Enough With Performative Politics. Take a Stand for Freedom

Couldn’t Congressman Scott Peters wait to jump the Biden-for-President ship?

I’ve taken a ten day deep breath on the issue of our current president’s competence. Congress is back in session this week and I strongly suspect sentiment in that body will determine President Joe Biden’s future. So I’ll deal with what I’ve seen, heard, and read. For the record, I’ll vote Blue, regardless of how this plays out.

Joe Biden has taken a stand about his candidacy, namely that he’s not a quitter. But if his former colleagues in the Senate are plagued with a lack of faith, he may yet hear the voice of “the lord almighty.” In any case, absent any thought out plan to move forward is a very, very dangerous decision; one where the word deliberation should come into play. You can’t find a historical precedent where dumping a candidate has a happy ending.

Here’s the thing: Biden has been a very good president. You have to look to FDR’s reign to top this administration’s accomplishments. The country, the economy, and the post WWII European alliances are all (despite very real internal contradictions) humming along. 

The national mood, on the other hand, isn’t where it should be to ensure his re-election, whether or not debate performances matter. A convicted felon surrounded by some of the nastiest people on the planet is polling well when the general election should be a slam dunk.

San Diego Congressman Scott Peters has already jumped ship. I’m actually kinda okay with that, since his cowardice proves the point that he’s more loyal to wealthy donors than the people who will suffer under Trump. 

What’s he gonna do if Biden doesn’t quit and is elected – wander about the wastelands of the Tijuana river hoping for manna to drop from heaven? …If Trump is elected due to low turn out? Hand out pamphlets at the gates of an internment camp?

Via Voice of San Diego:

• In an interview with CBS 8 Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Scott Peters, from San Diego, became the latest Democratic member of Congress to suggest President Biden may have to withdraw as the Democratic nominee for president after his poor performance at a recent debate.

• “As much as I love Joe Biden, in those swing states, he’s having a hard time,” Peters told CBS 8’s Carlo Cecchetto. “I think the campaign has been arrogant in their response.”

• He went on…“We want to know what their plan is to win this election and turn these numbers around. If they don’t have a plan, then I think we need to move in a different direction,” Peters said.

“They” don’t have a plan, according to Peters. Neither does he. The other “they,” as in the Republican Party does have a plan. It is, as Washington Post columnist Phillip Bump describes, a “revolution  targeting pluralistic democracy itself.”

• This time, though, the aim isn’t a new nation born of equality and the law. It is instead to largely reverse the trajectory of the first American Revolution, centralizing power in one leader who happens to look a lot like them.

The New York Times placed an opinion piece on its front page arguing that not voting this year is a viable option. They changed the headline after it was pointed out that the author was a regular voter. And then the story was relegated to the back burner. Its inherent anti-democratic tone remains unchanged. 

• "If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, civic duty is surely the first. Some version of the civic-duty line is trotted out by the sort of do-gooder who hands out voter registration forms to strangers — an activity I find as off-putting as I would an invitation to sit down and fill out a handgun permit,"

Oh, and they published this gobsmackingly bad exhortation against voting on the FOURTH OF JULY.

News tracker Jennifer Schulze did some basic research on the Times coverage over the week after the debate discovered what would seem to be one-sided coverage. To wit:

• I was curious just how many stories the @nytimes has done on Biden's debate performance so I counted. Between the end of the debate & 8am this morning, it was a staggering 192 pieces. 192. That is mind boggling

• 142 news stories

• 50 opinion pieces

• 13 non-debate news

• Trump gets much less attention with 92 stories. Almost half are about the SCOTUS immunity ruling. Just one about Trump calling for military tribunals for his opponents. None of the stories focus on Trump's mental fitness.

Columnist David Brooks, the suit and tie voice of conservatism, opted this weekend to publish a transcript of an interview with Steve Bannon, whose militaristic dreams are as antithetical to democracy as you can get.

• Remember, in war, take the moral high ground, totally and completely destroy your opponent.

If and when Joe Biden is proved incapable of carrying out his duties as President, then he should step down. Forget about the timing. Regardless of how one feels, nothing points the way to any advantage through haste.

I’d like to think that IF the people around him don’t think he’s up to snuff; they have a patriotic duty to say so publicly. Of course, as we know from president number forty five’s time in office, most of an inner circle are too busy milking the teat of power to notice what was actually happening.

I fear the consequences of simply hounding him out of office. Politico’s morning missive expresses the conclusion that the president’s exit is all but decided, saying this Friday is a soft deadline. But…

• Jonathan Martin this morning has a deep look at how Biden sees a path out of the wilderness, “counting on the support of African-American Democrats and his union allies as his last line of defense … portraying his detractors as mostly elite white liberals who are out of step with the more diverse and working-class grassroots of the party.”

• “The donor class may have their preference, but it’s older Black women in church pews who will decide the nominee, thank you very much,” JMart writes, channeling the Wilmington mind-meld, with on-the-record quotes from inner-circle figures ANITA DUNN and CEDRIC RICHMOND to back it up.

• Said Richmond: “I think it’s interesting that not one African-American member [of Congress] has called on the president to step down,” adding that white lawmakers “risk alienating some of their base” by abandoning the president.

For now, it’s Biden’s decision… or is it a delusion?

The confluence of greed, hate, and self entitlement in the (mostly) white population stands squarely in the way of any replacement. Vice President Kamala Harris, who I think could do a better job of running the country (provided that she has an amenable congress), is the perfect symbol for the conundrum facing Democrats.

Pass over the Vice President, and the backbone of Democratic electoral activism will fade away. Black church ladies and their families win elections in large parts of the country.

Harris won’t be openly criticized on the basis of race and gender; the undermining of her candidacy will follow the Hillary-zation script. If she farts in public, the House will have hearings on it. The Tucker Carlsons of the world will claim she’s releasing a culturally toxic gas. Standing behind the Vice President, they will say, could make real men support the LGBTQ+ cause. Or Critical Race Theory. Or whatever…

And for those in the MAGA corner who aren’t offended by farting, the “not eligible” trope is getting dragged out, as in her parents were not naturalized citizens yet when she was born, even though Harris was born in the U.S.

Worse, she will be tarnished by the very same people calling for Biden’s resignation.

Forget Fox News, major news outlets like the New York Times will showcase Very Important People saying she’s incompetent in a thousand different ways, while the clown at the top of the GOP ticket won’t have his actual record facing near the same scrutiny. There’s a reason that 42 cabinet members from the Trump administration won’t endorse their former boss; even as some of them are facing regular death threats for their stances.

The problem with any Democrat this year, including the currently presumptive nominee and their running mate, is that they may lack the charisma it takes to stand out from the Trumpian/nihilist firehouse of shit being sprayed on the public. I don’t see anybody with the star power needed.

Grinding it out with campaign appearances as the Bide campaign is doing, might work. “Concerned” voices will continue to say it’s a gamble not worth taking. 

Since focusing on Donald Trump’s moral and empathetic failings hasn’t made a dent in the enthusiasm of his supporters, perhaps the recent publicity around Project 2025 is a better foil for motivating non-MAGA voters.

Taraji P. Henson, host of this year’s BET Awards, dramatically called out the plan, and John Oliver dedicated nearly 30 minutes of a recent Last Week Tonight episode to explaining what it would mean for Americans.

The Republican candidate’s disavowal of the 900 page plan for his administration was initially reported in mainstream media stenography-style, but the Heritage Foundation president implying bloodletting in response to resistance has kept the issue alive.

The fact is that 31 of the 38 people directly responsible for the writing of Project 2025 served in the Trump administration. And how is it possible that he’s disavowing a document he knows “nothing about?”

Here’s the list of former administration officials, via Public Information:

The unspoken elephant in the room this year is what Los Angeles Times columnist Erin Aubry Kaplan calls:

• …the hard truth of the last eight years: America leans at least as much toward white nationalism as it does toward democracy (and that’s being optimistic). Nobody says it out loud, on either side, which is obscuring the real shape of Showdown 2024.

White nationalism is based on emotional perceptions; calling MAGA racist during a campaign only encourages those feelings. You’ve got to fight fire with fire. Instead of touting the successes of the administrative state, threats to people’s freedom need to be center stage…abortion, schools, health, religion, and fear.

Frameologist George Lakeoff explains the power of the word freedom:

• Words have contestable meanings, and the word freedom means very different things to progressives than to conservatives. As I pointed out in "Whose Freedom?", freedom is a contested concept. Conservatives and progressives use the word to opposite effects.

• As we have seen from a careful reading of the original Declaration of Independence documents, the progressive meaning is at the heart of our democracy and it is time to take it back.

• Most of the issues in public discourse, both in elections and in everyday decision making, come down to issues of freedom.

After all, it’s the right wing agenda, regardless of candidate, that’s at stake in 2024. You and I aren’t going to change (for now - priorities, people!) the powers that be in the Democratic party. But given that people vote and polls don’t, maybe we should consider what’s happened in Western Europe when democracy is challenged.

We can be the town criers of our era, spreading word of the need to stand for our freedoms. With a capital F. All we need is a massive turnout.

Let’s close this essay with Will Bunch, my fav columnist now writing at the Philadelphia Inquirer:

• On the Biden dilemma, I still remain an agnostic. I will support whatever approach appears to be the best way forward for keeping Trump out of the White House again, full stop. In fact, as a newspaper columnist, I promise that I mostly am not going to write about the Democrats’ drama going forward, because the Republican threats to our democracy are so much more important. To be sure, I’m headed to Chicago in August for the Dems’ convention, and I’ll opine if there’s a major change at the top. But I’ll regret it if I waste one word on any other subject that’s not stopping dictatorship.

• I’m delighted to see millions of other voters are looking at this the same way. I hope they won’t just Google “Project 2025,” but talk to their neighbors, or organize community teach-ins, or take to the streets to let America know that the Trumps and the Kevin Robertses of the extreme right can’t impose this on the people without a fight. How ironic that their plan for authoritarian rule could be its undoing. Project 2025 — look it up!

***

Monday News You Should Read

***

San Diego Police want to relocate controversial smart streetlights. Here's why via CBS8 News. (Eds Note: The short answer is that SDPD are trying to use logistics issues to override community concerns about privacy.)

• CBS 8 spoke with member of the TRUST coalition Seth Hall. He's worried about civic leader's dedication to the established process. 

• "I’m concerned that the department and the city are no longer really interested in following the rules of the road but the communities of San Diego set out in 2020 when we were trying to figure out how to make it so that the city can use this technology while also benefiting from the trust of San Diegans," Hall said.

• He adds, "This is incredibly powerful technology and I think it's really important for our day to day lives that we get our arms around how this technology is gonna be used in a way that's not abusive that in fact goes to protecting communities."

***

There’s a Small Problem With the AI Industry: It’s Making Absolutely No Money via Futurism.com

• Yes, AI is expensive to deploy and run, not even counting its harmful impact on the environment. So companies using it want to see major returns.

• So far, it sounds like they aren't. Maybe the real question is how much runway the AI industry has before business leaders move onto the next thing.

• One exception, not that it helps above-board businesses? Criminals. Hackers are using AI to steal an untold amount of money, which has driven companies to spend more cash on cybersecurity measures.

***

They said it couldn't be done in deep red Arkansas via alasmoses at Daily Kos

• With no national support or attention, Arkansas women (and a few good men) did what everyone said couldn’t be done. On July 5, organizers turned in enough signatures to qualify an amendment to restore access to abortion in Arkansas.  The amendment will restore access up to 18 weeks for any reason and thereafter has exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomaly, and life and health of the mother.  

• The amendment had no support from national groups like Planned Parenthood or the ACLU because it didn’t allow for abortions up to the point of viability.  However, polling showed that anything over 18 weeks simply wouldn’t pass in deep red Arkansas, and the amendment will cover 99% of abortions that do occur.  States surrounding Arkansas like Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee currently have restrictive abortion bans. Should the Arkansas amendment make it on the ballot and pass in November (new polling shows that it will), women in surround states will have options that they currently don’t.

• Arkansas is one of the few southern states to allow citizen-initiated referendums. However, in 2023 the legislature referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot that would make the process more difficult, increasing the number of qualifying counties from 15 to 50.  The citizens of Arkansas soundly defeated the proposed amendment, but the legislature defied the clear will of the people and changed the constitution in their next legislative session.  A lawsuit is currently pending challenging the 50-county requirement. Despite this, organizers qualified 54 counties and submitted 10,000 signatures over the total state-wide requirement.