The horserace to see what media outlet can do the best job of calling the 2024 election is on, and the consensus choice is former President Donald J Trump. In case you haven’t heard, the man from Mar a Lago is leading in the polls, and the more outrageous his pronouncements become, the more popular he is.
When it comes to issues, the GOP likes to hammer on the economy and tell people what little they have is about to be taken away by migrant terrorists loaded with fentanyl coming through our “open border.” When it comes to (mostly) unstated goals, resurrecting the patriarchy and empowering greed are the norm.
Now ABC News is up with a story about how major donors are overcoming their reluctance and rejoining Team Trump. The Hill, on the other hand, says Democrats are leading in fundraising by a 2 to 1 ratio over the GOP in recent reports.
And so it goes. Coverage of the upcoming elections is completely dominated by the horse race metaphor. Perspectives on consequences, with the exception of people who’ve actually read a history book, are rarely presented in the mainstream media, and when they are, the framing is done in such a manner as to turn a blind eye towards many strata of society.
The Associated Press covered the possibility of military involvement in domestic politics under Trump as it was a gentlemanly debate among academics. The only persons, according to this scenario, who would be in trouble would be military officers who refused to carry out orders from the chief executive.
“There are a lot of institutional checks and balances in our country that are pretty well-developed legally, and it’ll make it hard for a president to just do something randomly out of the blue,” said O’Hanlon, who specializes in U.S. defense strategy and the use of military force. “But Trump is good at developing a semi-logical train of thought that might lead to a place where there’s enough mayhem, there’s enough violence and legal murkiness” to call in the military.
Trump has told us what his plans are, starting with a massive purge of government employees, and his vassals are busy screening candidates to replace executive branch employees who don’t support his agenda.
Then there are the internment camps, a necessary part of a commitment to deport millions of migrants regardless of citizenship.
Designing Trump’s policies on immigration is Stephan Miller, accurately profiled in a book called Hatemonger by Jean Guerrero. He told the New York Times it would be unwise to assume Trump wouldn’t follow through with draconian policies:
“Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown…The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening.”
Nathan J. Robinson, writing at Current Affairs, does take this threat/promise seriously:
Of course, even if Trump only tries to prosecute his political opponents, and puts immigrants in the giant camps, that’s enough of a nightmare. He’s talking about deporting millions of people. There is no way to do this that isn’t very ugly and violent. Conditions in these camps are almost certain to be unsanitary and crowded–do you think Trump is going to give the “detainees” decent medical care or food? He thinks they’re animals, and they’ll be treated accordingly.
To make a long story short, this is the future being predicted for the United States.
One of the collateral effects of all this Trumpiness is that increasing numbers of women are unwilling to include his male followers in their social and marital outlooks.
The Washington Post editorial board says unless these attitudes change, the institution of marriage is threatened. I’m assuming this thinking process also concludes that one impact of all these unwed macho men will be less Trump Youth, meaning less fodder for training tomorrow’s authoritarians.
In another era, political or ideological differences might have had less impact on marriage rates. But, increasingly, the political is personal. A 2021 survey of college students found that 71 percent of Democrats would not date someone with opposing views. There is some logic to this. Marriage across religious or political lines — if either partner considers those things to be central to their identity — can be associated with lower levels of life satisfaction. And politics is becoming more central to people’s identity.
They go on to say, “someone will need to compromise,” lest society become full of people who are unhappy because they don’t have a mate. They conclude with the suggestion that a cultural shift is necessary, one that views politics as a part of people’s identity but far from the most important part.
This folderol about consequences for society is backed by the Post with a link to The Institute for Family Studies, a think tank funded by the likes of the Koch family, to preserve the institution of marriage. Or should I say patriarchy?
The right wing view on the world includes a hierarchy with der welß father at the top; those below are expected to be obedient to his wishes. And in many cases it’s considered acceptable to regard lesser beings as property.
Seeing the Post’s thinking on the subject –even though it’s the editorial board– says volumes about the basic understandings of the managerial class. This commentary is revoltingly sexist and pro patriarchy. The underlying premise –because women are in the majority– is that females will have to make sacrifices to placate the spouseless male minority.
Think about it.
What compromise can there be over the woman’s right to choose and all the ancillary laws being enacted, like those preventing travel to another state. Or those saying that those treating a miscarriage or other failed pregnancy can be prosecuted. Or those paying a bounty for ratting out women.
What about spousal abuse? Birth control? Gender discrimination?
Who gets to pick what rights and privileges get abrogated for women? Will it be only those espousing heteronormalcy?
There’s reason to suspect that the fear mongering of the more challenged beings in Trumptopia makes compromise coming from the right more difficult. The firehose of lies endemic in his culture includes a group believing that a secret cabal of so-called elites is ruling the world and participating in a cult that sexually abuses children. That’s where David DePap, now convicted of assaulting Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband got his inspiration.
Then there are the 41% of Republicans who like Trump who say violence may be necessary, and the 46% of Trump supporters who believe the election was stolen also believe violence may be an answer. How do you compromise with somebody with violence so high on ther personal agenda?
This cultural divide goes beyond rituals and legal formalities. It also applies to s-e-x. Gone are the days where partners came as the result of casual in-person contacts; today’s younger people, when they choose to have sexual relations*, already know the generalties of those they encounter on social media. It only takes seconds to discover political leanings, and more likely than not, expressions of anger/resentment/wokeness influence decisions about taking connecting to the next level.
(*This is on top of environmental, economic, and psychological aversion to sexual interactions. Expressions of genetic makeup regarding reproduction are widespread in wealthy industrialized nations. Having multiple children is no longer a defense mechanism for external threats to species survival.)
I’m not saying that electing Trump in 2024 will affect everybody’s sex lives or coupling relationships. All I am saying is things would be a lot easier (men are increasingly unhappy) if the role model for young men wasn’t a deranged angry old man offering up violence (or the threat thereof) as a means for advancement.
***
Monday’s Moody News Clips
***
Voting for President Is Not an Exercise in Personal Expression Via Mitchell Zimmerman at Common Dreams
Third party candidates regularly tell us we’re entitled to express our own views in voting. But voting for president is not an exercise in personal expression and it is not like seeking your true love or dream candidate. Voting is what you do to effect the best outcome for your country among the real possibilities.
The GOP has ceased to be a normal party that respects majority rule and the rule of law, and Donald Trump has made clear his intentions of dismantling our democracy. Whatever flaws you may see in Joe Biden, he is the only actual alternative to Trump’s reign.
It’s as simple as this: If you vote for supposed “progressives” Jill Stein or Cornell West, you’re reducing the votes needed to stop Trump.
***
Corporate greed and the price of eggs Via Mark Sumner at Daily Kos
Eggs have long been one of the cheapest forms of protein available to consumers. They are critical to the diet of many low-income individuals and families. As this Lifehacker article pointed out during the 2022-2023 price spike, eggs deliver 20 grams of protein for just 48 cents when eggs cost $2.00 a carton. But drive the cost of those eggs up 280% and the cost per gram moves above milk, tuna, and even chicken. A traditionally cheap and versatile protein source becomes one of the most expensive.
Corporate greed and the desire to make a quick buck always play a role in inflation. However, the price increases over the last few years are unique when it comes to “greedflation.” In 2021, 60% of inflation could be attributed not to increases in cost of raw materials or increasing wages for labor, but to increases in corporate profits.
But somehow, The New York Times is still discussing inflation as if it’s a symptom of a need to “cool the economy” by jacking up interest rates. Naturally, the words “profit” or “greed” don’t appear in this story. The Associated Press reports that Americans “feel gloomy” about the economy, which economists attribute to “lingering financial and psychological effects of the worst bout of inflation in four decades.” That article also doesn’t mention corporate profits or greed, but it does have a story about a single mom who has had to cut back on food for her children.
***
How the Memphis Sanitation Workers’ Strike Changed the Labor Movement Via the New York Times
The strike in Memphis more than five decades ago “inspired a surge of organizing and strikes, not unlike what we see today,” said William P. Jones, a history professor at the University of Minnesota who has written on race and class.
Today’s resurgence in labor activism cuts across a broad range of industries. There have been recent labor fights at, among other places, rail yards, schools, hospitals, hotels, Hollywood studios and Starbucks stores. And the issues on the bargaining table include traditional demands, like higher wages and better staffing levels, as well as protections against replacement by artificial intelligence. Unions have had remarkable success in recent months, including securing a big pay raise for Las Vegas hospitality workers who merely threatened a strike.
What the Black sanitation workers in Memphis demonstrated was that, by joining a union and withholding their labor, even people in the lowest-paying, hardest jobs could “transform those jobs into reliable vehicles for economic mobility,” Dr. Jones said. And that, he added, led “to a rapid expansion of public-sector unions in the 1970s and 1980s and the emergence of African Americans as the most heavily unionized sector of the American work force.”