candidates, the candidate who meets the qualifications to a greater degree than another candidate, as between the two candidates, the former will be preferred over the latter?
The search committee has narrowed the candidates down to 2. Regarding the required qualifications, 1 of the candidates has a Masters Degree in the specific subject in question and has experience teaching the specific subject, in combination with other subjects, at a community college for 10 years. Regarding the “strongly preferred” qualifications, the candidate satisfies all 3 qualifications, i.e., the candidate has taught for 10 years at a community college, teaching the subject in question, among 3 other subjects; has created courses, materials, at the community college and at other academic institutions; and in the individual’s c.v. lists 12 instances in which the individual built new programs which involved partnerships with parties outside the academic community.
The 2nd candidate also has a Masters Degree in the subject, and a Ph.D. in a tangentially related subject. This candidate has had no experience teaching at a community college, but taught the subject for 10 years at a high school. This candidate has taught the tangentially related subject at a 4-year college, and has created courses and course materials in the subject area while teaching in H.S., and programs and course materials in the tangentially related subject while teaching at the 4-year college. With regard to the strongly preferred qualifications, the 2nd candidate has never taught at a community college; has experience creating courses and course materials in the subject at the H.S. level, and in the tangential subject at the 4-year college; and has arguably built 1 program and created partnerships at the H.S., for which the candidate received an award. One more thing regarding this candidate. The application included the following question: “How many years of community college teaching experience with relevant experience in [the subject area] do you possess?” The candidate checked off “4 or more years.” (A deliberate misrepresentation or an inadvertent error?)
As between these two candidates, on paper which candidate appears to be more qualified for the position in question?
Assume that after the applications have been received, the committee schedules a “teaching sample” in which both candidates are given a topic and must present a ½ hour teaching lesson on that topic, which is related to the subject area. After each presents their teaching sample, they are both individually interviewed. The consensus among the 5 members of the committee is that the candidate with the Ph.D. surpassed the candidate with the Masters by a significant degree, both with respect to the teaching sample and the interview.
The committee unanimously recommends the Ph.D. candidate to advance to a final interview stage with other administrators, and is hired; the other candidate is excluded.
Is there a basis to believe that in making this decision something suspicious is going on?
Replying to Samuel Chase: I generally prefer that comments be on the topic of the posting, but I'm intrigued by the example, so: 1. The elaborateness of the example gives it an other-worldly quality; in a real-life case there would greater differences between the two and so their incommensurability and relative appropriateness or inappropriateness for the position would be more marked. 2. The misrepresentation or error made by the second candidate disqualifies them from consideration: as a piece of misrepresentation it's fraud; as such a simple error it suggests that the candidate ought not to be trusted in grading assignments. 3. In my experience (8 colleges and universities, from UC Berkeley and Stanford to community colleges),the stated criteria for what's required and strongly preferred are guidelines that are, shall we say, 'negotiable' in light of formal and informal pressures from administrations and individuals. In the example you give, the evaluation of the candidates in light of their teaching samples and interviews would be decisive. If the error/misrepresentation is discovered within two years, fire their ass. If more than two years, and they've done well, let it go and focus on other things, like late capitalism, global warming, mass extinctions, desertification, and the coming collapse of civilization.
The Republican party now is composed of two factions, which I will call the "Stop the Steal" Republicans and the McConnell Republicans.
The "Stop the Steal" Republicans are virulent Trump supporters, believe the election was fraudulent, believe that Democrats are crazy and dangerous, and are sympathetic to right-wing conspiracy theories. They comprise the large majority of those who vote for Republican candidates. (This assertion is supported by polling showing that the vast majority of Republicans do not believe Biden fairly won the election.)
VOX - About half of Republicans don’t think Joe Biden should be sworn in as president
The McConnell Republicans supported Trump for purely practical reasons, know he lost a free and fair election, have doubts about Democratic policies, but would like politics to go back to they were before Trump. They are a much smaller in number than the Stop the Steal Republicans, and almost certainly shrinking group nationally.
NPR - Spurred By The Capitol Riot, Thousands Of Republicans Drop Out Of GOP
With respect to Republicans in congress, the large majority of the Republican caucus in the House are either Stop the Steal Republicans or are terrified to openly vote against them. A majority of Republicans in the House are probably at heart, McConnell Republicans, but cannot break from the Stop the Steal Republicans due to fear of both losing their seats and being genuinely frightened for their personal safety.
VOX - The Trump presidency was a catastrophe for American Christianity
Because of the deep well of fear and anger the Stop the Steal Republicans have for what they believe the Democrats have done and intend to do, they will remain firm anti-Democratic voters when they vote. It's not clear, though, if attacks on the voting process will result in lower numbers of the Stop the Steal Republicans.
The Stop the Steal Republicans cannot go forward as a legitimate democratic party; they can only succeed--both because of numbers and by temperament--by corrupting the elections at the state and/or national level. If they do not succeed in their state efforts at corrupting the elections (e.g., gerrymandering, suppressing the vote, etc.), then the number of Republican members in congress will significantly diminish. Efforts on this front are already underway.
State Republicans push new voting restrictions after Trump’s loss
I'd like to believe that the sane (if still unsavory) McConnell Republicans can eventually reassert power over the Republican party and move the party back to being something effectively resembling a normal democratic party. But other than Trump no longer having access to social media, there is relatively little reason to believe that is likely to happen. Liz Cheney's survival is a modest indication of the remaining strength of the McConnell Republican wing, while Marjorie Taylor Greene's support is currently the most acute sign of growth of the Stop the Steal Republicans.
To succeed, the Democrats need to clearly and demonstrably produce real-word results, and they have to find ways to blunt the anti-Democratic voting laws. There are multiple reasons to have optimism about chances for Democratic success at the real policy level, and multiple reasons to be pessimistic about chances for Democratic candidates running in state and federal elections in 2022.
The wildcard that could scramble all reasonable projections, of course, is the breakout of actual armed right-wing insurrection. I do not know enough to make any kind of guess as to how likely that is, but it is clear that there are large numbers of Stop the Steal Republicans who would be more than happy to see that happen.
--Tim Badonsky
Dr. Wolff,
I not sure what to call it, but the recent republican drama in the House seems more like the same process it has gone through over the past 15-20 years: weed out the insufficiently “conservative,” or perhaps those who are not completely lacking in ethics. McCarthy wants to keep his caucus together, McConnell want to keep the party together. Their problem is the party has nothing to offer.
W.D. Burnham described the realignment process as a short intense disruption in traditional voting behavior where 1/4 - 1/3 of voters shift, and the political environment is a highly intense political environment where norms are violated, rules changed, and characterized by increasing ideological polarization. The ideological polarization is the greatest it has ever been. The electorate is divided by generation, religion, geography, eduction, race and pretty much everything else you can think of.
This realignment is clearly different. The short intense period of change seems unlikely at this point due to the mobilization of right-wing militias. The militia movement was re-energized as a result of the election of Obama, and brought to the fore thanks to Trump. This suggests to me that a longer term fight is in the cards and the fight is over white supremacy.
As investigations into the attempted insurrection continue, the linkage between militias, the Trump organization and Republican Party are coming to light. I have been following reporting by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project’s (ACLED) U.S. Crisis Monitor for up to data information on demonstrations and political violence. They have partnered with Princeton University’s Bridging Divides Initiative which was mentioned in the Applebaum article you referenced a couple of weeks ago.
The US Crisis Monitor reports identifies four right-wing groups (or types of people) who represent the pool of people who will mobilize and react violently in reaction too perceived threats from “left-wing, socialist, and BLM” groups. The types are: 1) militia groups, 2) decentralized armed individuals, 3) violent sole perpetrators, and 4) unarmed mass mobilization.
The insurrection of January 6th appears to have involved all four groups, as the appeals to protest the certification of the electoral vote were broadcast widely on all types of media platforms. There was an overt call for mobilization by the Trump campaign, directly from Trump and allies alike, to “Stop the Steal.” Militia groups, including the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and III Percenters, mobilized well in advance of, and participated in the January, 6th insurrection.
The ‘decentralized armed individuals’ types typically responds to a general broadcast requesting help. As the situation in Kenosha ramped up and call went out for people to come and support the local fascists. That is what brought Rittenhouse to Kenosha - he was going to help maintain law and order and kill in order to protect private property.
I expect that when the opportunity arises, for example the next BLM march, the militias will be present and looking to exploit tactics they have employed over the past year. When the Biden administration’s voting rights legislation is introduced and being considered the likelihood of pro demonstrations to be meet with fascist counter demonstrations and violence is high. Ironically, the Democrats could well become the party of law and order for the next few generations.
@ tenacitus
Why are you addressing the proprietor of this blog as "Paul"? He never goes by his middle name standing alone, at least not here (and probably not anywhere).
L.F. Cooper,
You are ex LFC, I presume. So happy to see you here again.
Thanks, s. wallerstein.
Yes, I changed monikers here in response to Prof Wolff's post about wanting people to use (or, I suppose, move in the direction of using) full names.
But even though Prof Wolff and I have, I think, exchanged brief emails a long time ago (I'd be surprised if he recalls it b.c it was quite a long time ago), I can't see that it will make much difference to him whether I comment as LFC or L.F. Cooper. But he says he wants a full(er) name, so I'm providing it.
Prof. Rapko,
Thank you for your response to my inquiry. It is very helpful
Dear Professor Wolf,
I found this article to be instructive.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/02/the-republican-identity-crisis-after-trump
Philosophicalwaiter -
I like your approach but may I quibble over some numbers? I suspect the stop the steal group in the House is larger than you suggest: well over 50% were publicly committed to voting to delay certification. Given the long pattern of challenging insufficiently conservative incumbents, I would judge that most of the remaining House Republicans lean more toward the Trump wing than the McConnell wing (which I think of as the obstructionist/nihilist wing).
In the Senate only about 10% of members publicly supported the Stop the Steal, but I would think there is an equal number strongly inclined toward the Trump faction, but played it safe for various reasons
Professor Wolff's 4th paragraph above is worth pondering.
Just as one gets older, one realizes that most of the talk on the left about the revolution, is "macho posing", that there are few Che Guevara's and thousands of coffee house comandantes, so too most of the rightwing macho posing is just that. There were a couple of thousands of thugs, not a huge mob, who stormed the Capitol building and although in the liberal media we were told to beware of mayor rightwing violence during Biden's inauguration, nothing happened, although I'm sure that all over the country rightwing bigots drank too much beer or whiskey and made obscene gestures in front of their super size TV sets as Biden and especially Harris were sworn in.
It's clear that the liberal establishment is going to use the Capitol building assault as long they can to discourage radical politics. They'll tell us that any radical politics encourage proto-fascist violence and probably, they'll also use the January 6 incidents as an excuse to crack down on and marginalize what they brand as "extreme leftist" groups.
s. wallerstein,
I haven't seen any evidence that liberals in Congress are pointing to the risk of violence if Medicare for All were enacted. I think the liberals biggest problem is the difficulty in getting Biden's liberal agenda enacted. There is no political chance that I can see in how anything to the left of liberal could possibly be enacted for reasons having nothing to do with the Proud Boys and violence, and having much to do with the fact that Biden is a liberal and is not interested in much to left of liberalism, that the Democrats have a small majority in the House, and that includes members for red or purple states, and have a one vote majority in the Senate--if, and only if, more conservative Democrats like Manchin and Tester are on board.
David Palmeter,
I agree that nothing left of liberal is going to go through Congress. When I talk about radical politics, I'm talking about politics that goes on in the streets, in the universities, in certain neighborhoods, maybe in certain still existing unions, in
the feminist movement, in the Black Lives Matter movement, in the environmental movement, etc. That's what matters to me as a person and I believe that that is what matters to getting radical change, which is a long-term process.
I believe that we're going to be hearing a narrative about the wisdom of moderation even more than usual, from the usual suspects, the liberal media and their followers. I don't disagree that there isn't a certain wisdom to moderation at times, but that narrative, I suspect, will be used to discredit the alternative narrative about the wisdom of radicalism. I realize that the Trump period was traumatic for many people and that an expected reaction after experiencing trauma is to yearn for the good old days of peace and calm and that reaction will be manipulated, skillfully, to discredit any attempts by the more radical left to question business as usual and the liberal status quo.
S. Wallerstein,
Would data change your perception of the militia threat in the U.S.? It is available through such organizations as Militia Watch. Southern Poverty Law Center, and the group I mentioned above, ACLED. Let’s not forget the Dep’t.of Homeland Security’s new report on the threat of right-wing terrorism.
It is certainly the case that a not insignificant number of “militiamen’”are posers. Those that are most certainly not posers (having both a history of and high potential for violence) include the KKK, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, III%’s, Patriot Prayer, and the Michigan militia involved in the attempted kidnapping/murder of the Governor.
Regarding your final graph, there is no credible threat of violence from the left. Throughout US history the most credible threat of violence has come from the right, not the left, eg., white supremacists, and 2) the only radical politics threatening the liberal establishment currently is BLM, the aims of which are supported by the same establishment.
Sorry, but I haven't reached the point of trusting what the Department of Homeland Security has to say, about anything, not even about the weather.
Sorry I wasn’t sufficiently sarcastic. The other sources, however, are worth reading.
Ok. I understand. Thanks for clarifying.
Slippery are the slopes of sarcasm. By the way, where the hell has M.S. been? One longs for the Comments of so distinguished a contrarian.
He's been here, but under new identities, I'm fairly sure. He has a distinctive style and areas of expertise which are not difficult to detect.
s. wallerstein
I don't think that the liberal establishments will or needs to "use the Capitol building assault as long they can to discourage radical politics." Why would they?
I just noticed that Rep. Marjorie Greene looks like a young Val Kilmer in drag. (Today Val Kilmer’s face has regrettably been distorted by the ravages of throat cancer.)
"By the way, where the hell has M.S. been? One longs for the Comments of so distinguished a contrarian." He has a new handle ("Samuel Chase") but his weakness for non sequitur and his arrogant disregard for the etiquette of blog commenting continue unabated.
May s/he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Something strange happening in American politics?
The Democratic Governor of Nevada feels the traditional government model is inadequate, so he is pushing a proposal to allow deep-pocket tech companies to form their own separate local governments, with the ability to levy taxes, create school districts, establish courts, etc. These governments could eventually become independent of the counties in which they would be located. The companies would have significant sway over the composition of the boards of supervisors that would run the governments.
(A Twitter user observed that it won't be long before tech companies will be paying workers in store-credit!)
This reminds me of a Radiolab story from a few years back (@21:27), in which we hear how real estate developers are able to game the system in Texas: they pay a guy to "live" for a few weeks in an undeveloped, unincorporated area so that he can become the only legal resident (and only eligible "voter") in that area. The guy (who himself serves as the election official supervising his own election) then votes on a ballot measure to (1) create a special taxing district, (2) create a board of directors that can levy taxes, (3) and set the tax obligation for future residents at, in the particular case they discussed in the episode, $400 million—which the developers can then take to banks to get loans to build houses.
Ain't neoliberalism grand?
Thanks, Anonymous. So M.S. now goes by the name of, "Samuel Chase". I thought I detected something of a stink from the worthy gentleman's Comments. Prolixity and garrulousness will ever have their odor. (Fricking, "Little Oxford English Dictionary", tells me that "odor" should be spelled "odour". Ahh, fuck'em.
Why don't we just accept MS under whatever name he chooses to comment as a member of the seminar, especially since he appears to have dropped the hectoring tone and the tendency to insult others which he originally displayed here?
Otherwise, we're going to end up looking like the "in kids" (it's great to be an "in kid" for once in my life) making life hard for the new kid in the school.
I find the issues that Professor Wolff brings up in this post to be interesting and thought-provoking, but I didn't want to respond until I had a little time to think about it.
One thing I would add is that the Republican Party, unapologetically the party of business, and especially big business, for much of the 20th and 21st centuries, is, with its courting of violent seditionists, risking the loss of an important source of funding. McConnell, ever-sensitive to the sentiments of big donors, understands this.
The one time in the 20th century that I can remember the Republican Party risking its relationship with business came with the progressives after the First World War. Eventually the progressive wing of the Party formed its own third party, which had few successes in the 20th century. (I have a great-great uncle who ran, and lost, as a Progressive "Bull-Moose" candidate for mayor of Hammond, Indiana.) Robert La Follette, Jr., senator from Wisconsin, is an interesting case in point. Taking over the seat from his progressive father, La Follette is known for his hearings in the mid-thirties on the union-busting practices of big business. (One of the people he called before his committee was the Pinkerton's Ralph Dudley, who was responsible for reporting my great-grandfather to the Bureau of Investigation for his supposed disloyal activities during the First World War). When the Progressive Party dissolved, La Follette attempted to move back to the Republican Party. However, he was defeated for reelection by Joseph McCarthy, who came to represent a more long-lasting strand of the Party: the paranoid, conspiracy-theorists of the right.
It remains to be seen how successful Kevin McCarthy will be in keeping the House coalition together. There is no doubt that McCarthy wants to re-take the House in 2022, and he'll have important structural advantages after various states get done re-gerrymandering their districts. However, a change of power in the House is not guaranteed. Some Republicans seem to think that big business will come back around to funding their campaigns after the memory of 1/6 fades. Maybe it will. The situation is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell what will happen with the mid-terms. All we can say is that the game is on. The DCCC is already spending money on television and internet ads to take advantage of Republican extremism. Tens of thousands have already switched their registration from the Republican Party, and while that is not enough in itself to make much of a difference, it's a trend in the wrong direction.
I've read, for example, that 33,000 in California have left the Party. I don't know how many of them hail from Orange county, but I can imagine that such disaffections could help the Democrats re-take a couple House seats in California and contribute to them maintaining a slim majority. If the Republicans fail to regain power in both the House and Senate in 2022, then the real civil war in the Republican Party will begin in earnest. I think of Lincoln's phrasing here: "It will become all one thing or all the other."
Yeah, you're pretty much right, S. Wallerstein. Whomever M.S. is, he seems like a pretty smart dude. ---Just kind of over-the-top, rhetoric-wise. After that much concession, I need a drink.
Gosh, guys, I’m tearing up just reading these comments.
Jeffrey G. Kessen,
Americans usually spell words like odor, labor, color as in the original Latin. The Brits and many others in the English-speaking world prefer the -our ending. Noah Webster is usually credited with the shift.
Or did you mean ordure?
Doesn't much matter, though "ordure", for whatever it's worth, about captures it right. God-damn funked-up cat litter tracked all over the house.
@ L.F. Cooper I do not know the proprietor the the blog personally. I have been reading this blog cursorily for a few years comment maybe once a year. With COVID and I have decided to comment a bit more on some of the blogs I visit. We are on the internet expecting me to know to refer to everyone by their title is unrealistic. If the professor or you would prefer I do not comment because a good faith effort to refer to people respectfully is not what you would prefer I'm cool with not commenting.
The professor asked some questions about the republican party I responded as succinctly as I could with a number of points and examples yu had nothing to say about that just a complaint about my greeting. I started my post with Hi Paul because I hoped it would come across as being friendly.
Maybe you feel I should not comment here unless I prove I have a PhD in Philosophy. Well I do not. I have a couple of degrees and have taught at many different types of places. I have no real interest in going into more detail about that
It will not really be a loss to me, you or the blog proprietor if I decide not comment here because I might have violated a rule about addressing people I did not know about fortunately the internet is big, life is deep and full
Cheers
tenacitus,
You don’t understand. These blog connoisseurs take their blog protocols very, very seriously. They don’t like prolixity; they don’t like what they regard as non sequiturs, i.e., comments which do not conform with their pre-conceived ideologies; they don’t like what they regard as over the top rhetoric; and they particularly don’t like an arrogant disregard for blog etiquette. So proceed at your own risk.
tenacitus,
Oh, I almost forgot. They also don’t like comments which they believe are off topic, unless, of course, it is one of their own.
@ tenacitus
my only point was he doesn't, afaik, use his middle name like that. people have called him Bob here a lot, I've just never seen anyone call him Paul. Sorry to ruffle feathers, not that big a deal. Pls continue commenting.
David @ 12:59
I had forgotten (if I ever knew) that LaFollette was defeated by J. McCarthy. The LaFollette sort of influence in the Rep Party is gone. (Ditto the tendency represented by the Ripon Society, which was always a minority one in the party.)
There's the M.S. (or Samuel Chase, or whom-ever) we all know and love. Ever ready for good sport. Eager of tangle, ready with quip, of purpose no angle the better to slip. Once was a blog, on thoughts so profound, yet there came a'creeping so thinking unsound. Worry the reader of this or that take, but measure the moment, lest folly awake. Hey, that's the best me and my cat can do tonight.
jeffrey,
Not quite as good as my owner and I did in “Mungojerrie And Rumpelteazer.” But then again, he won the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Bob, This frightful piece about death-squad chic is worth teading: https://theintercept.com/2021/02/04/pinochet-far-right-hoppean-snake/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter
Fortunately, the wannabe death squads do not have govt sponsorship. Yet.
I wish I could see a stronger prospect of Republican implosion, but I don't. No compelling leadership for the not-quite-Trumpist Republicans.
The maniacal far right Trump supporters endorse many vile memes that divulge their fascist aspirations – like the “Camp Auschwitz” hoodies that were seen at the Capitol insurrection, indicating they would like to establish concentration camps here in the U.S. for their political opponents. Their contemptible beliefs and objectives must be resisted with every fiber of our being. Judging by Rep. Greene’s press conference yesterday, in which she appealed to Jesus and further demonstrated her insanity and intransigence, we will have to remain ever vigilant for the next few years to make sure this cancer does not metastasize.
MCA Live Transfer Leads professional guarantees to deliver best qualified for MCA Aged Leads with precise and updated knowledge prepared for conversion MCA Live Leads.
Post a Comment