~ Raphael Warnock (newly elected US Senator from Georgia) in his victory speech on 2021-01-05
Tho I am not quite old enough to have been following the news on 1942-11-10, I remember what Winston Churchill said then to mark the victory at El Alamein:
“Now this is not the end.
It is not even the beginning of the end.
But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
That first victory in 1942 ended the beginning of the long hard slog to rid the world of fascism. The riddance was temporary. Perhaps 2020 can begin the long hard slog to repair the damage done to the USA by about four decades of coddling plutocrats and four years of coddling bigots. Perhaps 2020 can begin to free the USA and other nations from creeping fascism disguised as conservatism.
For the moment anyway, here is the answer to the question about 2020 that I posed soon after the disastrous 2016 election:
Our flag is still there.
As soon as I could see clearly again, I started this post. Tho I am a compulsive polisher and normally let things marinate for many hours before I revisit and revise, I pressed the [Publish] button after less than an hour. I had to get back to the battle, to doing what little I can to help organizations like VoteVets fight for constitutional democracy against the corrupt fascist in the White House and his enablers.
in an exuberant pseudorandom dance
that won’t repeat for centuries.»
I pulled red line duty and
people stepped on me as they crossed.»
of flat surfaces in the real world
until U feel better.»
I have good news and bad news.
The good news is that I have improved the format of some silliness posted on 2018-05-01, in response to a challenge with the word [line]. The improvements appear above, in response to a new challenge:
The bad news is that the serious undercurrent in my silliness is even more topical than before. In so many high places in so many nations, fascists and their enablers have been stampeding across red lines. One of many recent examples in the USA is Donald Trump’s order that hospitals bypass the CDC and send COVID-19 data only to a database run by Trump loyalists. With predictable consequences.
After a rueful chuckle about how it feels to be a red line nowadays, we can get back to disinfecting surfaces and other little chores. Like saving constitutional democracy.
Remember in November.
The song commonly known as Greensleaves has been given several other titles and sets of lyrics. The melody is too good to be bound by any one version of the song’s words. Likewise for the song commonly known as the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which got the familiar title and lyrics from the five stanzas published by Julia Ward Howe in 1862. Details and diction bind her words to the Civil War era, but the melody and rhythm break free.
As a performance by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and another by the US Army Field Band illustrate, there is considerable variety in musical phrasing and how the singers are accompanied (as well as which 2 or 3 stanzas are sung). I tried to write 3 stanzas appropriate for 2017 that really could be sung well by people who know how to sing. The choir or the field band could give a rousing performance of my updated battle hymn.
A few of Howe’s phrases still resonate; I have used them (and a few other fragments of American societal hymnody) in my updated title and lyrics. Will the future find my details from 2017 as dated as Howe’s details from 1862? I hope so.
Battle Hymn of the Resistance
Our eyes have seen the glory
of a land where freedom rings;
where fear and hate are cast aside;
where no one bows to kings;
where clean air fills the spacious skies;
where hope can spread its wings.
We fight to make it real.
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
We fight to make it real.
When shills disguised as pundits
stole the spotlights on the stage,
the centrists lost their bearings
and misread the workers’ rage.
Dark money seized a chance to buy
a second Gilded Age.
We fight the lies with truth.
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
We fight the lies with truth.
We still can hear the trumpet
that will never call retreat.
A white-haired warrior still steps forth
to drum a steady beat.
Our voices shout rebuttal
to each cryptofascist tweet,
and we will win this fight.
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Glory, glory hallelujah!
Yes, we will win this fight.
Writing cogent modern English in triplets is not easy. Neither is saving the Republic from the Age of Trumpery. At best, those who fight this fight will get tired and sweaty. My update of Howe’s lyrics is something they can sing in the shower. I tried that. It helps.
I row against the current. My oar bends. Will it break?
« Current ~ Pic and a Word Challenge #97 »
Thru a haze of fatigue, my mind drifts to a far away place and long ago time. To Salamis. I remember the ancient Greek navy, the mostly Athenian “wooden wall” that defied long odds to save Western civilization. Salvation is not permanent.
I cannot draw to save a life, and it is hard to find a trireme to photograph on short notice. I used an image I did not create because something about triremes really matters now.
The rowers in Greek triremes were citizens rowing to defend their communities, not galley slaves rowing to avoid the lash. Tho they could not see the Persian ships they needed to ram, they could trust their leaders to see and steer. Themistocles owed nothing to Xerxes.
Here and now, rowing as a citizen is more complicated. The peril is a strong current (stealthy as metastasis) that surges around breakwaters. What is there to ram? Will the rowers be swept out to sea while squabbling over which cove to head for? Are the leaders loyal and competent? What does Trump owe to Putin?
I row against the current. I am not alone.
Here is a good example of rowing against the current that has gotten less publicity than it deserves. Senator Mazie Hirono [Dem-HI] interrupted treatment for stage 4 kidney cancer to speak eloquently and vote against the latest pseudoconservative travesty of healthcare legislation. U can read more details and hear the speech (under 5 minutes) by clicking here. U can sign a petition to thank her by clicking here.
Here are links to all posts in this project of reviewing and supplementing the splendid book
The Lexicographer’s Dilemma by Jack Lynch.
What does the rise of “proper” English have in common with a physics conundrum about gravity?
- Babies, Names, and Snobs
We name words by wrapping them in square brackets to avoid overloading more common conventions.
- Descriptivism, Prescriptivism, and ????
We add a new ISM to the familiar duo of attitudes toward English language usage: readabilism.
- Why is English Spelling Such a Mess?
An insight into the difficulty of spelling reform has wide-ranging significance, far beyond spelling.
- Ambiguity Sucks!
Ambiguity is almost always at least a little harmful to clear communication. It can be disastrous.
- What is the Point of Punctuation?
Careful punctuation helps avoid unwanted ambiguity.
- Yogi Berra’s Paradox
Sometimes bad English is good English that’s good because it’s bad.
- Blood & Gold End This Series
Apart from a concern about the examples on 2 late pages in the book, I could applaud those pages until my hands bleed.
This post’s subtitle is slightly oversimplified. Apart from deliberate and obvious ambiguity in language jokes, ambiguity is almost always unwanted and at least a little harmful to clear communication. It can be disastrous. Suppose I write something ambiguous that I interpret one way. Suppose the reader interprets it differently w/o noticing the ambiguity. (Verbal ambiguities tend to be much less obvious than visual ones.) Maybe the reader just writes me off as a jerk. Maybe the reader objects in a way that makes no sense to me because I also do not notice the ambiguity. Maybe we eventually sort it all out after wasting time in an unpleasant exchange; maybe not. Ambiguous language can act as if the artist in the famous duck/rabbit illusion sees only the duck while the viewer sees only the rabbit.
- Jastrow, J. (1899). The mind’s eye. Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299-312.
- The soft copy used here has been downloaded, resized, and cropped.
Don’t context and common sense make it obvious how to resolve ambiguities in real life? Yes and no. Speech among native speakers on familiar topics may be safe, especially if the conversation has many redundancies and/or few surprizes. In a casual setting, a hearer who notices an ambiguity can request and get a clarification in real time. Not all settings are casual. Not all ambiguities are noticed. After briefly considering a setting quite unlike casual speech, we will ponder how to cope with ambiguity in the vast middle ground between utterly casual speech and utterly formal prose.
That English has become the global language of science is convenient for anglophones like me. A few centuries ago, I would have needed to read and write in Latin to communicate with colleagues who did not speak English when asking what’s for dinner. Now I can write in English, but I must be mindful that readers may not be native speakers and may not understand slang and topical references (especially if I write something still worth reading some years from now). Common sense will not help readers decide what I really mean if I garble something new and contrary to conventional wisdom.
Blog posts land in a wide swath of middle ground. Some are close to casual speech; some are researched and/or crafted. Some are for venting or sharing a self-explanatory image; some do try to say something new and contrary to conventional wisdom. Much of the care taken by good science writers to avoid ambiguity is also appropriate to some blog posts. Personally, I find it easier (as well as safer) to make being careful habitual rather than decide whether it really matters in each specific case.
This post’s examples deal with lexicographic ambiguity. They are good for displaying how a readabilist perspective differs from a descriptivist or prescriptivist perspective. They are also conveniently short, so I will devote a little space to historical remarks inspired by one of Lynch’s chapters on lexicography.
Chapter 10 begins with a humorous account of the absurdly apocalyptic reaction to the publication of a dictionary in 1961. True, it was not just any dictionary. It was Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (hereafter just “Webster’s 3-rd”), and it was more explicitly descriptive (rather than prescriptive) than its predecessor. As Lynch explains in detail, good dictionaries had always been more descriptive than those who were shocked by Webster’s 3-rd noticed. But Webster’s 3-rd took descriptivism past a tipping point. Was it open to specific objections about how common (and/or harmless?) some mistakes must be, before they should be just be listed as alternative usages w/o being stigmatized in any way? Yes. Was it part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to repopulate the world with licentious ninnies? No. Many critics really were that wacky, as Lynch reminded me.
The furor led to the 1962 publication of a compilation by Sledd and Ebbitt of essays pro and con, with the title Dictionaries and That Dictionary. Reading and reacting to that compilation was the best part of the AP English class that capped my high school education. I came down hard for descriptivism, w/o noticing many amusing ironies that Lynch points out. Some of the alleged crimes of Webster’s 3-rd had already been committed by the revered Webster’s 2-nd, which had been marketed with authoritarian hype that came back to haunt the publisher in the furor over Webster’s 3-rd.
Lynch’s book came out in 2009, much closer on the calendar to 2017 than to 1961. Calendar distance can be misleading. In 2009, the USA was still one of many countries where authoritarian rants could be laughed off. They did not come from the White House.
Example 5.1: Tummy Troubles
On pages 223 and 224 (hardcover), Lynch uses 3 words to illustrate how a rival dictionary that began as a knee-jerk prescriptivist alternative to Webster’s 3-rd evolved into a rational one. The same words illustrate the kind of rule a readabilist can recommend.
Consider 3 things I might conceivably say about Donald Trump:
- He is nauseating.
- He is nauseated.
- He is nauseous.
Items #1 and #2 are clear. But what if I said #3? From a correct assumption about my politics (and an incorrect assumption about a fondness for older usages), U could infer that #3 from me means what #1 means. But #3 from somebody else (who likes newer usages and was a dinner guest at the White House) could well mean what #2 means. However loudly prescriptivists might claim that [nauseous] “really” means what [nauseating] means, the word [nauseous] is hopelessly ambiguous in the real world. I cannot imagine any situation where this particular ambiguity would be wanted, so I offer a rule:
Never use the word [nauseous].
Use what clearly says whatever U want to say.
Please be assured that I am well aware of the wisdom in the old saying
Never say [never]!
Example 5.2: Accidental Arson
People for whom English is a second language sometimes say things that native speakers never say. I have a CD of Chinese music with a track list that displays a translation of each track’s title from Chinese into English. One of the translations is [Blue Little Flower]. Before seeing that mistake, I had not noticed that native speakers of English put size before color (as in [Little Red Hen] or [big blue eyes]). The mistaken translation is harmless in the CD track list; I only bring it up to show that nonnative speakers may blunder in ways that native speakers would not.
Suppose I tell the translator that toluene is “inflammable” w/o further explanation. Suppose the translator is familiar with some pairs of adjectives like [accessible]/[inaccessible] and [voluntary]/[involuntary] (and many more between these). Suppose the translator looks up [flammable] in an English/Chinese dictionary, extrapolates from the usual effect on meaning of prefixing [i][n] to an adjective, and thinks it safe to have a smoke in a room reeking of glue fumes. Oops.
Likely? No. Possible? Yes. At best, to say or write [inflammable] wastes a syllable or 2 keystrokes. A tiny downside is certain, a huge downside is possible, and there is no upside (unless U want to write weird poetry).
Never use the word [inflammable].
It may be ambiguous to nonnative speakers.
Sad emojis mark for the 3 counterproductive items that end the list. Pressed for time? Read #1 and #2 (the most promising items); then skip ahead to #9 and #10 (the most counterproductive items).
First, let me say where I am coming from. In ancient times (before the phrase liberal Republican became an oxymoron), progressives could be Republicans. Tho imperfect, that option made sense for pragmatic progressives who disliked deficits, knew how the road to Hell is paved, and would not kowtow to “conservative Democrats” (white racists in what was then the “Solid South”) for the sake of party unity. In ancient times, I was a Republican. Now I am a Sanders/Warren Democrat who also donates to the Working Families Party. That imperfect option is the best available for me today.
America has changed a lot more than I have. Many changes for the better are in imminent danger of being undone. Many changes for the worse accelerated when George W Bush became POTUS, were slowed but not stopped under Obama, and have accelerated drastically under Donald Trump. Paranoia is not one of my faults; I hope I am mistaken in seeing a clear and present danger to liberal democracy itself (on top of 4+ years of monumentally bad governance) in the Age of Trumpery.
- Tea Party Tactics
The all-too successful efforts of the Tea Party to obstruct Obama’s agenda included many tactics that could also be used by honorable people to obstruct Trump’s. Some progressive former Congressional staffers have compiled the Indivisible Guide for badgering legislators. In addition to many helpful refinements of what I already vaguely knew, the guide has an insight so jolting that I will discuss it separately, after this list.
- Voting Rights
There are many ways to prevent elections from throwing the bums out. Savvy modern tyrants need not be so crude as to refuse to hold elections or refuse to let any serious opponents campaign. Republican state legislators have raised gerrymandering to a high art, passed voter ID laws carefully tailored to depress voting by “conservatives” much less than voting by other groups, and so on. Election administrators can open fewer polling places in areas where the “wrong” kind of voters are common.
One of the many ways that the ACLU defends civil liberties is by filing lawsuits against such shenanigans. Please support the ACLU and anybody else who defends voting rights. For more on subtle ways that voting rights can be hollowed out behind a facade of democracy, see While Democrats Chase Russians, Republicans Keep Rigging Elections by Richard Eskow.
- State & Local Elections
Far too many progressives act as if voting for POTUS once every 4 years would suffice to make good things happen. Government in the USA is not that simple. Pseudoconservatives also pay attention down-ballot and in off years. It shows. Our fragmented system makes it extremely difficult for POTUS alone to get much done that is worth doing. Down-ballot results in one election can also have nasty consequences up-ballot in the next one.
- Boycotting Trump-branded Stuff
Tho Trump’s claim to be a “successful businessman” is a wild exaggeration, he does care about money. The website #GRABYOURWALLET lists many casinos, hotels, products, and retailers. With careful reading of the website’s spreadsheet, U can separate the retailers who actively push Trump-branded products (or otherwise support Trump) from those who just sell them along with various competitive products. Boycotting the retailers who just sell them is counterproductive.
- Protest Marches
They seem to have mobilized and heartened opposition, but I cannot help wondering how many of those who march and shout now were perfectionists then, when many progressive purists refused to hold their noses and support the only alternative to Trump who could have won on 2016-11-08. I hope nobody thinks that denouncing Trump in a raucous crowd is as good as thwarting him.
My big worry is that protest marches will become old news and that some protestors will try to freshen them up by marching w/o permits, snarling traffic, provoking cops to overreact, and so on. The resulting legal battles will divert resources from the defense of voting rights.
- Ridiculing Trump
Intense and well-deserved ridicule did not keep Trump out of the White House. It is hard to ridicule Trump w/o also ridiculing his supporters. I must confess to having sometimes yielded to temptation on this point. But anything that is perceived as ridicule will only delay the awakening of those Trump voters who are not bigots or plutocrats but who had good cause to feel abandoned by smug neoliberals and turned to Trump in desperation.
On the other hand, years of relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton eventually built up an exaggerated and indelible image of dishonesty. (Tho far from being a paragon of integrity, HRC is relatively honest, as pols go. The last paragon at the presidential level was Abraham Lincoln, whose honesty did not preclude being calculating and shrewd.) Maybe years of apt and varied ridicule can accomplish something beyond catharsis for snipers like me.
- Fact Checking
Copious documentation of staggering mendacity did not keep Trump out of the White House. That those who ridicule Trump are more likely to amuse each other than erode his support is sad but not shocking. That much of the electorate does not give a rat’s ass for truth is another story. As with ridicule, I see some small hope that years of hammering away may eventually break thru.
- Calls for Impeachment 😦
The question is not whether Trump deserves to be impeached and convicted. He does. So what? Impeachment and conviction cannot happen unless both the House and the Senate are flipped. Suppose that unlikely event happens in 2018. Trump’s term would be served out by Mike Pence, whose agenda is just as vile. By being less abrasive than Trump, Pence might be even more effective in pushing for bad laws and lulling people into accepting thinly veiled fascism.
- Centrism 😦 😦
Obviously, the Democratic Party must somehow reach out to the Reagan Democrats who came back for Obama but did not stay back for Clinton. How to do that is controversial. Despite my own broadly centrist inclinations, I believe it would be a huge mistake now to take any more advice from Third Way or anybody else who thinks Dems can win by sounding at all like decaffeinated Republicans. Dems need a coherent progressive alternative that seriously addresses Rust Belt concerns, not an echo of Republican quackery pasted onto support for LGBTQ/reproductive rights and sanity about guns. While I do support those rights and that sanity, I am starting to understand why they have so little traction.
- Normalizing Trump 😦 😦 😦
Exhortations to come together after a bitterly contested election are a venerable American tradition, dating back to Jefferson’s inaugural address in 1801. Still in shock on 2016-11-09, I reblogged an eloquent one. At the same time, I reblogged a very different reaction that was also eloquent. It was a struggle to work out my own subtler response with a look back to 1814.
Looking back not quite so far as 1814, I recall that paranoid slave owners violently rejected the results of the 1860 election. That did not end well. Looking just a little ways back, I recall my own anger at McConnell’s nauseating pledge to subordinate governing to making Obama a 1-term POTUS, after Obama won in 2008 w/o any help from vote suppression or Russian meddling.
Putting this item last in the list was painful, but not as painful as seeing Trump confirm a truckload of grim expectations (bigotry; chaos; corruption; …) within a month of inauguration. A wait-and-see attitude did make sense on 2016-11-09. It does not make sense today. Will the sane and decent people in the USA wait until it is too late to avoid covert fascism behind a facade of democracy?
What is the jolting insight mentioned in list item #1? When opposing a nasty Trump initiative that advances a subversive hidden agenda, do not (repeat—not!) try be constructive by offering a better way to deal with whatever problem the Trump initiative purports to address. Keep the opposition to Trump broadly based and unified, focused on the vileness of the snake oil and not distracted by internal debates about what should be done instead of swallowing snake oil.
I come from the very collegial culture of STEM and can remember when American politics was less adversarial and more collegial than it is now, tho never as collegial as STEM. (Yes, there are rivalries in STEM and maybe still a few chances to do some good by reaching across the aisle in politics.) Tho jolting and saddening, the advice to oppose w/o trying to be constructive is wise.
Does my claim in list item #9 that “Dems need a coherent progressive alternative that seriously addresses Rust Belt concerns” contradict that advice? No. Context is crucial. Trying to prevent a particular criminal folly by those currently in office is one context. Trying to elect officials who are much less likely to engage in criminal folly is another context.
Image published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US
In some ways, the American Experiment is back in 1778: hanging by a thread (in what Thomas Paine rightly said were “times that try men’s souls”). Many images of Valley Forge would be appropriate; I especially like the well-known painting by Edwin Austin Abbey of Baron von Steuben instructing George Washington’s pickup army in carefully selected European tactics/techniques that would help it win.
Washington’s eye for talent looked beyond billionaires who had donated lavishly. Washington did not tweet jabs at “Krauts” while assuming that anybody who sounded like a Hessian was on the other side. Washington saw that an immigrant from Prussia could kick ass for the cause. The rest is history.
Why am I glad that 2017 is the Year of the Rooster in the East Asian Lunar Calendar? Because I quickly found an image of a smirking rooster for this post. Thank U, Ariadna Ada Sysoeva/Shutterstock.com. Why did I want such an image? Read on, if U dare.
Despite not owning a gun, I sometimes shoot myself in the foot. It is a common tendency among progressives. Case in point: boycotting retailers like Walmart and Amazon that carry Trump-branded products w/o pushing them, not just boycotting the products themselves and those who push them. We continue with appropriate made-up names.
Consider a retailer, say Walazon, that carries several lines of women’s fashions, including IvankyPanky and Togs-4-Progs. The former is Trump-branded. The latter makes good stuff in union shops and donates 5% of operating profits to worthy causes.
Furious at Donald Trump’s travesty of a presidency, progressives want to hit him and his where it hurts. Some of us decide to boycott Walazon until they stop selling IvankyPanky clothes. It is more likely that we will hit us and ours.
Suppose progressive women stop buying from Walazon. Kellyanne Conway and her ilk still buy IvankyPanky clothes (often from Walazon), while Walazon’s Togs-4-Progs sales dwindle. The computers and people who do data analytics at Walazon are interested in sales (not politics), at least during working hours. They notice that IvankyPanky is selling much better than Togs-4-Progs. Guess which brand gets the ax when management decides that Walazon is spread too thin.
On the other hand, suppose progressive women who like Togs-4-Progs continue to shop at Walazon, despite its willingness to sell IvankyPanky clothes to those benighted enough to buy them. Togs-4-Progs comes out with an edgy collection of T-shirts that display the words
(in various fonts and trendy colors) over a picture of an arrogant smirking rooster. The shirts sell like ice cream in July. The computers and people who do data analytics at Walazon notice that Togs-4-Progs is selling much better than IvankyPanky, despite Kellyanne Conway blasting thru her credit limit. Guess which brand gets the ax when management decides that Walazon is spread too thin.
Want to make capitalist economies work more humanely? It might help to pay more attention to how they work, period.
U will suck up to Putin and tweet vicious lies.
For some years of Hell they are all stuck with U.
– above post (on phone) or beside it (on desktop). –
In Yogi Berra’s Washington Post obituary, the subtitle “American philosopher” is well-chosen. While some of the quotes attributed (or misattributed) to Yogi Berra may just be funny malapropisms, some strike me as quirky ways to say something important, akin to Zen koans. One of his gems is widely applicable and especially relevant to a world on the brink of ecological and/or political collapse. It deserves a special name. It is also so widely quoted that 2 versions are common, as indicated below:
Yogi Berra’s Law
The game ain’t over til it’s over.
It ain’t over til it’s over.
Yes, the original context was baseball. With 2 outs in the bottom of the 9-th inning, the home team may be trailing. Yogi rightly admonishes both the home team (to resist despair) and the visitors (to resist complacency). A lot can still happen with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9-th inning. I prefer the shorter version of the law because it is more explicit about the law’s generality. “It” could be almost anyhthing.
My current context for heeding Yogi Berra’s Law is the imminent inauguration of Donald Trump as POTUS. At best, this event marks the start of 4 long and nasty years in the US. At worst, this event might combine with trends elsewhere (in China, Europe, and Russia) to start a new Dark Age. To consider the worst case is prudent, not alarmist.
Mindless repetition of platitudes like
- It can’t happen here.
- Every cloud has a silver lining.
- It is always darkest just before the dawn.
is no substitute for the eternal vigilance that Jefferson said is the price of liberty. (There are other prices.) I resist the complacency of those platitudes; I also resist despair and continue (in my own small way) to be a citizen rather than just a complainer.
In a late inning in the biggest game of my lifetime, the Enlightenment is trailing. That sucks. But 2+3 is still 5 and Yogi Berra’s Law is still true.
I cannot draw my way out of a paper bag, but Poet Rummager can draw. She is also a fine creative writer (with an impish and sometimes dark sense of humor) and a fun collaborator.
Originally posted on Slasher Monster:
Hark, the snake oil angels sing!
Russia’s tsar rides on our king.
Bullshit here and beefcake there –
bovine voters everywhere.
Joyful greedheads make stocks rise –
Rust Belt workers fall for lies.
Hark, the snake oil angels sing!
Russia’s tsar rides on our king.
Illustrations by Poet Rummager
Poem written by Mellow Curmudgeon
the British Royal Navy bombards the fort guarding Baltimore’s harbor with state-of-the-art artillery. The attack inspires a mediocre poem that is just barely singable (if U pretend that “yeh-et” is a word) to the tune of a British drinking song. The Brits eventually get a consolation prize for the failure of the seige of Baltimore, when their song becomes our national anthem (but with lyrics from the poem, not the pubs).
On the morning of Election Day in 2016,
I find that the Pink Rebel (a Xmas cactus that blooms when it damn well pleases, and never at Xmas) has a nice blossom. I take that to be a good omen. Good omens have been in short supply recently, as the pseudoconservative coalition of bigots and plutocrats bombards a wobbly electoral process with state-of-the-art ratcrap, propelled by dark money and deep resentments. The pseudoconservatives hope for veto-proof majorities in Congress as a consolation prize, if they cannot install a protofascist buffoon as President.
My local polling place is crowded. The people who run it have finally found an efficient way to arrange all the stuff that must be crammed into a tiny room in the firehouse: a sign-in table, little booths for marking the ballots, and a machine to scan the ballots and keep them secure in case a recount is needed. I have finally remembered to remove my ballot from the privacy sleeve before feeding it to the scanner. (It is only in theory that the scanner can grab the ballot by an edge protruding from the sleeve.) The scanner accepts the naked ballot w/o fuss. Walking back to my car after an unexpectedly smooth and quick process, I tear up a little.
I have just now experienced an America that is calm and polite and competent. For how long?
On the morning after Election Day in 2016,
I rise with the dawn’s early light and go online to see the results for races that were not foregone conclusions. Mostly vomit-worthy, with a few consolations in the Senate. The Dems will keep the NV seat that Reid is leaving. The new Dem for IL is a combat veteran who knows the difference between patriotism and posturing; a seat for NH also flipped. Maybe filibusters can keep the pseudoconservatives from passing the very worst things on their wishlist.
For at least the next 4 years, I expect that American politics will not be calm and polite and competent. I hope I am wrong in this prediction, and not wrong merely because of surrender by those who oppose the pseudoconservative agenda.
Remember Mitch McConnell’s declaration (soon after the 2008 election) that preventing a 2nd term for Obama would have his top priority? I was angered by that commitment to reflexive opposition (regardless of the cost to the nation) to whatever Obama might propose. So I will try to keep an open mind. It is conceivable that Trump will surprise everybody (even himself) by growing quickly and well into his awesome new responsibilities. But not at all likely.
What is likely? Zombie economics and accelerating climate change will lead to global suffering comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930-s. Less likely (but still far from being alarmist hype) is the possibility of descent into thinly veiled fascism.
Yes, our traditions of liberal democracy are stronger than those of the Weimar Republic in 1932 and 1933. The question is not whether our traditions are stronger than Weimar’s but whether they are still strong enough to withstand escalating bombardment from pseudoconservatives who have honed expertise at selective vote suppression. The land of the free has its share of people with authoritarian personalities and deep resentments, often legitimate but exaggerated or misdirected. As did Germany in the 1930-s.
The Royal Navy bombardment in 1814 was 202 years ago. After the imminent 4 years of intensified pseudoconservative bombardment, will our flag be still there?
Rightly disgusted with the choices offered by the major parties in the 2016 POTUS election, many voters abstained or voted third party. Being sympathetic to both Green and Libertarian concerns (and angry that those concerns got so little attention in the inane debates), I agree that there is something to be said for voting third party in the uncontested states that are safely blue or red. A minor party that crosses the 5% threshold in the popular vote will get ballot access and more attention in the next election.
What about the contested states?
Like it or not, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the only candidates who could have become the next President. Like it or not, abstentions and 3rd party votes in contested states could have tipped them from Clinton to Trump. Like it or not, tipping contested states could have tipped the Electoral College from Clinton to Trump (or even thrown the decision into the House of Representatives, which would have chosen Trump).
So what? Should I not vote my conscience, regardless of where I live? No!
The point of voting is not self expression. The point is to participate in choosing the driver of a bus we all must ride in. The 2016 POTUS election was a choice between 2 bad drivers. One of them had a record that includes moving violations and at-fault collisions, but not DWI or total losses. The other was (and still is) an intoxicated newbie seething with road rage.
Image cropped from the Seattle Times
As John Adams noted long ago, facts are stubborn things. So are misconceptions. Tossing dull little facts against a seductively simple misconception is like tossing pebbles against a window. To break the window, U must organize the pebbles into something like a chunk of concrete.
One way to organize facts is to create a clear and colorful visualization that sums up the take-away. One kind of visualization is a bar chart where all the big bars have the same length but are divided into little bars of various lengths. Perhaps a green little bar shows the percentage of my daily protein that comes from breakfast, while yellow and red little bars show the percentages that come from lunch and dinner. Another big bar shows those 3 percentages for somebody else. This kind of bar chart can be very helpful when there are more kinds of little bar than just breakfast/lunch/dinner, if the chart marker chooses colors well.
An excellent example of this kind of bar chart is in a Daily Kos post by Auriandra dated 2016-10-05. The whole post is a good read; the chart is shown below, in a cropped screenshot.
Contrary to what many cartoonists and progressive purists (not to mention right-wingers) proclaim, Hillary Clinton is relatively truthful, among the pols considered. (None of them deserve high marks by the standards of scientific research or testimony under oath.) By far the least truthful is Donald Trump.
If voters eventually notice and heed the veracity difference between Clinton/Kaine and Trump/Pence, the loss will leave Trump angry at the fact checkers. How can someone with his skillset (blustering; lying; swindling) get back at them? He could try for yet another Pants-on-Fire rating, with a lie about the fermentation capabilities of his microbiome.
Revenge for Fact Checking
Donald Trump could say
his farts and his shit smell like
warm cinnamon rolls.
Learning from history is tough, even for those who remember it. Parallels are never exact. The importance of each difference between then and now is a judgement call. Consider a darkly hilarious cartoon by Jen Sorensen:
Yes, the resemblance of the armed guard to a Nazi storm trooper is as subtle as a sledge hammer. Fine by me. Maybe it will overcome the American propensity for historical amnesia and wishful thinking.
Much to my dismay, Hillary Clinton is the only Trump opponent who might conceivably be elected. The progressive purists who disdain supporting Clinton are confident that something like what happened in Germany in 1932 and 1933 could not happen here and now, with a Trump victory. Yes, our traditions of liberal democracy are stronger than those of the Weimar Republic. The pertinent question is not whether our traditions are stronger but whether they are still strong enough, after years of relentless assault from the pseudoconservative coalition of bigots and plutocrats that controls staggering amounts of dark money and has already taken over the GOP. Dammit, the answer is not obvious.