To be sure, I'm not a big one on political protest myself... I don't find it as useful as simply voting for people who are more likely to share one's policy ideas. But I remember the Occupy Seattle protests, which were dominated by younger people, and am curious where that particular energy is now.
Election day for the Primaries here in Washington State is a couple of weeks away, and that means that ballots have gone out, and, preceding them, the Voters' Pamphlets. Pamphlet isn't really the word for them in most election cycles, this year's is 95 pages long; although this may be simply a function of the fact that King County is the most populous in the state, and, like many counties in western states, is rather large. Accordingly, there are a number of state and federal legislative districts that need to be accounted for.
For offices, like United States Representative, County Council member or State Supreme Court Justice, the half-page candidate statements are a bit of free advertising; as far as people actually read them, at least. (When I was in my old apartment, the trash car near the mailboxes tended to collect Voters' Pamphlets.) But, perhaps out of a sense of masochism, I do tend to read them, especially given that not all candidates for office send out campaign postcards, and I don't watch television any more.
Personally, I don't really find the candidate statements to be all that informative about the candidate's positions on things; if they're going to be forthcoming, their website, if they have one, is the place to look for that sort of information. So the Voters' Pamphlet is more useful as a source of insight into society; or, perhaps more accurately, what candidates, parties and political consultants thing will play well.
Talking about family is big; a number of candidates say how many children, and sometimes grandchildren, they have, and it's not all that uncommon to find mentions of pets (especially if they are rescues). Partisan buzzwords also put in an appearance; the Seattle area, and thus, King County as a whole, is fairly Blue, so Republicans tended to use low-key language to signal an affiliation with President Trump. Not quite "dog-whistle" subtle, but nothing particularly overt. Another interesting thing about the local Republicans was the number of candidates who described themselves as first-generation immigrants. primarily from Europe and Asia.
There was also a lot of talk about how broken and unresponsive government was. A number of people were running as "outsiders," and pledging to make government more transparent, more efficient and more answerable to the public. "The taxes are two damn high," was a constant refrain. Which I get; telling people that one is going to fix how broke they feel is a time-tested tactic; even if no-one ever seems to bring the promised feelings of wealth and prosperity once in office. It's something of a vicious cycle, I think; promise to make people feel more flush, only to have the next challenger to come along double down on the idea that people are justified in their feelings of poverty. For the supposed wealthiest nation on the face of the Earth, politics is often laser-focused on how much money people don't have.
But, I guess it works... otherwise, people would quit doing it. But I do think that part of the reason that people feel both poor and powerless is the constant litany of political advertising by candidates claiming that they can solve those problems. Creating the need works in other forms of advertising... it makes sense that it works here, as well.
The primary elections for this mid-term cycle start in early August here, and so the yard signs are starting to go up, the new Voters' Pamphlets have been delivered and postcards from candidates are arriving in mailboxes.
One such postcard landed in my mailbox this morning, from a Democrat running for the state legislature. I spent a bit of time looking at it, just to glean a basic understanding of who the guy was; as with most campaign postcards, it was a blend of personal story, endorsements and platitudes. Like the following:
I'll focus on practical solutions to bring down the costs of housing, childcare, groceries and other everyday essentials so people can get ahead, and build a future here.
So far, so boilerplate. And that's the problem. Everyone says they'll focus on "practical solutions" to whatever items their focus groups have identified as being the problems most likely to drive feelings of poverty. When was the last time a serious candidate for office vowed to spend their time investigating impractical solutions?
Part of the problem is that "practical solutions" tends to be candidate-speak for some magical process that makes the problem go away without anyone actually needing to pay anything for the fix. Because it's been understood how to lower the cost of housing for the past 20 years now: increase the available land that can be built on, to allow the supply of housing to expand. But that would have costs; not least of which for current homeowners, who would see the equity in their properties diminish if housing costs dropped.
And that's part of the problem with politics; the tendency to ignore the fact that many of these problems have stakeholders on the other side of the transaction who benefit from (and in some cases rely on) the status quo. Take child care. The fact that it's expensive for many parents doesn't mean that the providers and workers are making loads of money. Even if their living expenses could be lowered, it doesn't follow from this that they'd want to pass that savings on to parents. The immediate answer to get around this would be that the state could subsidize child care, but where would the money for this come from? And housing is even worse in this regard; lowering housing costs means homeowners loosing part of the value of their asset.
Big picture, this is why "practical solutions" to these problems have yet to really surface. Not because the last bunch of legislators were unwilling to engage with the problem, but because political solutions that don't come with costs for someone are few and far between. And the low hanging fruit is quickly picked, boxed and shipped for the easy win. But no-one has ever won, at least as near as I can tell, on a platform of making difficult trade-offs. And if the postcards I'm receiving are any indication, no-one will try it in this cycle, either.
So on the other side of the country, Democrats in Maine are gearing up for another primary election to select a new nominee for the United States Senate after the current nominee, one Graham Platner, announced that he would withdraw from the election.
While the fact that Mr. Platner has character flaws has been known for some time, new allegations against him are for criminal behavior, and this seems to be the straw that broke the back of his support within the Democratic Party. But I suspect that doubts concerning his ability to win against current Maine Senator Susan Collins are the bigger factor in all of this.
Although Republicans like to highlight the character flaws in Democratic candidates for office, and vice versa, the fact of the matter is that in a safe seat, it makes no difference. People aren't going to risk the policies they want over character concerns, and this is what allowed Mr. Platner to made it as far as he did. Because a Progressive with a complicated (and perhaps criminal) past is still preferable to Democrats than any Republican, even one whose act is clean enough to be food-safe.
And so if leaving Mr. Platner in place carried the best chance of replacing Senator Collins, there would likely have been much less pressure on him to step aside. This is, in my opinion, to be expected. For Republicans, support for the President is paramount; any other transgression can be either forgiven, justified or simply ignored, so long as someone is properly supportive of the Trumpist agenda. The idea that Democrats would be above this manner of thinking about politics is laughable. At this point, winning is the only thing, and nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of that. The perceived stakes are simply too high.
Pew Research has published their most recent data on the political typology of the United States, which divides the nation into nine broad ideological categories, namely:
I find it somewhat convenient that there are four right-leaning types, four left-leaning and one rather disengaged one in the center, but I suppose that it makes things more accessible to people that way, given the degree to which many Americans understand politics to only have the single Right-Left dimension.
But, and perhaps this is simply more proof that I'm a nerd, the first thing that came to mind was a Dungeons and Dragons alignment chart, which also has nine types, defined in a grid having Good-Neutral-Evil on one axis and Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic on the other. Dropping Pew's "Tuned-Out Middle" into the "True Neutral" center box of D&D alignments is simple enough, but it become fairly complicated from there... Which type would map to Neutral Evil? Or Chaotic Good?
One could make a political quiz out of that itself... Give people the descriptions of the nine different Types, have them place them on an alignment chart and then see what their choices say about them, and their Type. Given that there are nine Types and nine alignments, I suspect that most people would seek to create a 1:1 correlation, but there's no reason why two or more Types couldn't share a single alignment. For people like me, who don't really believe that real world people ever genuinely qualify as Evil, they'd have to.
But I'm in the minority, I think. I'd be willing to bet that many Left-leaning Americans would have little difficulty filling the three Evil boxes on the alignment chart with the Right-leaning types from the Pew survey and vice-versa. And that there's useful (if perhaps depressing) information in that. Because part of the nature of high levels of partisanship, especially negative affective partisanship, is the view that people on the other side of things are the enemy. And part of the rationale that drives in-group versus out-group animosity is often the idea that the out-group is willfully, deliberately, perverse.
If, for example, a person who identifies with the Faith First Conservatives places themselves as Lawful Good, and slots the Left-Out Left into Chaotic Evil, that tells one a lot about how they view both groups. Them placing the Pragmatic and Polite Right into the Chaotic Evil box says something different, but just as enlightening, especially in a political environment where "having the right enemies" can be an important marker of group identity.
[President] Derangement Syndrome is a partisan malady which is diagnosed as a way of calling out opposing partisans over their dislike of any given presidential administration. Republicans, for instance, will call out critics of the Trump Administration as having "Trump Derangement Syndrome," but it would be considered sacrilegious for a Republican to describe, say, President Trump as having "Obama Derangement Syndrome," despite the fact that it appears that Barack Obama has been living rent-free in Donald Trump's head for quite some time now.
I find this interesting for what it says about America politics; namely that even though partisans are wont to speak of the current political moment in very high-stakes, existential terms, they appear to believe that its inappropriate for opposing partisans to do so, even when it seems rational to do so.
President Trump, for example, has taken a lot of steps to punish Democratic leaning areas for apparently nothing more than voting Democratic, and the current Republican redistricting push is explicitly designed to make it easier for Republicans to hold on to the House of Representatives, and thus continue to allow the President to implement policies that are intended to be punitive. So why wouldn't Democrats see that as a threat to themselves and their vision for the nation? Why wouldn't they see the Trump Administration as deliberately wrongheaded? Many Republicans are happy to describe Barack Obama and Joe Biden that way, and it's not clear to me that the former Presidents were anywhere nearly as overtly hostile to their political opponents as President Trump openly describes himself as.
It's a weirdly one-sided vision of conflict.
I mean, if I were actively attempting to kill someone, I would expect them to be pulling out all the stops in defending themselves, if not trying to kill me first, and I think that a lot of people would find it disingenuous of me to expect that the other person would treat me as if I weren't ready, willing and able to do them harm. But that might just be the circles that I move in.
Because there seem to be a lot of people who not only see themselves as being obviously the Good Guys, but expect their opposition to see them that way as well. Which I sort of understand, but it strikes me as an outlook on the world that is immature bordering on actively childish. But maybe this is because I lack a sense of the world as being divided between forces of Good and Evil, and where the two sides understand the roles that they play in the greater narrative. Perhaps if I saw one or the other side as being deliberately perverse, I would also be of the opinion that they're the only side that would think to use unjustified aggression and that they would also realize this.
In this sense [President] Derangement Syndrome isn't a behavioral descriptor, but a moral one. So of course partisans don't use it to describe members of their own coalitions... to do so would be to call those people out as purposely wrong-headed, and violate tenets of in-group solidarity.
The lower court also “failed to follow our instruction in Callais that the mere fact that voters of different races vote for different parties is not relevant to proving racially polarized voting patterns.”So then, one wonders, what is?
Supreme Court permits Alabama to use congressional map struck by lower court as racially discriminatory. SCOTUSblog
Elizabeth Willing Powel: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”Keep it? I'm not convinced that many people even want any part of it.
Benjamin Franklin: “A republic, ma’am. If you can keep it.”
Overheard, it is said, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787
The problem with "inside the Beltway" punditry is that it tends to be divorced from the actual reasons why the public at large does things. I was listening to a recent episode of the Slate Politics podcast, and host David Plotz was attempting to make the point that Graham Platner's character flaws were different, and lesser, than President Trump's, as an answer to a an expected Republican callout of hypocrisy.
What serious Democrat cares if Republicans think they're a hypocrite, given the number of Republicans who already regard them as Enemies of the State? Democrats who are going to vote for Graham Platner will do so not because they've decided he's morally upstanding, but because control of the United States Senate is important, and a Senator Platner makes that more likely than Senator Susan Collins remaining in office does. Disliking the new rules of the game doesn't mean that people don't have to play. And the new rules of the game dictate that controlling the various levers of government is the only thing that matters.
As long as Democratic and Republican voters continue to organize themselves into two mutually hostile camps where "the other side losing" is considered equal to "winning," this is going to be the new normal, because the activist classes on both sides see themselves as too broke to be able to care about right and wrong.
Ironically, it's because they can't afford not to.
"Inside the Beltway" commentary that expects people to feel secure enough to take the high road simply comes across as disconnected from the way that people are actually engaging with politics. And it's difficult to offer workable solutions to a problem when one is committed to an incorrect diagnosis.
“James Madison’s design — ‘ambition must be made to counteract ambition’ — assumed that Congress would jealously guard its powers against the executive. He did not imagine a political party that would surrender its institutional ambition to the personality cult of one man.”I understand Mr. Zakaria’s point, but I feel it somewhat obscures an important factor. For many Republican lawmakers the congregants in “the personality cult of one man” are the people whose support they need to be reelected. No matter how well a lawmaker’s chosen policies might serve the nation as a whole, they cannot implement them if they are voted out of office.
The Week, quoting Fareed Zakaria in The Washington Post.
I was listening to an episode of The New York Times "The Opinions" podcast recently, and the topic was theft as a form of political action. The podcast coined the term "microlooting" for this activity, which I suspect is known to most people simply as "shoplifting." The New York Times being part of the "mainstream media," the term has quickly become a front in the United State's culture wars, with Conservative outlets being quick to jump on the practice as yet more proof of Liberal moral turpitude (not to mention un-Americanism). But for me, the real problem with shoplifting as a form of "direct action" is that it does nothing to solve the problem, and framing it as some sort of political protest obscures that point.
In 1978, when Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, the highest marginal income tax rate was 70%, payable on income over $108,300. In 2024, the rate was 37%, payable on income over $609,350. This represents about a 50% cut in the rate, given that $108,300 in 1978 was about $531,400 in 2024 dollars. Sneaking lemons out of Whole Foods does nothing to address this simple fact.
Politicians have been offering up tax cuts as a means of purchasing political support for my entire adult life by this point, and people have gone along with it, because a lowering of taxes feels like some sort of relief of their own feelings of poverty; until wealthy people, whose taxes also went down, started pulling away from them. There would be much more money for public services if tax rates went back to where they had been in 1978, but no-one wants that; the general feeling that "someone else" should be paying for it is fairly deeply ingrained in American culture by now.
The problem with large-scale direct action and political protest in the United States is not the collective action problem that it's made out to be. It's a social trust problem. The Right and Left of American politics have very different idea of what an ideal society should look like, and their mutual animosity tends to lead each to want to place the costs on the other. Both are effectively faith-based approaches to issue of governance that regard the other as heretical. And both of them are beholden to large segments of the American public that are basically looking out for themselves.
Because when Amazon was offering better prices than brick-and-mortar retailers due to not collecting sales taxes for whichever state the buyer was in, or Uber and Lyft were undercutting taxi companies by simply not following the rules those companies had to follow, the public's silence on this was taken as approval. And now that people are saying to wealthy executive and investors "Okay, now share some of the take with the rest of us," they come across as surprised that the answer is mostly "No."
High levels of income and wealth inequality are solved in the same way that housing shortages (and resulting high prices) are solved: one doesn't let the situation get to that point in the first place. Because there are now a lot of people whose material comforts explicitly rely on the current status quo, and many of them aren't in "the 1%." And they're going to turn out to protect their interests. This is just how loss aversion works.
Many people in the United States feel that political apathy is something that they're entitled to, and therefore, shouldn't have to pay a price for. But everything has a price, and deferring payments rarely make them go away.
With average gasoline prices in the United States having climbed from a little below $3.00 a gallon back in late February to just north of $4.50 a gallon as of this week, I'm curious as to what the broad message from the Trump Administration is going to be; and to whom it will be directed.
Generally speaking, the Trump Administration care about reliable Republican voters, who, for the most part, don't need much in the way of reassurance from the White House or Capitol Hill, because they tend to be willing to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt. This is one of the more tangible benefits of negative partisanship. But it seems unlikely that, even with aggressive gerrymandering, that a reliance only on high-propensity Republican voters will allow Republicans to carry the House of Representatives. The recent Supreme Court decision allowing for the breakup of "majority minority" districts might help, but not if enough Republican voters stay home, and low-propensity voters, are, more or less by definition, the most likely to skip this upcoming election cycle.
Which may mean that the Administration will have no choice but to defend itself as November comes closer. The President may have enough sway with Republican primary voters to punish Republican defector from his gerrymandering plan in places like Indiana, but that's not the same as being able to drive general election turnout. And there have been indications that people who voted for President Trump because they believed his campaign promises about creating economic boom times and not having the United States involved in foreign entanglements don't think that his tariff regime and strongarming NATO line up with what they thought they were going to get. And they're not part of the activist class that believes that the Republican Party is entitles to leadership by virtue of being right about all things at all times.
On the other hand, the Democrats may be of the opinion that their job is too easy at this point. Despite more than a decade of President Trump and the Republican party being able to do more or less what they want without a significant erosion in their core base of support, it seems difficult for Democrats to come up with any message more cogent than "Trump bad." Which may be true, but it's a very limited message for a political party that's supposed to be the standard-bearer for the idea that government can, and does, solve people's problems. Simply changing the occupant of the Oval Office is not the same as actually making changes that impact people's lives for the better.
So I'm somewhat looking forward to what the parties' messages are going to be, as November comes closer. Being in a reliably Blue state my own House and Senate races are highly unlikely to bear any resemblance to "competitive" so the local media market is likely to be quiet. Which will likely mean seeking out the various party talking points; which is perhaps what more people should be doing anyway.
For many in the ballroom at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner on Saturday night, the scene was painfully familiar. Shots fired, confusion and panic, and a sense that the normal order of things had been violently interrupted.This may be true, but for a lot of people who weren't in that ballroom, shots fired is the normal order of things. The United States is a pretty violent place, considering that it's not a third-world nation. Lethal force is often seen as a solution to problems, and not a problem in and of itself. While a lot of made of political violence, what's happening is that a segment of the American public that's normally shielded from the sort of violence that's an everyday occurrence in much of the country are starting to find that it's coming for them. Because more people are coming to the conclusion that some action or another is, in fact, a form of violence, and so violence in return is warranted.
Political violence jolts the US once again - with a familiar response
Rep. Eric Swalwell, Candidate for California Governor, Is Accused of Sexual Assault
You don't say...
Maybe it's just me (and I suspect that it is), but I've never understood the dogged pursuit of unavailable women by men in business and politics. While, sure, there's always some allure in something one can't (or maybe just shouldn't) have, being credibly accused of sexual assault is so damaging to one's reputation that you'd think that people would have gotten the message by now. So why create any circumstances where accusations could arise? Sure the "Mike Pence Rule" may have been taking things a bit farther than necessary, but especially for Democrats, whose voter base tends to be particularly unforgiving of these sorts of things, keeping one's act clean enough to be food safe is important.
Because accusations don't have to be borne out in order to be damaging. Anyone remember Senator Franken? While his case has become widely seen as a rush to judgement, one would think that other people would take it as a cautionary tale.
Democrats have been beating the drum about alleged sexual misconduct on the part of the President, and being somewhere between surprised and disappointed that it hasn't been seen as disqualifying by Republican voters. This sort of stance doesn't leave much room for them to give people the benefit of the doubt without being perceived as hypocrites (of course, in today's political environment, charges of hypocrisy are pretty much a given, anyway...). And so why run the risk? Democrats are already lining up to denounce him and demand that he drop out of the governor's race.
To be sure, there's always going to be some risk. In Representative Swalwell's case, the accuser (along with other women who claim he pursued them) is unnamed, and says that on both occasions, she'd been drinking enough that her memories of the nights in question are spotty to non-existent. And the inappropriate photos she claims were sent to her were via SnapChat, and so are no longer accessible. That's a really hard thing to defend against, and so these accusations are likely to turn on whether people believe that he's the sort of person who would engage in this sort of conduct.
Because with the primary election in June, there's no way that these charges could be adjudicated in time for there to be a verdict prior to voting. So the Court of Public Opinion is really the only viable venue to hear the case. And it's not a very good one.
But I have to concede that I'm not necessarily being much better. I'm casting Representative Swalwell as being at least an accomplice in his own troubles, despite the fact that I really have nothing to substantiate that, other than a lack of surprise that yet another candidate for political office has been accused of sexual misconduct. It's entirely possible, and maybe even quite plausible, that this is all a set up. The thing about anonymous accusations in the media is that no-one has to put their neck on the line to substantiate them. And in a case like this one, "reasonable doubt" comes baked into the cake.
So maybe the problem is that while the "Mike Pence Rule" does seem to be taking things a few steps past where they need to go, there's a real chance that it eventually becomes the standard; because it's better to be criticized for misogyny, being weird or locking women out of networking opportunities than it is to be accused of rape. But this speaks to a serious erosion of trust between people, and maybe that's Representative Swalwell's real problem. He's an easy target, if not necessarily for people's suspicions, for the Democratic Party's worries over retaining the offices that it controls and making inroads into Republican territory. Given how Blue a state California is, it's unlikely that this will result in the next Governor being a Republican, but the concern will likely keep things hot for Representative Swalwell.
Muslims don't belong in American society.Cue Democratic "outrage" and Republican silence.
Pluralism is a lie.
Representative Andy Ogles (R-Tennessee)
Representative Ogles isn't the first House Republican to make such statements on social media.Okay... and?
Few, if any, Congressional Republicans reacted publicly to any of the posts.
But Congressional Democrats were quick to denounce it.
Tennessee GOP Rep says Muslims 'don't belong in American society'
Over the weekend, there was an Ipsos/Reuters poll that covered the ongoing attacks on Iran and the Trump Administration's use of force in general. While the headline proclaimed "Just one in four Americans say they back US strikes on Iran, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds," for myself I wonder if that was what was actually being measured. Consider the results that drove the headline:
Overall, the Democratic-identified participants come across as the most reflexively partisan, in the sense that they are more likely to disapprove than Republicans are to approve, less likely to approve than Republicans disapprove and less likely to be undecided about the matter. This could give Republican office-seekers heartburn come this year's election season, as the Democratic coalition tends to have more high-propensity voters, as I understand it. If that holds, and the lower-propensity voters who would otherwise lean Republican stay home, the Democrats may find that they have enough new seats in Congress to actually change things, at least on some level.
Representative Ro Khanna (D-California) read out six names that had been redacted, and then unredacted in "the Epstein Files." According to the Department of Justice, four of the names were of random people who had been in a photo lineup. According to Representative Khanna, the fault lies with the DoJ.
While it seems patently evident that the Department of Justice has been sloppy with their handling of the documents, I think that ownership of this particular screw-up belongs to Representative Khanna, simply because it had already been established that simply being named in the set of documents released, or even knowing Jeffry Epstien, is not, in and of itself, evidence of guilt. Representative Khanna blames the DoJ for not explaining why the names were in the documents earlier, but it shouldn't have been up to the DoJ to make clear what everyone already knew.
The idea that there was a smoking gun, being hidden by the Department of Justice, that would blow the lid off of a ring of powerful men who were into sex with teenaged girls, always rested on the ideas that a) Jeffrey Epstein compiled information on people who were committing crimes along with him, and b) that he pretty much exclusively surrounded himself with other people who were into sex with underage girls. That's what it takes to believe that the simple fact that one's name could be found in the documents made one a wealthy and powerful person who was engaged in the rape of minors.
Hoping that Q-Anon's (remember them?) obsession with the idea that there was an Illuminati-like ring of pedophiles running around sleeping with children would become a weapon against President Trump was a bad idea from the jump, based as it was on the conjecture that enough people could be peeled away from the Trumpist coalition on that basis to weaken him politically. Personally, I'd hoped that Democrats would give up on being anti-Trump and pro-fixing things that need fixing in the United States, but it turned out that the Democrats were more than capable of remaining single-minded for longer than I could remain irrational.
It would be nice if this blunder dialed back the strange alliance with conspiracy theorizing that seems to have become popular with the political class (it has zero chance of ending it) but I doubt that it will. Too many people have hitched their wagons to the idea that this will be straw that breaks the camel's back, apparently unaware that thus far, it's been a very resilient camel.
So there's a local company that uses their street-facing sign mainly for political messaging. In the entire time I've noticed what it's said, it's pretty much never been about business. Usually, the signs have small government or simply anti-Democratic Party messages... whoever runs the place seemed to have really had it in for Governor Gregoire, back in the day. But the last couple of messages have been different, and the most recent one really stood out.
Of course, the chances of a Republican carrying the 1st District of Washington are don't even make it to slim. Zero seems like a much more accurate number, to be honest. But that's never stopped the owner of Chain Saws Plus from railing against the generally Left-of-Center political consensus of the area. And, given that they're still in business, there are people who don't hold that against them. So I'm fairly certain that this isn't a business decision; made as a peace offering to the more Liberal elements of the Eastside.
Instead, this seems like someone who's actually willing to come out and be critical of "their" side in all of this. And while I doubt that would translate into a vote to re-elect Representative DelBene, it does seem like one fewer vote for any GOP challenger(s). (Not that I'd expect any Republican candidates to make it out of the primary, absent a large, and fractured, group of Democratic candidates.)
Reliance on low-propensity voters has shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans, even if President Trump doesn't seem to be aware of the fact. If the Republicans can't count on people who have defined themselves in terms of negative partisanship against the Democrats to turn out, the President's concern that another impeachment is headed his way may turn out to be correct.
Perhaps the real problem with the video, shared by President Trump on his Truth Social account, that portrayed Barack and Michelle Obama as apes, is that it triggered calls for its removal, rather than an examination of why it was posted. I don't believe for a moment that President Trump allowed some anonymous staffer to post the video to his account without anyone knowing what was in the entire video. The President's previous comments about Africa and the African diaspora have made no secret of his disdain. Which is nothing new... I suspect it would be silly of me to say that Donald Trump is the only racist to have occupied the White House during my lifetime.
The idea that there are members of the MAGA movement who are simply unreconstructed racists is simply taken as given by many. But, okay... the United States has had its share, if not more of unreconstructed racists for as long as I've been around, too... but the White House giving an implicit stamp of approval to such messaging seems unique to the Trump Administration, at least in modern times.
Even if we accept (and I don't) the idea that the video was posted to the social media account of the President of the United States without anyone vetting it thoroughly for its message, the fact that it originated with a meme account points to it being a form of "red meat" for the President's base of voters. And that raises the question, at least for me, of why memes? Of all of the things that the President's Truth Social account could be sharing, why bother with random stuff like this; especially if it's going to be hand-waved through? One would think the last thing the White House wants is for some random message to be seen coming from the President. Donald Trump has pretty much zero in the way of "regular guy" credentials, so why engage in the bored teenager act?
When I was in high school, I knew a number of people who had no compunctions against calling me "nigger" to my face. Most of them didn't strike me as racists, and I concluded that it wasn't racist, but personal. They were seeking to get a rise out of me. And I suspect that this is what's at work here. The President is like a class clown who craves the spotlight badly enough to do whatever he can to keep it trained on themselves.
The thimble thunderstorm of the video spread internationally pretty quickly, and generated a lot of heat, even if there was little light. I'm not in the camp that says the President is attempting to distract people from other things... the news cycle can present multiple things to the public at once. Donald Trump simply needs for one of those things to be him.
Democrats were, of course, going to take the bait on this one; their political incentives demand that they constantly decry this or that random bit of inanity that the President's engaged in, even if the smart move would be to simply roll their eyes and find something more constructive to do with their time. But enough people demand constant vigilance, and responsiveness, that they're force to play ball, and keep themselves in the spotlight as well. And this time, even a few Republicans felt the need to get in on the act, despite the fact that it has likely earned them the moniker RINO from the MAGA faithful. But it ensured that reporters would be rushing to get comment from the press secretary and the President himself, both of whom said pretty much the same things they say every other time.
The constituency for this is hard to pin down, because it seems that so many people are on the lookout for, and responsive to, signs that President Trump is doing something; even when that something is not governing. Elements of the political Left and Right alike seem to have little better to do than to boo or cheer the President, who responds with a constant stream of random acts for them to respond to. But what I don't understand is why these groups must never be allowed to go hungry. Why does Congress and the news media dutifully play the same tired role, over and over again. What does the outrage machine offer in return, that the rest of the public cannot match?
To take a pop culture example of the rising material expectations for American families, the TV sitcom The Brady Bunch, which ran from 1969 to 1974, followed the lives of a family with six children—three boys and three girls. The Bradys were prosperous, upper-middle-class Californians who could afford family vacations to Hawaii. Yet the three boys shared a single small bedroom, as did the three girls. What is more, all of the kids shared a single bathroom!As the quote points out, The Brady Bunch was a sitcom. It was neither a documentary nor reality television. The fact that the show was set in a relatively small home says nothing about the material expectations for American families at the time. By 1974, my parents had purchased their first home, and it had four bedrooms (which made perfect sense to me at the time... of course everyone would have their own room), and this wasn't understood as cutting-edge... it was the norm for pretty much the entire neighborhood where I grew up.
Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years
First, many of the past incentives to have large families are gone. For instance, far fewer Americans live and work on farms in 2025 than they did in 1825 or 1925. Few married couples now think of the labor potential of children on a farm or in the local coal mine. Infant mortality has also dropped to near zero, and life expectancy has more than doubled. Far fewer elderly Americans live with and depend directly on their children and grandchildren now than they did in the past—due in part to vast entitlement programs.There's a bit of grousing about entitlement programs; the Heritage Foundation is, after all, a conservative think tank, but otherwise, there's nothing in the document that suggests the fix is a return to a largely agrarian society, with increased levels of child labor as standard, higher levels of child mortality and people's entire social safety nets being their children. And so it's swimming against the tide with a rallying cry of "Virtue!" But, as if often the case with fundamentally religious outlooks, it refuses to recognize that "virtue" is almost always the celebration of responses to necessity. Sure, the Bible calls on people to have large families. It also calls on them to respect one another's property, and we all know how well that turned out. So 100 or 200 years ago, large families weren't a response to the idea that this is what the universe wanted, or even demanded from people; they were a response to a material situation in which whatever comforts could be squeezed out of life depended on having as many children as was practicable.
Back when FiveThirtyEight was still around, they would talk about the effect of partisan signalling on public opinion polls. Said signalling is, to put it simply, the idea that a certain amount of the response to a poll is independent of what the respondent might actually think about the question, but is geared towards expressing their support, or lack thereof, for a person or party.
Perhaps the most common example of this is are people's economic expectations.
Likewise with a recent article from Axios on the Administration's Greenland policy. There's nothing intrinsic to either Democratic or Republican ideology about Greenland.
Maybe it's just me, but the high levels of partisan signalling that one would expect renders such questions somewhat pointless. Why not simply ask the question that it's understood that people are actually asking?
