Wednesday, December 18, 2019

A tough day. Possible daylight. And what we share below the surface.


The Hannah Arendt Center ran a short piece of mine - Below the Surface - about underlying currents that (especially) most Americans share and how they might help resolve our conflicts. 

Alas, these very traits -- like a reflexive suspicion of authority -- are being used against us, riling us -- right and left -- to see threat only  from directions that our faction dreads, unable to conceive that our opponents share the same instinctive fear... just aimed at different, oppressive elites.

We could use this commonality to unite against the manipulators! If that Arendt piece interests you, come see more extensive discussions of these topics in Polemical Judo: Memes for Our Political Knife-fights.

But yes, as I polish this posting, history is being made. A vote in the popularly elected U.S. House of Representatives that will surely, in January, be cancelled in the unrepresentative Senate, throwing it back into our laps. That is, unless...

== The Secret Ballot gambit? ==

From Politico: "A secret impeachment ballot in the Senate might sound crazy, but it would take only three senators to allow that."  Of course the right-o-sphere reacts to this idea with volcanic fury. But this article points out just three GOP Senators could swing a rules vote allowing secret balloting for conviction.

"Trump and those around him seem confident that he won’t lose the 20 Republican senators needed to block a guilty verdict. But it’s not hard to imagine three senators supporting a secret ballot. Five sitting Republican senators have already announced their retirements; four of those are in their mid-70s or older and will never run for office again. They might well be willing to demand secrecy in order to give cover to their colleagues who would like to convict Trump but are afraid to do so because of politics in their home districts. There are also 10 Republican senators who aren’t up for reelection until 2024 and who might figure Trumpism will be irrelevant by then." writes J. Glover in Politico.

Interesting. As far as it goes.


Only then note (as I do in my book's chapter on "Exit Strategies") that what's required for conviction and removal is 2/3 of those "present," with a quorum being just 50 Senators. Hence in theory, if enough Republicans feigned illness, or proclaimed fear of (nonexistent) death threats, or almost any excuse, those stay-aways could throw all of Mitch McConnell's math out the window.

Let me be clear, I deem the dominionist apocalypse-fanatic Mike Pence to be more dangerous than the jibberer currently roaming the Executive mansion throwing tantrums. Still, if you want to explore a variety of chess moves... some of them you can do, personally... well, the kindle version is really cheap and so is the paperback.

Oh, indicative of how far the mania has sunk. From a recent poll: "Majority of Republicans say Trump better president than Lincoln.” 

Um, duh? What do you expect from confederates? Oh, but it goes farther...

== Putting it starkly ==

"More than half of Republicans surveyed in a 2019 Pew poll said colleges and universities are hurting the country, a drastic shift from how the same group viewed such institutions two years ago. In September 2019, Tennessee Republican State Sen. Kerry Roberts called for eliminating higher education - yes, that - on his conservative radio talk show arguing it would cut off the 'liberal breeding ground,'” writes Justin Wise in The Hill.

There's a lot to this new Know Nothing movement, of course, and I explore the disease in Chapter 5 , as well as this article: “Declining trust in our expert castes: what are underlying causes?Why would the GOP masters be pushing this meme? 

Because an Orwellian hate fest toward fact-people undermines the very ones standing in the way of a re-imposition of feudalism. And of course nearly all fact-folks were influenced by colleges and universities. And the stupidest Democrat failing of all is not making the War on Facts a central, towering grievance to corner them with.

Now comes an exposé in Foreign Policy revealing how alt-righters are savagely attacking the very idea of a career civil service, a campaign accelerating in the era of Trump.

 “Career civil servants often endure stressful working conditions, but in the Trump White House, some of them face online trolling from alt-right bloggers who seek to portray them as clandestine partisans plotting to sabotage the president’s agenda. The online attacks often cite information that appears to be provided by unnamed White House officials or Trump loyalists.”

Want to hear something surprising? I am actually sympathetic with the core pain that propels this inchoate rage toward college educations! 

For a century, "blue" city-university America has done something overwhelmingly hurtful to "red" rural America. Not intentionally hurtful - it would seem a good thing to any rational person - but traumatic, nonetheless. Every September, we steal their children - the best of them, the pride of their high schools - who scurry to our colleges - to Mordor - as fast as they can. And when they return - if they return - they are changed. It is an ancient dread, just as in all those old mythologies of stolen babies and changelings.

We owe no apology. It's all part of a good and wondrous thing! But we do owe it to our fellow citizens, to try and understand. Not only as our duty, compassion and love, but because only understanding will empower us to better resist their volcanic rage.

See it explicated here: Declining Trust; Rising Fear.

== What "our" billionaires ought to do, instead ==

What if Michael Bloomberg truly wants to fight Trump - and be viewed as a hero, not an egotist?

There’s an approach that he - and Tom Steyer - could take that’s cheaper, more dignified and likely far more effective than running for president. Let them - or other civilization-loving zillionaires - offer to pay the legal expenses of anyone who’s thinking about breaking a Trump Non Disclosure Agreement.  

Trump has openly bragged about his Great Wall of NDAs. Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are just the fluffy crust we see. Breaking through Trump’s mythology of vengefully-enforced coerced silence just a couple of times might shatter the whole edifice, unleashing a tsunami of revelation. 

Note that we don't need a billionaire, to do this. Almost any House Committee could do this by promising immunity from prosecution and possibly civil suits, to anyone coming before them and testifying the contents of an NDA!  Doubt that? Shouldn't we test it?  Then remember this, any lawsuit filed by Trump etc. against NDA breakers would then go before a jury and likely be nullified. That's a three layer defense to lure a tsunami of revelations!

Or see elsewhere my much broader proposals for subsidies for whistleblowers and or repentant henchmen!

== Tidbits ==

For those too busy to read... "tl;dr... this Animated Mueller report from The Washington Post brings it to life and makes clear whether there was "exoneration."

Again, I recommend this cogent and insightful issue of The Atlantic for its sober appraisals of the possibility of US civil war. I think the brilliant authors are myopic and miss much. But in a nation of the blind, the nearsighted are sages, indeed.

84 comments:

David Brin said...

Addendum. When the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, their hypocrisy was so great that a majority of the "managers" or propsecutors they sent to the Sentate from the House, to push the case against Clinton - consisting entirely of a hunsband having fibbed about some 3rd base marital infidelity - had themselves undergone nasty divorces.

Alfred Differ said...

Well... there was the small matter of perjury... produced through entrapment... and obstruction in defense against entrapment.

The way I saw it was moralistic hypocrisy using criminal entrapment procedures. Unfortunately I think that is is the blade being turned on us this time... as they see it. Utter garbage of course. Two scoops traps himself and claims otherwise because he is such a stable genius. Pfft.

Personally, I can’t get FDR’s campaign theme song out of my head tonight. 😎

Zepp Jamieson said...

Let us not forget Speaker Newt, who was busily banging the future Mrs. Newt III, and had not yet shared the news with Mrs. Newt II, or the rest of the world. And you don't even want to know what skeletons Dennis Hastert had in his closet!

duncan cairncross said...

Perjury?
The "lie" was
"I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman"

But by the definition given to him by the house that was not a lie

So to my simple mind it was NOT "Perjury"

David Brin said...

Well, third base is pretty darn in the ballpark for "sexual relations." No, the reason the women of America forgave him was they looked in Hillary's eyes and saw: "Will you all please let me handle this?" And a wife who asks that gets consideration from other women "He's salvageable," was proved by the fact that they stayed married, and yes, after she was done with politics.

For the goppers to preach, when there were TWELVE divorces among Reagan Newt, Hastert, Trump, and what was the 4th top one I cite?

duncan cairncross said...

I would agree that was "sexual relations" in my book

But it wasn't according to the definition he was given!!

And he did need to ask for a definition - if I kiss an old girlfriend is that a "sexual relationship"??

The house definition required penetration - which is NOT the definition I would have used but it was the one they gave to Clinton

TCB said...

Nancy Pelosi says she won't refer the articles of impeachment to the senate until they will get a fair trial.

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHH SICK MOVE

That means Trump never gets his acquittal and the House can drag him for as long as they want.

Pretty much the last thing the GOP wants right now, I think.

Merry Impeachmas?

Tim H. said...

This may be in the category of "Deja Vu all over again"
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-happens-when-a-bad-tempered-distractible-doofus-runs-an-empire
"Kaiser Donny"?

Lloyd Flack said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
 Ashley said...

The chances of a second American civil war I think is some concern, along with a crash of the economy, but it's one of those things that we (me as a little person and not American has any control over) fear is coming. I must admit I made this the basis of the background in my novels.

However, in my defense, my civil war series takes place in Russian, because I didn't want to write the misery and suffering of Americans. Call me sentimental.

BTW: I didn't realize my presence here meant so much to you. I may not always comment, because I need to write other stuff, but again thank you.

Lloyd Flack said...

Tim, that similarity struck me too. It was when I was reading Margart MacMillan's excellent history of the lead up to and outbreak of World War 1, The War that Ended Peace.
It also stuck the author and fellow historian Max Hastings.

Tim H. said...

"The War that Ended Peace" sounds like a good on e to add to the reading list. The late James P. Hogan had a character in "The Proteus Effect" that came from an alternate Earth where World War had been avoided, a lovely notion, but those of us who have a taste for domination place it in the realm of fantasy, though we may, in small ways, reduce the severity.

Larry Hart said...

See why I wish Nancy Pelosi were my girlfriend? :)

BTW, the Senate Republicans' defense of their blatant partiality is all over the map. They're quick to accuse the House Democrats of not conducting the impeachment hearings in the manner of a trial (which it isn't), but when it comes to their own conduct in a potential trial (which it is), then "We're not jurors" and "This isn't a criminal trial, it's a political process!"*

Republicans are the Tonya Hardings of congress.

* I purposely left the comma-splice uncorrected because I don't credit Republicans with knowing the rules of grammar that every sophomore at my high school had drilled into us.

Larry Hart said...

Tim H:

"Kaiser Donny"?


Reading through the linked article, I wonder if Kaiser Wilhelm was at least some of the inspiration for Groucho Marx's character Rufus T Firefly in Duck Soup.

As a nickname riffing on an insane dictator, someone once suggested that "Caligula" means tiny boots, so Trump is "Manicula"--tiny hands.

Tim H. said...

LH, perhaps not as disrespectful as "Herr Drumph!", think of hydrogen sulphide when you read it, or "Il Chetolini". My favorite, from the imagination of Charles Stross, "The Tangerine Shitgibbon".

Larry Hart said...

@Tim H,

Radio host (hostess?) Stephanie Miller's show used to use "Cheetolini", especially right around the 2016 election. Took me a few times before it sunk in what the "Cheeto" part was referring to. But I like it because I've always maintained that Trump's brand of fascism is more Mussolini than Hitler.

Larry Hart said...

what we already know about Republicans...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/opinion/trump-impeachment-fbi.html

...

hat Trump didn’t get away with it is a relief, not an exoneration. That he continues to insist the call was “perfect,” as he did Tuesday in his letter to Nancy Pelosi, means that he is likely to do it again. That he attempted to subvert the will of Congress by impounding congressional funds for his political ends threatens the separation of powers in ways that will haunt a future Republican Congress. That he was prepared to endanger an ally and benefit an enemy is not treason, as the Constitution defines treason, but it is a travesty, as any American ought to understand travesty. That Republican leaders are cheering him only serves to define deviancy down and debase our political norms in ways that will surely haunt a future Republican Congress. That conservative pundits claim to be outraged at the F.B.I.’s investigation of the Trump campaign — or the smearing of Carter Page — while being indifferent to Trump’s attempt to investigate Joe Biden — and the smearing of Hunter Biden — marks a fresh low in rhetorical sophistry.

There are people who believe that law, morality, traditions and institutions are at least as important to the preservation of freedom as the will of the people. Such people are called conservative. What Republicans are now doing with their lock step opposition to impeachment — and with their indifference to the behavior that brought impeachment about — is not conservative. It is the abdication of principle to power.

I might think differently about impeachment if Trump had shown any sense of contrition. Or if Republicans had shown any inclination to censure him. But Trump hasn’t, and they haven’t. Whatever the political ramifications of impeachment now, history will judge members of this Congress harshly if they fail to state their revulsion at the president’s behavior in the strongest terms they can. Impeach and convict.

Larry Hart said...

When Benedict Donald and his congressional lickspittles whine that impeachment is an attempt to "overturn an election", remember that Trump was only able to win (by negative 3 million votes) because the Electoral College overturned the popular election.

And if the response is that the Electoral College is the way these things are done according to the Constitution, well then so is impeachment.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin in the main post:

Oh, indicative of how far the mania has sunk. From a recent poll: "Majority of Republicans say Trump better president than Lincoln.”


How soon before they openly profess that Trump is a "better savior than Jesus"?

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

And if the response is that the Electoral College is the way these things are done according to the Constitution, well then so is impeachment.

That's the spirit!

The next step is to recognize that the Constitution is also law, one level up, thus Two Scoops IS breaking the law when obstructing oversight.

The next, next step is to recognize that the Constitution organizes the government, but doesn't say precisely how it works, thus 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is a place holder to be interpreted in each context.

These formalities trap anyone thinking about this (admittedly not his base) in a logical box where the only way out is to admit impeachment and removal IS the solution.

Reason > Romanticism (in this case)

[Not that this prescription is needed for YOU. It's for those folks who might be persuaded not to oppose us in the civil war.]

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

Loudermilk did make a comparison to the Trial of Jesus yesterday. 8)
The reaction on Twitter was fun to watch.

Larry Hart said...

Talk about wager fodder!

Someone should ask Trump to willingly undergo what accused witches in Salem went through in exchange for the Democrats backing off of impeachment. Or Jesus of Nazareth would work too.

If his bloviations are correct, than doing so would be a step up from his current situation, so he should be happy to accept the challenge.

Jon S. said...


Donnie wants to be treated as fairly as the Salem witches?

Cool by me. Tie him hand and foot and toss him into the lake. If he floats, he's a traitor.

locumranch said...


https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/nancy-pelosi-sending-impeachment-articles-senate/index.html

Can we really call it an 'Impeachment' if the House Majority Speaker refuses to issue formal Articles of Impeachment to the US Senate?

The answer is an unqualified "no", at least according to liberal democrat & legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, who views the entire impeachment process as an unconstitutional sham perpetuated by a confederacy of dunces who squander their political capital on petty and inconsequential tasks.

Without a doubt, this partisan passion play of improper moral certitude will end badly for the US Democrat Party, a cataclysmic drubbing that will make recent & tragicomic UK Labour Party losses look like total victory, as to be illustrated this very night by the DNC's inevitable self-defenestration at the candidates' debate, yeah.

Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you
Woo, woo, woo

What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson?
Jolting Joe has left and gone away
Hey, hey, hey

Hey, hey, hey



Best

____

Says the leading DNC candidate at tonight's debate:

"Dismantling the US Electoral College -- and, with it, the US Constitution -- how can I lose?".

Dum de dum dum, dumb.

Larry Hart said...

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2019/Pres/Maps/Dec19.html#item-1

The careful reader will note, incidentally, that Trump was exercising the powers of his office—any president would have granted the Dingell family any funeral they wanted, given his record-breaking 59-year career in the House—and then was angry that he did not receive a personal favor in return. That is a very interesting complaint for someone to make literally minutes after they were impeached for trying to use the powers of their office to extract personal favors in return.

Larry Hart said...

Watching Nancy Pelosi in the embedded video in that article above, it occurs to me why Benedict Donald thinks "Article 2" says he can do whatever he wants. (Impeachment article 2 was for obstruction of congress)

Alfred Differ said...

Meacham had an interesting point last night in msnbc. Impeachments in recent history are the result of a change to the United States.Quid pro quo is expected in the spoils system, but not by the Great Society. We changed with civil rights, voting rights, and other 1960s era laws.

Larry Hart said...

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2019/Pres/Maps/Dec19.html#item-6

Part of what makes the ACA viable is that it requires all Americans to carry insurance, imposing a tax penalty for those who do not comply. Congress, as part of its tax cut for (mostly) rich people and corporations, set the tax penalty to zero. Consequently, argue the AGs and Team Trump, the individual mandate is no longer constitutional and should be struck down. They also say that since the mandate/tax penalty are integral to the law, the unconstitutionality of the penalty means the whole thing should really be struck down.


I have never understood this line of reasoning from the beginning. The ACA had already been declared Consitutional. If a new law lowering the penalty to 0 for violating the mandate creates a conflict, then that new law is unconstitutional, not the rest of the existing law.

David Brin said...

Irrelevant. The chant must be "Where's that "replacement plan" you've promised for NINE years?"

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Impeachments in recent history are the result of a change to the United States.Quid pro quo is expected in the spoils system, but not by the Great Society.


I don't see how this applies to impeachments other than the current one.

locumranch said...


Impeachment? Due Process? The US Constitution & the Electoral College? David considers all these issues to be Irrelevant??

Said Ironman to Loki:

You're missing the point. There is no throne. There is no version of this where you come out on top. Maybe your army comes and maybe it's too much for us, but it's all on you. Because if we can't protect the nation where we reside, you can be damn well sure we'll avenge it.


Every way you look at this you lose.


Best

scidata said...

The Reps can always apply to the courts for a remedy.

"My work here is done"
- Karma

Treebeard said...

In other news, apparently the biosphere is heading toward rapid collapse just as the world is putting the pedal to the metal to burn up the remaining coal and oil. No doubt many conferences will be called, new technologies touted and children enlisted in the rebellion against extinction, but no monkey dance will stop the fate that awaits all species. It seems that the future, like the past, belongs to microbes, fungi and jellyfish—far older and more successful species than big-brained primates will ever be, it must be said. In the final analysis (which there will never be, because jellyfish, et al. don’t have brains), evolution never cared about progress, intelligence, morality or any of the other things humans like to think are important. The sun will consume a planet devoid of mammals, possibly of life, the universe will yawn and the stars will roll on without us.

David Brin said...

While locum's tediously spasm-reflexive hostility, jerking off to wholly imaginary strawmen and insisting on doing it here, is but a skim snooze...

...zzz...

Treebeard's poetical ode to the delights of despair would be slightly diverting, if not for the hypocrisy, his having been part of the cult that sneered at Al Gore and blocked early interventions, back when there was still plenty of time. No, no, you don't evade. What this means is that you... personally and all like you... have no credibility. Your yowls are as evil-wrong now as they were then.

In fact, I think we'll get through this. Though blocked and thwarted by assholes screaming "Nooooo!", while clutching the ankles of innovators and impeding their world-saving inventiveness.

But if it comes to what you describe, there will be plenty of time to tar and feather those who were complicit, instead of helping to prevent it. Meanwhile, all you come across as is stooopid.

Larry Hart said...

Treebeard:

In the final analysis (which there will never be, because jellyfish, et al. don’t have brains), evolution never cared about progress, intelligence, morality or any of the other things humans like to think are important.


You aren't even internally consistent. You berate liberals and scientists for caring about physical laws over the mythopoeic religious symbolism you find so important. Well, evolution doesn't care about that shit either. Jellyfish don't worship God or stand up for white supremacy or own the libs either.

Neither one of us will be happy 10,000,000 years from now, but at least one of us doesn't let that reality be a buzzkill right now.

matthew said...

Locumloco cites Alan Dershowitz, a "liberal scholar" that is a regular on Fox defending Trump. Also, Dersh is implicated in Jeffery Epstein's sex ring as participant and legal adviser.

Your choice of legal scholar says much about your preferences, Loco.

Treebeard has spoken volumes here about his disdain for those that may yet save him. Dog kibble Nazi.

Pelosi is handling a tough situation with panache. I hope she holds Trump's feet to the fire long enough to see the legal resolution of the subpoenas that are the essence of the second Article of Impeachment.

David Brin said...

Among my top 5 Fermi Paradox theories is one that I've seen no one else mention... feudalism as an attractor state that extinguishies curiosity and exploration and inventiveness, even if a sapient species survives. The fact that rule by inheritance-lord bullies an theocrats took hold in 99% of human societies says a lot. And while it may be specifically human, the darwinistic reproductive advantage of lords/kings/priests grabbing harems is seen all across the animal kingdom. Hence its driving force likely transcends species, genus and planetary system.

Indeed, it may be especially human and rare that we found an alternative to stupid-ass, predictable and self-destructive feudalism. An alternative that - in the rare few times and places it's been tried - is so vastly more creative and productive of every human good that we are using a few of these benefits right now, to converse across space and time... and AI minds may already be reading this, pondering which system got around to engendering them.

If true, it means far more than our own miserable species and planet may be at stake. We may be the Milky Way's one chance to go out and save others from the Trap and bring light.

Was someone quoting Kipling, earlier?

scidata said...

I empathized with one of us when he lamented the economic/social situation in Ohio (not sure if state or entire valley). Although I would never weigh suffering quantitatively, I will say that Ontario has seen better days too. NAFTA was not the lopsided Canadian heist that it has been characterized as. Automation has steamrolled many here too. Different tribes, but with the same basic needs and values.

Andrew Yang's 'Freedom Dividend' has some merit, although so does the line from "Gods of the Copybook Headings": "When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins". Neither thought should be extinguished.

I'm always on about Fisher's Theorem and the evolutionary power of diversity. It's likely that constant squabbling forges better fighters than does harmonious unity. It's one possible shield against the feudalism attractor. CITOKATE. Consider Asimov's Diaboli war.


@newcomers
You'll find this blog to be a marvelous resource. There are several search engines, one being the Search this Blog window on right margin of the main page. Another is http://www.blogsearchengine.org/ which is deeper, but a bit slower, and requires you to include "Contrary Brin" in the search string:
eg. an innocuous search on "Contrary Brin" FPGA returns a page that shows just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

David Brin said...

Okay, I expanded on that last blip:
I've seen one of the latest alt-right bullshittisms going around. They know they lose every wager based on facts and they now know everyone sapient can see climate disasters rising all around, directly caused by their cult. So one meme is "it was never gonna last, anyway!" Either fundie revelationism or else good old playground cynicism. "Soon all that will be left is jellyfish, so what matters?"

As you might guess I have an unusual answer. Do you know the Fermi Paradox? The question of why we see none of the great works out there that we hope our own descendants may build?

Among my top 5 Fermi Paradox theories is one that I've seen no one else mention... feudalism as an attractor state that extinguishes curiosity and exploration and inventiveness, even if a sapient species survives. The fact that rule by inheritance-lord bullies and theocrats took hold in 99% of human societies says a lot. And while feudalism may be specifically human, the darwinistic reproductive advantage of lords/kings/priests grabbing harems is seen all across the animal kingdom. Hence its driving force likely transcends species, genus and planetary system.

And what happens if such a society lasts millennia? The lie that "lords are superior" would become true by simple breeding and you'll wind up with castes like in Brave New World, or in bees and ants. And that's it for curiosity or outward endeavor.

Indeed, it may be especially human and rare that we found an alternative to stupid-ass, predictable and self-destructive feudalism. An alternative that - in the rare few times and places it's been tried - is so vastly more creative and productive of every human good that we are using a few of the benefits right now, to converse across space and time... and AI minds may already be reading this, pondering which system got around to engendering them.

If true, it means far more than our own miserable species and planet may be at stake. We may be the Milky Way's one chance to go out and save others from the Trap and bring light.

And now the capper. I have watched these guys since they were a small band of cranks orbiting D&D and SCA. Among them are the top "incel" misogynist ravers (involuntarily celibate!) and neo-monarchists who no longer pretend that the "right" stands for for competition or enterprise or markets, certainly not democracy, equality, accountability or rights. They are unabashed admirers of Putin and the New Czars, and when shown that it's all just a bunch of "ex" commies and commissars-turned mafia bosses, they just grin and shrug.

They jack off to fantasies of being "top dogs" when they are kibble. But they might pull us all down with them and make humanity... typical.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2013/11/neo-reactionaries-drop-all-pretense-end.html

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

There is a Wikipedia list of all impeachment attempts of Presidents. It points out that most face calls for impeachment, a fair number get bills introduced to make it happen that usually stop at Judiciary, and four made it out.

Every President since 1980 faced introduced bills.

We’ve wanted and threatened often, but lately we are doing it. What changed?

See?

Alfred Differ said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_officials

 Ashley said...

Jon S. said... Donnie wants to be treated as fairly as the Salem witches?

That's funny, but... (my favourite interjection) my partner's ancestor was Elizabeth Howe, so we tend to not see the funny side of this.

Treebeard said...In other news, apparently the biosphere is heading toward rapid collapse just as the world is putting the pedal to the metal to burn up the remaining coal and oil.(snipped apocalyptic doom and gloom)

For a reasoned unpacking of the future ecological catastrophe I recommend following Dr Frank Landis's blog https://heteromeles.com/

He's also written a book called, "Hot Earth Dreams: What if severe climate change happens, and humans survive?"

David Brin said...Among my top 5 Fermi Paradox theories...

I went away and saved off you Fermi Paeadox posts for later reading. I did some back of the envelope calculations of my own and posted them in a blog a nearly two weeks ago: https://ashleyrpollard.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-fermi-paradox.html

Please feel free to take comments on my post to my blog.

scidata said... @newcomers searche FPGA.

Done, and thank you.

So, I have some thoughts on the current political messes on both side of the Atlantic, remember I'm British, so I may be lacking in nuance, which I'll post later as I'm a bit busy with the shit going down here, and the latest furore over J K Rowling.

Larry Hart said...

I guess it's my own fault for re-reading Kiln People immediately before the Christmas season.

Every time the radio plays that bit from "Last Christmas" that goes:

My God, I thought you were someone to rely on.
Me, I guess I was a shoulder to cry on.


my brain keeps expecting a rhyme with the word "prion" in it.

:)

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

Every President since 1980 faced introduced bills.

We’ve wanted and threatened often, but lately we are doing it. What changed?


I think that ever since Nixon, the Republicans have been determined to impeach a Democratic president as revenge. Since Clinton, the reverse has also been the case.

I recall very clearly that there were "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers around before he was even inaugurated. That was not a response to anything he did as president--more like the expected treatment of a political party which had become too "uppity".

It seems to me that what changed is partisanship over country. Where once there would have been more respect for the concept of impeachment only as a very last resort, now it's more like "If there's enough of our party to do so, by all means, do so!"

As you certainly know, I blame Republicans for this state of affairs. To the extent that "both sides do it", I'd point out that one party treats the other as traitors and enemies of the people. Pushing back against that slander and recognizing that any Republican in power is a vote for that slander is not the same thing as being the aggressor in the situation. If liberals stopped fighting, we'd be metaphorically if not literally slaughtered. If right-wingers stopped fighting, the war would be over.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin quoting in the main post:

“Career civil servants often endure stressful working conditions, but in the Trump White House, some of them face online trolling from alt-right bloggers who seek to portray them as clandestine partisans plotting to sabotage the president’s agenda. ..."


Do these sycophants ever wonder why everyone around them, even those who were formerly favorable toward (and appointed by) this particular president suddenly become "haters" and want to sabotage his agenda once they are close enough to see what he's actually doing?

If everyone around you finds you to be insufferable, maybe "everyone else" isn't the problem.

Darrell E said...

A tiny chink beginning to form among Trump's conservative Christian support base? Could it grow into a crack, or even a split? Interesting article.

Evangelical publication calls for Trump's removal from office

Some excerpts . . .

"Galli, who told CNN's John Berman on Friday he is leaving the publication, continued, "We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see.""

""None of the president's positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character," he added."

""To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve," Galli wrote. "Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency.""

Larry Hart said...

Others are finally noticing this too (emphasis mine) ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/opinion/sunday/impeachment-trump-republicans.html

...
Anyone who pays attention to politics, however, knows that Donald Trump got around 63 million votes in 2016. That number has taken on a totemic significance for him and his supporters; any attempts to restrain his power are seen as a sin against the 63 million. During the long impeachment debate in the House on Wednesday, Bill Johnson, a Republican from Ohio, called for a moment of silence to “remember the voices of the 63 million American voters” whose will Democrats would defy, as if seeing Trump held to constitutional standards was a sort of death.

On the surface it seems strange, this constant trumpeting of a vote total that is more than two million less than the total received by Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump didn’t just lose the popular vote — he lost it by a greater margin than any successful presidential candidate in American history. The right’s bombastic repetition of Trump’s 63 million could be just a propaganda trick meant to bully America’s anti-Trump majority into seeing itself as marginal, despite the more than 65 million votes Clinton received. But as I watched impeachment unfold, it seemed like something more than that — an assertion of whom Republicans think this country belongs to.

...

We face the horror of Trump because the structure of American democracy gives disproportionate power to a declining demographic group passionately convinced of its right to rule. Trump, with his braying entitlement, his boastful ignorance, his sneering contempt for pluralism, is an avatar of a Republican Party desperate to return to the 1980s, or the 1950s, or maybe the 1910s. He can’t betray America if, to those who fetishize the 63 million, he embodies it.

...

Larry Hart said...

same article:


Women and people of color, of course, were originally outside the protection of those founding documents. But on Wednesday, the most diverse Congress in history declared that even the most powerful white man in the world should be bound by them. When Republicans act as if that’s a sacrilege, they show us what they worship.

David Brin said...

LH the destruction of the GOP was self inflicted when they ignored the 2008 report on US demographhics and decided instead of broadening to emphasize the base, while doubling down on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering had already made nearly all red state goppers safe from the general election, but endangered them in primaries, when low turnout meant that Tea Party radicals could oust them at any time. I offered up a solution, even then, that Americans in gerried districts should register in the party OF that district, as moderates used to do in the old Solid South. And I did it myself. No one listened or followed and no pundit repeated the suggestion.

In CA we started the counter revolution by ending gerrymandering by referendum then de-emphasizing parties in the general. The result has been both utter DP domination and a reduction in blind partisanship, with far more negotiation over pragmatic legislative matters.

This is why John Roberts goes down in history with Roger Taney. Had he trashed gerrymandering, yes, the GOP would have flamed out... for a while. But in the lessened partisanship to follow, a new conservative party would have quickly arisen.

David Smelser said...


I'm amused at the suggestion of a secret impeach/remove vote as a viable strategy.

1. What makes anyone think that how individual senators vote could be kept secret? Currently congressional behavior in both houses has the GOP falling all over themselves to demonstrate loyalty to Trump. Once you take account of the GOP senators who proudly announce their vote in public, a simple process of elimination will have you deduce how the rest voted. Hell, we currently have senators announcing their vote and the trail hasn't even started yet.

2. How are voters expected to hold their senator accountable if they don't know how their senator voted on impeachment?



David Brin said...

Good points DS, but you under-rate how secret ballots would empower Romney and his simmering cabal to maneuver. They could agree to let their most-vulnerable members preen and pretend, for example, while hinting Lindsey Graham was secretly one of them: delicious. Meanwhile, the mere fact that a dozen or 15 or more GOP senators voted their conscience but were terrified of Hannity might truly rock back Rupert Murdoch and others, suggesting a change of tactics.

It would send a message to John Roberts, that's for sure.

As for #2 there is no democracy in gerrymandered, teaparty terrorized Red America.

I'd go further and have the Pelosi House vote on a secret ballot resolution censuring Trump. And see how the ratio of GOP support changes there, as well.

David Brin said...

Whoa, did you catch Speaker Pelosi's mom-glare that shut down incipient Democratic cheers over the vote to impeach? Took one-second, with all-eyes on their masterful leader wearing somber black and all-business on a sad but needful day. Where are the lefty-splitter Pelosi-haters now? Are you big enough to admit you were wrong? Especially since the Pelosi-led 111th Congress (2009-2011) was the most energetic and busy and effective across the last 30 years?

Far from perfect! In my book I offer 100+ potential tactics that I wish she and other Union generals would at least consider, to get us out of trench warfare and onto open ground. Nevertheless, have another look at that quick-chiding glance and the discipline with which her caucus answered with "Yes, mom."

They say it's easier to herd cats than democrats. Well here's a cat-wrangler. Paraphrasing Lincoln, in search of better generals: "We can't spare this woman. She fights."

David Brin said...

Ashley, copying here my response on your blog's Fermi Paradox speculations..

Nice effort Asheley! I do recommend having a look at the literature, though. You'll find a bunch of links here: "Articles and speculations by David Brin about the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) http://www.scoop.it/t/seti-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence
METI JBIS paper = http://www.davidbrin.com/meti.html
...including my 1983 "classic" review paper.

You actually reach a similar order of magnitude estimate to most. At the 1985 Los Alamos Interstellar Migration Conference (the first ever) we estimated a galaxy-filling time of 3 million years for Von Neuman self-replicating probes that do not need Earthlike biospheres to reproduce... and about 60million for a Polynesian style expansion of living human types. That is an eyeblink in the history of the Galaxy. Hence the "paradox" is a very real one, alas.

Larry Hart said...

My sentiments exactly...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/opinion/impeachment-trump.html

...

Trump, and Trump alone, will be the central issue of the coming election — the core concern for most voters. He’s the reason pollsters are predicting high turnout; he’s the reason voters on both sides are deeply engaged and ready to take action. In that environment, impeachment is the loudest, clearest message Democrats could send to the electorate. They don’t just oppose him because he is a Republican and a conservative; they oppose him because he is unfit. They oppose him because he is a threat to the values and aspirations of the republic.

...

locumranch said...


Whether my responses reflect good humour, poetry, irony, puns or "spasm-reflexive hostility", it apparently does not matter, as our progressive host appears unable (or, perhaps, even incapable of) either recognising or acknowledging the problematic consequences of this compulsive need to unilaterally tweak, adjust or otherwise improve the human social contract.

Listen, instead, to Alfred who he entreats you to acknowledge how much western society has changed over the last 50 years.

With innumerable adjustments & the best of intentions, the progressive contingent has consigned the Industrial Age Social Contract to the rubbish bin, especially in regards marital roles, social expectations, monetary compensation, nationality, race, gender & orientation, leaving bugger-all besides blinkered assumption in its place.

Yet, again & again, I try to remind you all that even the smallest of unilateral contract amendation, without the explicit agreement of all parties involved, voids the entire contractual agreement. This is also known in legal terms as 'frank breach of contract'.

All this one-sided meddling represents frank breach of contract, resulting in incivility, Yellow Vest protests, Brexit, transportation strikes, random acts of terror, virulent nationalism, the collapse of NATO, lawlessness, intolerance, partisan impeachments, federal nullification & perhaps even civil war.

You are CONTRACT BREAKERS and the laws will not protect you:

Your progressive impulses have betrayed us all, and we can no longer respect, honour, defend, extend credit to, assist, provide succour to, work for, tolerate or do business with you.

For all your promises of enlightenment, blissful comfort, luxury & the very moon itself, we no longer believe you because you are contract breakers & liars.


Best

scidata said...

In a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of cosmic time, apes went from a few thousand wielding sticks and stones on the edge of the forest to 7 billion wielding atoms, genes, and transistors on the edge of the solar system. Positive sum, check. Exponential bootstrapping, check. Enlightenment, check. Fully verifiable, often self-evident, facts that care naught what you or I believe. No obligatory incantations, sacred canon, 'correct think', or authority. First principles and a slide rule are often sufficient. No promise, no contract, no religion. Simply observation (speaking for only myself of course).

Treebeard said...

Positive sum for the mutant apes, negative sum for the rest of the ecosystem. But when the apes discovered some really positive sums—fossil fuels, nuclear energy, etc.—their mammalian and reptilian brains got excited and they proceeded to blow each other and the world up, resulting in jellyfish and microbes inheriting the earth. The end. The arc of the universe is long, and it bends toward extinction. Fermi’s paradox is only a paradox for overly imaginative apes who think Star Trek has something to do with reality. Space isn’t the final frontier, it’s the end of the road. Just the observable and inferable facts, sir.

scidata said...

My point is that there is no elitist religion at work here. Hoping for a Star Trek future is qualitatively different than smugly predicting extinction. Especially when that prediction is typed into a networked computer.

the hanged man said...

“With innumerable adjustments & the best of intentions, the progressive contingent has consigned the Industrial Age Social Contract to the rubbish bin, especially in regards marital roles, social expectations, monetary compensation, nationality, race, gender & orientation, leaving bugger-all besides blinkered assumption in its place.”

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria!!!

locumranch said...


Who ya gonna call?

Best

David Brin said...

Amid all these stories about a "2nd Mona Lisa painting by da Vinci" I am reminded of a wonderful short story about a psychic detective who tracks down FIFTY different versions of that famous painting, most of them on an apparauts in a cave near Pisa. It has a hilarious-crazy twist! Can anyone say whose story it was? Maybe with links?

David Brin said...

One-second skims suggest they've gone terminally low-vitamin. Someone tell me if the strawmanning and/or dyspeptic moaning gets at lest colorful or diverting. Till then Zzzzzzz.

Meanwhile...
Fareed Zakaria offers another of his lengthy and mostly-wise missives, this one urging the U.S. to exercise more thoughtful patience with China. There’s much to ponder. Recommended. Yet, despite that, I find some desperately important matters missing. Foremost: the reasons why PRC leaders chose to repress the life-liberalizations we expected to see accompanying economic advancement. That leadership clade is very smart — for example, they deem an MBA to be nothing more than frosting on the engineering degree that actually trains you useful things, a lesson that Boeing managers long ago forgot. Still, the Politburo fellows are also trapped by some classic imperatives of human nature.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-12-06/new-china-scare?utm_campaign=special-preview-120519-china-zakaria-regusers&utm_content=20191206&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=special_send&utm_term=registrant-prerelease

the hanged man said...

Do you mean “The Giaconda Caper” by Bob Shaw? There is one copy of his “Who Goes Here” book (which is a novel that also includes this one short story) available on Etsy; it is also available on Kindle.

Zepp Jamieson said...

Happy Solstice, everybody!

Heikki Lunta
Solstice 2019

December 21st, 2019
In places like the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, snow dances fall under the category of “be careful what you ask for.” Like Buffalo or the Sierra or the Rockies, it’s a part of the country that can see major dumpage—snow measured by the meter rather than centimeters. Some years, the last thing in the world you want to do is encourage more of the stuff. Nonetheless, they have something called the “Heikki Lunta snowdance song” in Hancock, MI, a venerable tradition dating back to 1970 in which the locals beseech the snow gods for big snows in order to run the snowmobile races.
We got about 1.15 meters of snow (45”) back at Thanksgiving, so I’m just looking at those Michiganders beseeching their Finnish snowblower gods and I ask, “What in the hell are you THINKING?”
When I was a kid in Ottawa, the last thing anyone except us kids wanted was a big snow on Grey Cup weekend. (Canada has a Thanksgiving Day, but it’s at a more sensible time when crops are actually still being gathered and the whole country hasn’t iced up for the winter. You see, it usually dropped below zero about then and stayed there until late February, so any snow that fell was likely to still be there as stubborn patches of berm ice the following April.) ...

Full essay available at zeppscommentaries.online

David Brin said...

Yeah THM it was Bob Shaw. Terrific story.

TCB said...

Dr. Brin posed the question:

"Yet, despite that, I find some desperately important matters missing. Foremost: the reasons why PRC leaders chose to repress the life-liberalizations we expected to see accompanying economic advancement."

I submit it's because "Throw the totalitarians money and watch them become liberals" was always a shaky and dubious game plan, based as much on wishful thinking as anything else. Evidence suggests "Throw the totalitarians money and watch them spend it on strengthening their hold on hegemonic power" is about equally likely to be true.

duncan cairncross said...

That Fareed Zakaria article is behind a paywall

Having said that I'm less sure about the PRC being "undemocratic"

As far as I can see it is a democracy - but with some different aspects to western democracies

The west (Especially America) restricts actual participation in politics to people who are wealthy enough to be able to stop working

China restricts actual participation to people who are willing to put in the hard yards and work their way up helping others and gaining the skills to govern

In both cases the actual citizens select their leaders

In the west we have a choice of wealthy individuals - not all millionaires but wealthy enough to take years off from working

In China they have a choice of proven managers

The devil is in the details - but I'm finding it difficult to see our system (NZ) as being actually BETTER - and the US system appears to be a LOT less democratic

David Brin said...

Duncan, I have respected many of your contributions, but that rationalization is the biggest pile of fizzing, mathanogenic nonsense I have seen in a long time.

duncan cairncross said...

That's an introduction to the question

What does a democratic government for a LARGE country - and eventually the World and beyond look like?

I'm thinking of
People select their representatives - preferably not too many people per representative

The UK is roughly 100,000 people per MP

So China would have 14,000 "MPs"

Too many to operate

So they select the "Government"

Or would we need an intermediate stage??

I'm completely in favor of a universal suffrage - everybody with the right to vote

The USA then limits the people who can be voted for - by age
Australia requires them to have ONLY Australian citizenship
NZ requires them to have Citizenship (all RESIDENTS can vote)

I'm not at all keen on having everybody vote for a single "President" - and I would like (somehow) to make voting LESS "presidential" - the UK situation shows the dangers of that

locumranch said...


Kudos to LH for bringing this NYT quote to our attention:

We face the horror of Trump because the structure of American democracy gives disproportionate power to a declining demographic group passionately convinced of its right to rule.

Aside from the obvious race-baiting, this is a fascinating grammatical construction, mostly because America majority rule democracy offers only proportional power -- hence the term 'majority rule' -- much as the phrase 'disproportionate power' suggests a non-majority demographic grossly over-represented in politics, bureaucracy, academia, media, law, entertainment, the fact-using professions & other so-called positions of power.

And, though few dare name this declining non-majority demographic group, it madly names itself by appearing front & center in the US presidential impeachment, so convinced of its own right to rule over & over-rule the democratic will of this & other deplorable majorities.

None so blind as those that will not see; none so deaf as those that will not hear; and I cry for my beloved country.


Best

David Brin said...

Duncan I remain appalled and utterly too fatigued to even try to address such stunning sophistry.

duncan cairncross said...

Hi Guys
As Dr Brin is too tired can somebody else explain what I am not getting here

Alfred Differ said...

Larry,

I don't think it is a simple as tit-for-tat. Look at the history of threats.

Tyler 1843 (For veto of tariffs and other things)
Buchanan 1860 (Covode Committee fishing expedition)
Johnson 1867 (Corruption and other complaints) House voted down 57-108
Johnson 1868 (Many things usually associated with obstruction of Reconstruction) Passes House.
Grant 1876 (Starts with impeachment of War Secretary and covers many scandals)
Cleveland 1896 (Selling unauthorized federal bonds, breaking Pullman strike)
Hoover 1932-33 (Lame duck session, driven by one Rep)
Truman 1951 (Firing MacArthur)
Truman 1952 (Seizing nation's steel mills)
Nixon (1973-4) (Obstruction, Abuse, etc) [First modern impeachment to get out of HJC]
Reagan (1987) (Iran Contra)
G HW Bush (1991) (Starting Gulf War)
Clinton (1997) (Obstruction/ fundraising from foreign sources… PRC) [Referred to HRules and died]
Clinton (1998) (Obstruction/ perjury around Lewinsky scandal) [Went to trial]
G W Bush (a few hearings) (Lies associated with Afghanistan and Iraq wars)
Obama (2012) (CIA Drone program and other behaviors)
Obama (2013) (Abuse, Dereliction of Duty) (just hearings)
Trump (2019) (Obstruction, Abuse)

Most of the early impeachment efforts involve corruption scandals or opposing the will of Congress. The one involving Grant was about political jockeying in the '76 election mostly, so we'd recognize that as a weaponized variety of which the Dems are being accused today. Almost all of them (except Johnson's second round, fizzle in committee or on the House floor after doing their political job or being rejected by political bosses. Even Truman's abuse of power in seizing the mills gets referred to HJC and dies there.

(Tyler's case is special in that he effectively defined the 'veto' as something other than a constitutional review. Prior to him, vetoes were reserved to cases where a President thought the Congress acted outside it's authority. Tyler used it to oppose an authorized policy of Congress.)



Now look at the frequency of occurrence. A few attempts in the Civil War/Reconstruction era and then nothing credibly more than political jockeying. First half of 20th century… two threats aimed at Truman that never get past HJC. The one against Hoover never even made it to HJC.

Then we get three Republicans for war related scandals and Clinton's messy financials and private life in the middle. Then two angry swats at Obama followed by all guns firing at Two Scoops.

I don't think it is enough to say we are more partisan. Impeachment threats were politically weaponized by 1876. It's not enough to say we've used it to deal with scandals. As a tool, it rarely works to deal with scandals except for Cabinet Secretaries. Yet… we've been doing it a lot in the last half century after proving we knew how earlier.

I think that speaks about how WE view impeachment and not how our politicians try to use it. We are the ones sending them every two years and the people we used to send didn't use impeachment like the ones we send now.

TCB said...

Duncan, I think I can explain it for you.

China IS democratic.

As long as you're talking about the China located on the island of Taiwan.

duncan cairncross said...

The China on the isle of Taiwan is "democratic" the way that the USA is - money talks and buys power

The PRC has

"People's Congress members at the county level are elected by voters.
These county-level People's Congresses have the responsibility of oversight of local government and elect members to the Provincial (or Municipal in the case of independent municipalities) People's Congress.
The Provincial People's Congress, in turn, elects members to the National People's Congress that meets each year in March in Beijing"

So the first stage elections are by the "people" - and the electors then operate at successively higher levels

The nondemocratic part is that the choice of people to vote for is limited

Here and in the USA we ALSO have a limited number of people to vote for - and the process to "select" those people is (here) not at all "democratic" - you guys have a "primary process" first - but that is a mess

The Chinese appear to have done what your founding fathers wanted - eliminated political parties!

Their system is not the same as ours - but it still starts with the citizens electing their representatives

In the USA each Congressman represents about 730,000 people
In the UK each MP represents 100,000 people
Here (NZ) - each MP represents about 40,000 people

In China 1.4 Billion people have 2900 "MPs" - each one represents 500,000 people

IMHO it is better or at least arguable to have a smaller number of people voting for their representatives and do what the Chinese do which is the first level look after "local government" AND elect the second level from among their numbers

We could discuss which is most "democratic" - and what the failure modes of the various systems are

But I simply do not see that one of our western systems is necessarily better

And if talking about western systems the US model is far from the best

Tony Fisk said...

@Duncan I think the issue is that a one party system isn't democratic but, like the Doctor, I am feeling a bit fatigued at present. A possible side effect of the pasteurizing weather (26C, 39, 22, 43, 20)

scidata said...

Representative government has its limits. Consider trillions instead of billions. Such a civilization will require emergent democracy that grows out of pervasive scientific literacy, not doctrinal hierarchy. Perhaps using less grandiose titles - like mayor. An inclusive foundation of sorts.

If the individual is only something to be controlled and harnessed, not revered and nourished, then we're doomed, doomed, doomed. Farmers and teachers should be at the top of the payscale, politicians and 'preneurs' at the bottom.

Unknown said...

Hi Duncan I will take the challenge of showing how you are wrong.
You need the 5 questions of Tony Benn
Who are you?
Who appointed you?
What powers do you have?
In whose interest do you exercise them?
and
How do I get rid of you?

So how do you dispose of a Chinese premier?

The Independent printed an article about Castro some years ago saying he had seen off 10 US presidents. The following day they printed a letter observing that democracy had seen them off and that was why Castro was having nothing to do with it.

David Mullen

Larry Hart said...

Alfred Differ:

(Tyler's case is special in that he effectively defined the 'veto' as something other than a constitutional review. Prior to him, vetoes were reserved to cases where a President thought the Congress acted outside it's authority. Tyler used it to oppose an authorized policy of Congress.)


I did not know that about the veto. The idea that a presidential veto is simply a judgement on the Constitutionality of a bill seems a little strange as that power seems to fit the judicial branch more closely, and the Supreme Court had already asserted that power as its own decades before Tyler.

Article I, Section 7 seems to indicate that the president "can do whatever he wants" regarding a veto:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law.


Alfred continues:

Yet… we've been doing it [impeachment] a lot in the last half century after proving we knew how earlier.


It sounds as if the fact that impeachment attempts rarely make it out of committee actually empowers staunch partisans (or to be fair, staunch opponents of a president) to bring up impeachment as a harmless way of throwing a tantrum. In the Clinton case in particular, the impeachers seemed very much like the dog who catches the car he's chasing and then doesn't know what to do with it.


I think that speaks about how WE view impeachment and not how our politicians try to use it. We are the ones sending them every two years and the people we used to send didn't use impeachment like the ones we send now.


I wonder if the politicians are misreading the voters on that one, or at least only hearing the loudest of their voters. While there is a subset who shout "Impeach!" over any disagreement, it still seems like the majority of the public is hinky about "overturning an election". Nancy Pelosi was reluctant to impeach this time for just that reason. Remember the case of Scott Walker in Wisconsin who beat recall a few years back, even though many who voted for him were angered by his policies once he achieved office. Still, they seemed to feel that recall was underhanded.

Tangentially, whoever threw the House Speaker and the Presdient Pro-Tem of the Senate into the line of presidential succession really tossed a bomb into the impeachment process. Since it is very unlikely that a House and Senate of the president's party will impeach and remove him these days, a successful impeachment by an opposition congress brings the opposition party one step closer to the presidency itself. That is a recipe for a coup, and the perception thereof is probably the reason that impeachment of Pence is off the table no matter what he's complicit in.

TCB said...

Let me put it another way: even if we stipulate that PRC is a democracy (which I do NOT consider it to be!), we can imagine a democratic dystopia without the second necessary ingredient of an open society:

If you lose political battles and are part of a permanent political out-group, are your basic human rights still protected? If yes, then you have a free, open society. If no, then that is a dystopian nightmare, even if 99% support it.

TCB said...

@ Larry Hart, who said:

"Since it is very unlikely that a House and Senate of the president's party will impeach and remove him these days, a successful impeachment by an opposition congress brings the opposition party one step closer to the presidency itself. That is a recipe for a coup, and the perception thereof is probably the reason that impeachment of Pence is off the table no matter what he's complicit in."

Maybe so... but it's not that much more of a coup than the 2000 and 2016 elections were. One way or another, Dems will still need to make sure enough Trump stench hangs onto Pence, and that Pence's own behind-the-scenes malfeasance gets some exposure as well, so that neither of these men makes it to November with enough support to win, or even come close.

David Brin said...

Duncan deserves a simple answer. While our enlightenment nations have problems and are plagued with age-old hypocrisies, Duncan HIMSELF is an example of the difference between our new societies and ancient hegemonies. He has been trained to be critical, as were five generations who were raised on Hollywood mythologies of tolerance, diversity and fair competition.

Growing up, they find those values VIOLATED and respond with ANGER and determination to fight the hypocrisy. And generation after generation, they SUCCEED at toppling this injustice or that one, never satisfied and moving to the next.

This in absolutely no way resembles the opposing hegemonies who issue fiercely uniform propaganda "values" of top-down rule and lateral conformity, denoucing and suppressing everything that Duncan is, in principle.

If Duncan hopes to be truly effective, he will rise up out of the soup of righteous sanctimony and realize THAT he himself is part of a phenomenon. And dour imprecations are not helpful. They do not arm him to fight the hypocrisies, half so well as clear vision will.


And now...

onward

onward to space.

Larry Hart said...

Zepp Jamieson:

In places like the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, snow dances fall under the category of “be careful what you ask for.” Like Buffalo or the Sierra or the Rockies, it’s a part of the country that can see major dumpage—snow measured by the meter rather than centimeters. Some years, the last thing in the world you want to do is encourage more of the stuff.
...
We got about 1.15 meters of snow (45”) back at Thanksgiving, so I’m just looking at those Michiganders beseeching their Finnish snowblower gods and I ask, “What in the hell are you THINKING?”


I hear ya. Here in Chicago, we had a multi-inch snowfall on Halloween, which is very unusual. That one at least melted pretty quickly, but we had another storm a week before Thanksgiving that made driving miserable. And these were in autumn, not winter. So I'm very happy that we're currently in what counts in December as a warm spell--30s and 40s for highs. Of course, everyone on the news is lamenting the fact that we won't have a White Christmas, as if that's some tragedy. Hey, there are plenty of "very fine people" in Charlottesville also wishing for a white Christmas, and I'm just as glad that they'll be disappointed.

Larry Hart said...

Oops, missed the onward

onward