The Republicans Think You're A Pedophile

The other day I posted about the ignorance of the American electorate. Maybe I'm too informed about what's going on in politics these days, if such a thing is possible. Part of my effort to keep my finger on the political post is to follow people on Twitter who represent a wide swath of opinions. This exposes me to, as former President G.W. Bush is supposed have said, some crazy shit. One of the most prevalent lately is how the political right wing's predilection to accuse anyone that they disagree with as a pedophile. As far as I can tell this originated in one of the QAnon conspiracy fantasies. Supposedly former President Trump was leading the fight against wide-ranging pedophilia rings. Maybe some of you remember the accusations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was heading up a group of pedophiles in the basement of a Georgetown pizza restaurant - that didn't have a basement. It's only escalated. Democrats who hug their grandchildren are pedophiles. Librarians who stock books that feature gay characters are pedophiles. Teachers who make reference to their own same-sex spouse are pedophiles. 

What's at the root of all of this is homophobia becoming "respectable" again. 

Those of us who were born a half century or more ago remember how one of the boogiemen images of gay people was that they were child abusers, despite statistics showing how child abuse was overwhelmingly perpetrated by heterosexuals. How homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. How homosexuality was a sin. Some of the more optimistic among us consoled ourselves with the delusion that homophobia was a thing of the past, or at least relegated to the most ignorant among us. 

Apparently there a lot of ignorant among us. More than we thought. A lot more.

Just as overt racism resurged after we elected a Black president, and racists felt empowered under former President Trump, the under-the-radar hatred of Gay Americans bubbled to the surface as well. The very fact that Gay Americans can "come out of the closet", that same-sex marriage has been legalized, and there Gay members of the presidential cabinet has not prevented hatred and bigotry from making a center stage appearance. 

Recent legislative actions, specifically in Florida and Texas, have, under the cover of defining age-appropriate sex education and classroom discussion, effectively made any mention of the existence of Gay people illegal. Proponents of these actions claim that they are against the "sexualizing of children" and teaching of sexual topics to children to young to understand, which on the face of it doesn't sound terrible, but characterize opponents as child abusers and yes, pedophiles and groomers. A groomer, in the context of sex, is someone who influences a child over a period of time in order to prepare them for, and make them comfortable with, sex with an adult. Yet this is another "solution" for a problem that does not exist. Teachers aren't "grooming" children in the care, nor are they having explicit discussions with first graders about sex. They aren't even, as the homophobes allege, pushing a "homosexual agenda", training, or grooming, if you will, children to become gay. No, what is being prevented is any acknowledgement that Gay people exist. If little Betty asks teacher why Johnny's two dads are holding hands when they pick him up after school, or where Johnny's mom is, teacher isn't allowed to say "Johnny doesn't have a mom and a dad, he has two dads". Or if a child runs into teacher at a Christmas pageant with her spouse, she isn't allowed to tell the child that she is her wife. School teachers are to act as if Gay people do not exist. The assumption underlying these rules is that being Gay is bad, is sinful, is harmful, and any recognition that Gay people live in the community is pushing a bad, harmful, sinful "agenda". And people who don't pretend that Gay people don't exist are pedophiles. 

Homophobia, in my observation, is bigotry disguised as religion. Certainly one way to interpret some passages of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin, but that interpretation is not universal, even among religious Christians. And for some reason the loathing and hatred of the "sin" of homosexuality doesn't extend to the myriad other offenses against God that are found in the Bible. Divorced people, those who cheat on their taxes, or those who drink too much may be subject to lectures from the pastor, or disapproving looks from the busybodies, but there aren't any other categories of so-called sin that have whole segments of society fighting against them. (Of course I'm not talking about offenses against others like murder or larceny). To be consistent, someone who wants to drive Gays into the closet would also do the same for those who don't keep the Sabbath. But if it's religious observance that fuels a stance against Gay people, it should not be the business of government to enforce one group's religious faith on others. We wrote a whole amendment to the Constitution about that. 

So religiously motivated bigots have come to an impasse. Constitutionally we can't legislate one religion's beliefs, and we certainly can't pretend that naked bigotry is a good reason for legal restrictions, so we are left we with them convincing themselves (or at least saying that they're convinced) that what is actually happening is sexualizing of children and...pedophilia. It doesn't really matter (to them) if they believe it, as long as they get the job done. 

I understand the seriously religiously motivated homophobia. The cult that I belonged to was at one point viscously anti-gay. At the time I went along with the idea that God did not approve of homosexuality because I wanted to do what God wanted me to do, although I never was comfortable with the rabid hatred this belief seemed to engender in some of my co-religionists. One I left that cult, as well as Christianity in general, I had no reason to retain my belief that being Gay was a sin. I changed my mind. Christians who think that they are following God's will be supporting homophobia can change their minds as well, they need to examine whether their sincerely held religious beliefs is a valid pretext for denying other Americans their full civil rights. 

Hardcore bigots - I hold little hope for them.  

 

Wild West

One of the recurring talking points from the right wing, science-denying Trumpists and Republicans is that somehow, President Biden is an autocrat, or a Communist, or a dictator - depending on the day and the mood of Tucker Carlson. Much of this is rooted in the irrational resistance to mask mandates, and partial vaccine requirements. There is also a lot of overlap with the Second Amendment absolutists who equate "freedoms" with owning enough guns for a small army and believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to overthrow the government if they don't like it. It seems that an article of faith among this strain of America First philosophy is that "freedom" is the ultimate goal and that government - any government - is an illegitimate infringements of our rights. 

While  acknowledging that our government doesn't oversee a utopian society (or anywhere close to it) and that power usually does corrupt, what would our world look like without any kind of government? A familiar saying is that "nature abhors a vacuum". If the government of the United States, for whatever reason you can imagine, ceased to exist tomorrow something would take its place. Maybe not immediately, and likely after a period of chaos, but the people who had power in that post-governmental world would almost certainly exercise that power. Science fiction writer S.M. Stirling wrote a series of novels beginning with Dies the Fire, in which he envisions a catastrophe that renders nuclear and electric power unavailable and even gunpowder won't work in a firearm. (He doesn't explain how this happens...magic?). The immediate aftermath is chaos, death and destruction. As his series progresses he imagines that society is reorganized in a variety of ways. In some areas urban gangs become the new ruling elite. An army general tries to rebuild the United States from his headquarters in Idaho. A renaissance cosplayer organizes Portland on a middle ages feudal model. Iowa closes its borders and its government stays in power with large farmers as the new power base and refugees from other states as virtual serfs. He imagines a dizzying variety of mini civilizations. The areas where there is no forced organization degenerate into dead zones or cannibalism. It's fiction, but with a basis in truth. 

If there really was no government as we know it, one of the first things that you'd see is large scale infrastructure failure. With no one in charge, who is maintaining the roads, how are the electrical plants kept running, and if you think inflation is bad, how can you purchase what you don't grow yourself (assuming you can do some subsistence farming) if there is no agreed-upon currency? 

Some people might be able to live a life of "freedom" on their farm, or out in the woods, away from civilization, protecting themselves with their guns. Until they run out of ammunition of course. How long would it take for somebody with a following to decide that he's the new bigshot in town and you work for him now? Or the local preacher who spent years screaming on YouTube decides that you're the wrong type of Christian and sweeps through your area purging the heretics? Freedom might just be keeping your head down and hoping no one notices you, if you even have the skills to feed and clothe and house yourself. But make no mistake, something or someone is going to fill that void left my an absent government. And the new boss might not be the same as the old boss, it might be worse. 

I Don't Know A Lot About Politics, But...

"I don't know a lot about politics, but..."

How many times have I heard a sentence start with that phrase? I don't know, but anyone who starts off that way really shouldn't aspire to hold an opinion about politics. 

I realize that there is no one correct way to govern the country. Every policy has unintended consequences. Every policy that benefits one segment of the population is virtually guaranteed to negatively affect another group. But wouldn't it be nice if the majority of our fellow Americans actually did their homework regarding the various policies of the people who run the government? 

But this isn't the current reality.

Granted, the electorate hasn't ever been particularly educated. I'm thinking of the days of the urban political machines, where jobs, and even bribes, determined the votes of whole groups of people. But what's the excuse today? We have access to more sources of information than ever. We can cross-check a politician's claims faster and with more accuracy than ever before, but the problem is that we aren't any smarter than ever before. There are more sources of information, but also more sources of disinformation, and people are just as lazy as ever in regards to the effort they are willing to put into sifting through the flood of words to determine the facts. 

I was recently challenged on my use of the term "talking points" in some of my Facebook posts criticizing Republicans. My challenger wanted to know if I thought Democrats used talking points as well. As I understand the term, "talking points" are not inherently good or bad, true or false, they're merely agreed-upon responses to an issue. For example, one political party has proposed a bill that they know has some opposition, so they provide a list to their supporters of benefits of the legislation, and canned responses to any objections. There's nothing necessarily dishonest about it, but when you hear multiple people making the same point, with mostly identical language, it's highly likely that a lot of those people have not thought through their responses, but are just repeating what they heard, not as the result of a reasoned thought process. 

My annoyance level is highest when I hear people with whom I have a large overlap of opinions doing this. Perhaps because I have deluded myself into thinking that people who think like me actually think, and therefore are smarter than the average bear. Like I said - a delusion. 

Despite the existence of irrational opinions and ill-informed positions by my fellow progressives, I definitely encounter more of this from the so-called conservatives. And I say "so-called", because the existence of true conservatives in the Republican Party have become harder and harder to find as Trumpism and its attendant cult of personality has taken over. 

Are The Republicans Eliminating Social Security?

While I wouldn't put it past them for a minute, the evidence that they are going to end, or even significantly cut Social Security benefits is murky at best. Despite there being no clearly articulated plans, there have been hints from various Republicans.

Before we look at that - a brief review of how Social Security works:

12.4% of every person's wage is collected as payroll deductions (6.2% paid by the employer, 6.2% paid by the employee - self-employed people pay the whole 12.4%). This money is then used to pay benefits to current retirees. Whatever is left over, i.e. the annual surplus, is invested in U.S. Treasury securities. The general budget fund pays interest on the Treasury bills which are redeemed at such a time when benefits paid exceed payroll taxes collected. Some previous explanations can be found here. 

We are now at the point where benefits paid out exceed payroll taxes collected each year. What this means is the Treasury securities will need to be redeemed in order to make up the annual shortfall. There are multiple scenarios projecting when the accumulated surplus will run out. 

 In the chart to the left, the Social Security Administration considers Scenario II to be the most realistic, which would put 2037 as the year of insolvency. Scenarios I and III are respectively more pessimistic and more optimistic. The next chart shows what will happen if nothing is done between now and 2037:

There will still be enough income from payroll taxes to pay benefits, but only at 76% of their scheduled rate. In other words, if no action is taken, Social Security recipients will lose 25% of their benefits. So, when we hear politicians talking about entitlement reform (yes, Social Security is an entitlement as explained here) it's a good thing, whether it actually turns out to be good or bad will determine whether it's good or bad for American seniors. In order to make up the difference between what coming in and what's going out, one or more of several things would need to happen

• Leave it alone and reduce benefits
• Increase the retirement age (effectively reducing benefits)
• Increase the percentage of the payroll tax
• Remove the cap on earnings subject to FICA deductions
• Fund Social Security deficits through borrowing (the Social Security Administration currently does not have borrowing authority)
• Fund Social Security deficits through the general fund budget

Republicans have not put forth any plan (and neither have Democrats), but they have offered a few hints, and history offers some glimpses into their thinking as well:

• Senator Rick Scott has suggested that every piece of legislation have a "sunset" date, this presumably would include Social Security. Senator Scott has also suggested that the tax code be changed so that every American pay some taxes (currently millions of Americans pay no income tax due to low wages, Earned Income Credit or other deductions)
• Senator Lindsey Graham was recently quoted as saying that "people like him" (presumably retirement-age people) would have to "take a little less" and "pay a little more in"
• The 2017 tax reform bill, advertised as a "massive" tax cut for all Americans, turned out to be a bonanza for corporations and wealthy Americans, with a modest, almost undetectable, tax cut for low to middle wage earners
• Way back in 1983 under President Reagan, a portion of Social Security benefits became taxable

If either party had control of the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it likely, based on past performance, that Democrats would make changes that would protect current benefit levels, even at the expense of increasing general fund deficits, possibly even expanding Medicare. Removing or significantly raising the cap would also probably happen. Republicans, if history is any guide, would take actions such as raising retirement age, or increasing payroll taxes, possibly creating a two-tier system of benefits so that future wage earners would see reduced benefits. But the way things are going, it is unlikely in the extreme that even if one party controls Congress with one of their own as president, that they could achieve a filibuster-proof majority. (Although I have no illusions that the Republicans wouldn't eliminate the filibuster if it were in their interest to do so). 

S, what is the solution? Is there any solution being seriously debated? Despite right-wing meanderings by Senators Scott and Graham, and left-wing suggestions by Senators Sanders and Warren, there seems to be no sense of urgency by either party and the "plan" appears to be to kick the can down the road until it's an unavoidable crisis. 

January Sixth

The House of Representatives is currently conducting hearings regarding their investigation into the attack on the Capitol last January 6th. The Republicans have been very busy in their attempts to undermine the hearings. Here are a few of their talking points:

• It's political theater

I can't disagree with that, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I concede that a lot of what politicians do is playing to their base, virtue signaling or demagoguing. Sometimes, however, the purpose of a public Congressional hearing is to get important facts in front of the country. 

• It's Old News

True, it happened 18 months ago and many of the participants in the vandalism at The Capitol have been arrested and serving time in prison. But does the fact that our short national attention span has trouble maintaining interest past the end of the week a good reason to forgo digging into all the facts and identifying all who were involved, no matter how high up they are?

• It's a Partisan Witch Hunt

It's too much to ask that today's Republican Party act like it did in the aftermath of Watergate and withdraw support from a corrupt President (in this case a former president). There's an argument to be made that the Democrats would not be pursuing this if the riot had been in support of a Democratic president. That may be true, but we don't know because that's not what happened. The motive of the investigation is irrelevant if what is being alleged is in fact true. Even if this investigation is fueled by hatred of Trump, it's irrelevant if he actually did attempt a coup and encourage the violence on January 6th as part of that attempt.

• The protesters walked right in unlocked or open doors

There is a video making the rounds that show a group of protesters doing just that. I don't doubt that the video is real, there's likely more than one way that they got in. But the focus on this one image ignores the many images of people scaling the walks, breaking windows, pushing through barricades, assaulting police and vandalizing Congressional offices.

• Trump ended his speech by telling people to "peacefully and patriotically" march to the Capitol

True, these words were included in his speech. He also, in the same speech said the following:

• "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal."
• "That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved."
• "Let them get out. Let the weak ones get out. This is a time for strength....It's all part of the comprehensive assault on our democracy and the American people to finally standing up and saying, 'No.' This crowd is again a testament to it."
• "You will have an illegitimate president, that's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen."
• "We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy."
• "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

What exactly do Trump supporters think he was talking about with these statements? Perhaps he didn't believe that it would turn into actual violence, but it's clear that many people in the crowd believed that he was telling them to do what they ended up doing. Anyone who has watched Trump and listened to his public statements over the years knows that he often engages in "nod and wink" rhetoric. His actual words are either harmless or ambiguous when removed from their context, but delivered in a sarcastic tone and very clear when considered in the context of everything else he is saying, his body language and tone of voice. 

• We should be holding hearings on inflation, gas prices, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Kavanaugh death threats, children at drag shows, and of course, Hunter Biden

Sure. Anything other than an attempt to subvert and overturn a presidential election. 

• Lock her up, what about her emails? Benghazi!

Not even going to address that.

What is important to understand is that the people who invaded the Capitol on January Sixth were merely the most visible and violent part of an attempt to nullify an election. Trump laid the groundwork months before the election by claiming loudly and often that the only way he could lose was if the election was rigged against him. He made this same claim in 2016, refusing to say whether he would accept a loss, but he won. Trump and his followers pointed to his well-attended rallies versus Biden's small gatherings as proof that he couldn't lose. He called polls that showed him behind as "fake news". On election night he pressed states that were still counting votes to stop counting while he was apparently ahead. He refused to concede. He filed around fifty lawsuits challenging election procedures in several states - only in states that he lost. He made frequent claims about election irregularities that were not true or simply weren't irregularities. When it was clear that the lawsuits were going nowhere, he began contacting state election officials, urging them to "find" enough votes to get him a win. He contemplated replacing Justice Department officials who would not go allow with his fantasy with more compliant appointees. He pushed members of Congress to object to electoral vote counts in states that he lost and tried to get Vice President Pence to invalidate the votes of states that went for Biden. His rhetoric became more and more frantic as he described his election loss as a "steal" and incited his followers to resist the inauguration of a new president - he even described his loss as a "landside win". 

Not everyone who was in Washington, D.C. on January Sixth was there to engage in violence, but every single one of them was there to in some way overthrow a duly elected president. 

A Well Regulated Militia

Here's a few thoughts about the Second Amendment:

The advocates of unrestricted ownership and access to guns have focused on the phrase "shall not be infringed" - but what about "well regulated"?

If we want to go the route of textualists and originalists, the phrase "well regulated" referred, not to government regulation, but to the preparedness and readiness to fight of the militia. One might think that this obviates the view that government has no  role in regulating according to the modern definition of the word. First, a little background about militias,

At the time that the Constitution was written, there was an antipathy toward the idea of a standing army. A permanent army was viewed not as a force to defend, but as an instrument of aggression, and not unrelatedly, a drain on revenue. Armies were expensive. Professional soldiers were not viewed as honorable defenders of the nation, but looked down upon - "What? you can't find a real job?". A militia, on the other hand, was conceived as a group of citizens that could be called up as needed to defend the security of a free state. Militias existed to defend the community, not to defend the individual, and certainly not to defend against one's own government. 

 So, the founders envisioned a militia as the primary mode of providing "security for a free state", and wanted that militia to be well regulated, i.e. well prepared and presumably well trained. Of course, one of the ways that the members of the militia were to be well prepared was to be familiar with firearms. Hence they needed to ensure that "the people" could legally own and use (aka bear) arms, the government sure wasn't going to supply guns to everyone! 

Over the last 200 plus years the method by which we attend to the security of a free state has changed. No longer do we have citizen militias like we did in the 18th century. We have the National Guard, certainly, but the Guard has become for all intents and purposes an arm of the permanent military. Our national discomfort with a standing army no longer applies, and common defense is now the responsibility of the once feared permanent armed forces. The "well regulated militia" of the Second Amendment no longer exists; it might then be argued that the right to keep and bear arms therefore no longer exists. At the very least, it's clear that this right was a community right - "the people", not "every person". (Which, until the Heller decision is 2008, was the position of the courts)

I am not suggesting that every citizen be disarmed. What I am suggesting is that the narrow beam focus on infringement is wrong. The circumstances under which the amendment was conceived no longer exist and the strict interpretation does not apply.