Look at impeachment as chess... not a sumo match!

You - yes you - are foolish to demand that we deal with the oligarch-mafia-confederate treason with spasm trench warfare. Charging ahead with full-frontal assaults.

We need generals in this civil war who can play chess and look many moves ahead, gaming out what the enemy might try to do. You can bet that Romney and Ryan and Republican Party elders — overlapping to an unknown degree with the puppet masters Murdoch, Putin, Mercer & MBS etc. — are mapping out a path that can:

1 - cancel out Trump’s biggest liability from their view — that of narrowing GOP constituencies, driving off all professions and educated people, ethnicities and many formerly republican women, crushing their coalition down to a rabid, confederate  base… **(See late news below)

(Of course, desideratum #1 means somehow eliminating Trump himself, since he will not modify or compromise. See below.)…

2- …while somehow not enraging that base against the GOP establishment for ‘betraying” Trump…

3- …while enraging that base instead against lib’ruls…

4- …while raising up new GOP leaders with credibility…

5- …while protecting establishment oligarchs and the pyramid of blackmailed servants…

6- …while protecting the cheating methods that are their only hook into power.

It’s a difficult path to thread, especially since the Party Elders and the Puppet Masters probably part company over the following:

7- the rise of would-be theocrats (e.g. Pence and dominionists) who would continue the narrowing while possibly setting in motion a deliberate (and literal) end of the world…

8- unleashing disruptive waves of violent McVeighs., tearing America apart.

What I desperately fear is the one path that would touch all of these bases at the same time. That path is *martyrdom.* A martyred Trump is the way to accomplish all of them. 

== Martyrdom Scenarios ==

I have long been on-record pointing this out, horrified that no one else has even mentioned it. But I ask you to put all of this together:

A. God bless the United States Secret Service. I mean that and I wish Donald Trump health. But if they fail and the pupeteers do eliminate their liability, then we all need to react tactically, not emotionally! 

It will be counterproductive if you celebrate, encouraging the meme that “lib’ruls did it to our hero!” 

Vastly better ? Express rage and suspicion toward those who would benefit most  from such a martyrdom— the Ryan-Romney-Putin-and especially Fox interests. Indeed, what could be a better judo move than to express compassionate pity for a Donald who was blatantly mentally ill? (See this elaborated -- with wry humor -- below.)

B. The other kind of martyrdom is more likely, of course — with those judo-master GOP manipulators giggling as they back pedal and let democrats clean up their mess for them. Because that’s what hurried impeachment could be, unless done right… getting rid of their problem for them, while feeding Red America’s paranoias by appearing like a partisan lynch mob. Yes, the impeachment martyrdom would leave a living Trump out there screeching at rallies. So they’ll map it out with special attention to #2 and #3.

C. Most likely of all — a rush to impeachment leads to Moscow Mitch McConnell chortling with glee and getting the GOP Senate to reject the House’s charges, then declare: “All you dems wanted was to get even for the Clinton Impeachment." Allowing that comparison -- a silly ass pursuit of a wayward husband fibbing about some 3rd-base infidelity vs. Trump's weekly felonies and treason -- to stand will give Fox a chance to portray Trump as a martyr, while keeping him and his rally mob party loyal.

Nancy Pelosi is absolutely right (!!) that a race to *rapid* impeachment is stupid. Profoundly stupid! It presents Romney/Ryan + Putin with a rash gift that would feed chess moves #1-8 while failing to deliver any satisfaction. If hurried, it will give them every thing on that list. (And yes, one “chess” gambit they might pull is to let 18 GOP senators who have 4 more years on their terms, swing to conviction and removal, in order to clear decks for Ryan/Romney, counting on time to overcome DT’s fulminating rallies.)

Pelosi is right. Stretch it out! If done right, and timed right, impeachment *can* corner the GOP into a lose-lose. Think! Use “impeachment hearings” to overcome the Roberts Doctrine and regain full subpoena power. Then go after the money-laundering for Russian mobs. Demolish Trump’s reputations as a businessman, as a judge of character, and above all as a “strong man.” (George Lakoff makes clear that his appearance of blustery strength is THE core-psychic root of his redder support.) Chopping away at all of that, across the 2020 campaign, would either lead to an effective impeachment or else corner all Republican senators into an impossible and hopeless position.

I cannot comprehend why some dem leader hasn’t taken the pity tactic, which would infuriate Trump vastly more than the chest-to-chest sumo shoving and shouting we currently see. Any liberal leader who started publicly pitying Two Scoops, speaking v-e-r-y slowly toward this addled dimwit, would win instant cred and become the central focus of Trumpian tweet hate. 

It would chop hard against his blustering "strong man" image.

Moreover, the pity-meme could help us plenty, if the GOP masters go for either kind of martyrdom! “You threw that poor imbecile into a complex world for which he was ill-equipped, just because he’s good at riling up rallies of other imbeciles. And when it all finally overwhelmed him, turning him into a drooling-jibbering liability, YOU threw him under the bus. You monsters, we’re on to what you did to us, and to that pitiable moron!”

== Stop insisting on full-speed-ahead. Instead... maneuver! ==

Again and again, I repeat: Trump is infuriating, but his White House leaks! He is cauterized! The civil servants and defense pros are alerted! Things… could… be… much… worse!  

A Pence White House will be staffed with tightly disciplined dominionists and utterly leakproof. He would smoothly call for comity and calm and negotiation — an utter lie that we have fallen for many times. He will soothe back into line hundreds of thousands of civil servants and officers who’ll sigh with premature relief that the Trump Nightmare is over...

... when in fact the new president will be a much-worse maniac! One who prays daily for an end to all freedom, ambition, curiosity and children and an end to the world and an absolute destruction of the United States of America. And I mean that literally is what he prays for, daily.

No, no, I am not in a rush to remove the cauterized and 80% neutralized Donald Two Scoops, before the timing is right. And it is only right if it helps crush the GOP in the 2020 election! If nothing else, have impeachment on the docket when the NEW Senate takes over, some weeks before the 2021 inauguration. That new Senate -- ordering Trump dragged out of the White House in shame and banned from the Capitol steps -- is a fantasy we might, if we work hard, manage to see.

 == Addendum ==

FINAL scenario.  As one of you pointed out, the gopper secret masters might jettison both Trump and Pence, allowing Pelosi(!) to become president, as a tactical move saddling her with (1) Trump’s martyrdom, (2) presumption that was her ambition all along, and (3) blame for the sudden recession and (4) incumbency during a rejection-election. 

Problems with this scenario. Pelosi would unlock every filing cabinet and every Putin scheme gets uncovered and the election cheating gets harder.  Ryan might go for it. Not Murdoch or Putin.


** Late New Saturday: Former House Speaker Paul Ryan reportedly wants to use his position on Fox's board to 'do something' about Trump

Sea Change or Swan Song: Part II: Deeper fundamentals of U.S. politics

Last time we explored the many reasons why the advance of the Republican Party, in the U.S. mid-term elections, may be a lot of sound and fury, signifying very little. For example, nearly all of the Senate contests this year inherently disadvantaged Democrats… but a large majority of those in 2016 imperil defending Republicans.

This time, I’d like to dive into some other factors that veer away from those wrangled-over by the media.

== Differences in personality ==

Lest anyone conclude “Brin is just a reflex liberal”… in fact, I have given keynotes at libertarian conventions (albeit as a representative of Adam Smith and not Ayn Rand!). I believe my party registration (it doesn’t really matter in California’s non-partisan elections) is still republican. 

In fact, I do weigh in fairly often against what I deem to be mad obsessions of a fringe on the left! Just because today’s entire-US-right has gone loco, that doesn’t mean we should trust the far-left, which sometimes reveals a level of nostalgic anti-science fanaticism that too-closely resembles their supposed enemies. 

(Oh, you new-age 'vaxxers,' go ahead and write in with your outrage! All you accomplish is to reassure me that my political spine can still turn and notice craziness in all directions.)

But yes, my main focus is on the GOPper right and its masters, right now, because their deliberate re-ignition of Civil War and their scheme to demolish American pragmatic negotiation constitutes bona fide treason against a civilization that has been very good to us. It is the clear and present danger. 

Mark my words, though. Someday, when we solve this crisis, we will need to turn our jaundiced gaze leftward again. 

And if your political spine is fused, making you only able to perceive threats to freedom and civilization in one direction, then you are part of the problem!  See a memic chiropractor.

== Suppose the feudalists get their wish ==

Indeed, all the more so, should the Koch-Murdoch-Saudi oligarchic putsch succeed!

In that case, lefty radicalisms like Marxism are guaranteed to revive. Along with talk of tumbrels. The surest sign that the Koch boys are nowhere near as smart as their sycophants say they are? Ignoring this blatant inevitability – that restored oligarchic feudalism will lead to worldwide radicalization of a kind that will not benefit them one bit.

See this turnabout illustrated in a book set in 2045, called Existence.

There is one cohort of American political life that remains sane and … well… American, in its attitude of pragmatic willingness to try an eclectic mix of solutions, to negotiate with their neighbors, to use politics, as a supplement to private endeavor. And for now, at least, that element – moderate liberals – still dominates the Democratic Party… no matter how many lies you are told by Sean Hannity.  As illustrated by this clear study and graphic, charting responses to the question: "Would you rather have a member of Congress who compromises to get things done, or sticks to their principles no matter what?":

== Compromise or not? ==

A recent Pew poll found sizable majorities of Americans think Republicans should try to work with President Obama and that Obama should work with them. But here again, there’s a stark partisan difference. 52 percent of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents think Obama should find common ground with Republicans, even if it disappoints them. But only 32 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaners say the same on their side, while 66 percent of Republicans say their leaders should stand up to Obama even if less gets done.”

This effect is illustrated by another chart from Pew, showing where folks like to get their news.  Missing from the survey is Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Sure, it is kind of sad that millions of kids get their news that way… but well… I have pointed out elsewhere that Stewart is actually fairly balanced, often skewering the left and having more top conservatives on his show than all of Fox has top liberals, in any given year.

The dismal, near bankruptcy figures for MSNBC say it all. No matter how hard MSNBC tries to copy Fox’s lucrative formula, liberals get bored at Nuremberg Rallies of a single point of view, and wander away!  No-so, apparently, Fox viewers.

== The crux ==

Okay, so from last time, let’s zero in upon the question of 2016!

Only once, since the Roosevelt era, has a two term president been succeeded by a newly elected administration from his own party… when Ronald Reagan was succeeded by George H. W. Bush.  Does this pattern bode poorly for the next democratic nominee? Presumptively now Hillary Clinton?

It’s a puzzler. Certainly, the American voting public tends to get nervous with one-party strings.  Hence, if the GOP chooses a non-ideologue candidate in 2016, there might be some swing momentum.  (Especially if the GOP can make people ignore the crowd of Bushite officials who will surround their nominee, as they did the "mavericks" McCain and Romney.)

On the other hand, there are other explanations. For example, George H.W. Bush was the only Republican vice president in 50 years who was even remotely qualified for the executive office. All the other GOP VPs were simply awful. (I personally despise GHWB, but for other reasons, having to do with the worst stain on American honor in 70 years. But on paper, yes, he was qualified.)  

Democrats, in contrast, always pick responsible fellows as VPs, who are calm and qualified… but also boring and hence terrible candidates for the top job: e.g. Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, Biden. 

These two trends have tended to curse a majority of successor nominees, who were, in most cases, sitting vice presidents.

== Dynasty Fatigue ==

Another factor will be possible dynasty fatigue.  If the dems nominate Hillary and Republicans choose Jeb Bush, the whole world will mock us. Even if it is just Hillary… who by now is vastly better qualified than she was in 2008, and is a solid person in most respects… the dynasty effect will still be deemed somewhat of an embarrassment.  Here I offer a simple piece of guerrilla webtheater that might deal with this, well in advance. Or else inoculate her from the issue. 

Of course, the dynasty thing gets even more disturbing when you realize that the Bush family consider themselves to be a branch office of a certain middle eastern royal house, that co-owns Fox. Do not believe that influence has faded, even an iota. As I said, for all of their “maverick” pretensions, both McCain and Romney surrounded themselves with Bush administration figures and family retainers, top-to-bottom. Until the GOP has a true, inner upheaval, the “brain trust” that gave us Iraq quagmires, economic calamity and near-total destruction of the US Army and reserves -- and zero positive outcomes in any metric of US national health - is what you’ll get with any GOP presidency.

One more element that might affect 2016 would be if the tech billionaires -- like Gates and Buffett -- decide that too much is at stake, and get involved to a degree that counter-balances the Koch-Murdoch-Saudi-Adelson oligarchy that has been busy buying American politics. The miracle is that a large percentage of our current wave of billionaires are actually loyal to the American enlightenment experiment that has been so good to them! Perhaps more will step into help save us… till we finally fix the debacle and work with Larry Lessig to get the money out of politics.

Of course, many other factors will come into play by 2016. We'll be distracted, by then, by the War Against the Newts. The return of Jesus and his new show on Comedy Central. The Purple Plague will be a factor. The sale of the first million Robot-Buddies. That really effective IQ-boost pill (oh, pretty please?) may truly alter that pesky War on Science...

...and don't forget the vast revival of both reason and hope that will overwhelm all cynicism on Earth, with the release of StartideRising: the Motion Picture. Ahem. If Mssrs Spielberg or Nolan will only get on the phone, chop-chop.

Ah… the possibilities. It’s why I spend most of my life living in the future.

Invite the Filibuster!

Just a brief thought here.

Like anybody sensible, I have reservations about the great big Christmas Tree Stimulus Bill.  Half a dozen GOP senators are doing what the whole party ought to do, pointing out reasonable objections and negotiating about them in good faith.  Partly because there are still a few reasonable  Republicans in the Senate (gerrymandering has insured  there are almost none in the House) and in part because they were deputized to do so, by a party that knows what will happen, if they obstruct too much.

But a thought occurred to me that I must share (despite breaking my vow to limit political postings to a minimum.)  You see, there is a fascinating mythology going around. Everybody seems to think it's necessary for the Democrats to gather  a super-majority of 60 votes in the Senate, in order to pass legislation, because that is the number needed to invoke a motion of cloture, limit debate and terminate a fillibuster.  But consider underlying assumptions.

 First , that Republican party discipline will remain uncannily strong.  Second, that a filibuster of the Stimulus Bill comes without silver linings. Yes, party discipline is strong in a GOP that has been honed into an instrument of incredibly narrow dogmatism, especially in the House. But this runs counter to the country's mood, and may backfire.

Remember that a filibuster is - above all - an act of political theater. (Which is one reason Democrats used it so seldom during the Bush years.) In fact, it is a bluff.  If the majority ever called that bluff, the minority would have to maintain a tiring, round-the-clock tag team blather festival, in which elderly, bleary-eyed, elderly Southern senators would have to keep on talking and talking -- trawling for increasingly incoherent things to say in front of CSPAN cameras -- calling themselves "heroic" for standing up against legislation that has the backing of a popular president and a large majority of Americans.

And this is a losing situation for the Democrats... how? And who then gets the blame, with every bad piece of economic news?

There is something to be said for having the Dems deal with the filibuster threat right up front, by calling the Republicans' bluff.  Forcing the issue while the President is popular and the issues are stark would put the GOP on notice and also set the precedent that Obama is willing to face such threats down.

 Then, once this shiboleth is broken - and true to his nature -  let the President offer his hand.

Modern(ist) Political Subtlety - or Why "Majority Rule" is a Deadly Ruse

And now for something topical about the rationalizations used by those who either despise - or don't 'get" - the Enlightenment...

===Minority Veto===

This week's Senate imbroglio - featuring efforts by the majority to bypass a democratic filibuster of administration judiciary appointments - can be viewed as yet another front in the Great Big War Against Modernity.

On a purely political basis, this entire stance is simply stupid. Even George F. Will has complained that the GOP position seems to assume there will never again be a democratic president, with a democratic Senatorial majority. Under those circumstances, would not republicans wish for a way to stymie the worst, most doctrinaire and ideological court appointments? A method to force some kind of negotiation and compromise, or at least respect for the views of a large and strong-willed minority?

Either their sense of history is extremely myopic... or else they think they know something that we don't know, about the political shape of our future. (Ponder this paragraph at leisure, till that last remark makes sense. And shiver.)

But let's consider this issue at a more abstract level. In a very general sense, what we are seeing is one party - claiming justification based on a slim electoral majority - asserting that they thereupon have a sweeping mandate to rule without negotiation or compromise.

Let's break up that last sentence. One of the great, consistent patterns of human governance, seen in nearly all cultures, has been a tendency for some group to claim justification based on __________, and thereupon assert that they have a mandate to rule without negotiation or compromise.

Fill in the blank. What justifications were used by past ruling groups?

Rationalizations ranged from royal divine right to the verdict of the battlefield, all the way to some inherent, logical superiority of "philosopher kings." Often these excuses were articulated with great care and passion by clever, nerdy fellows - by priests, wizards, or court ideologues, who thereby won the privilege of hanging around real power - the big fellows who got their swords, or vast estates, or trust funds mostly the old-fashioned way. By inheritance.

This pattern was so universal that it really deserves to be noticed and discussed.

Instead we have allowed arm-waving romantic rationalizers to distract us with a myriad details and fast-talking incantations. Theologians and Marxist theoreticians. Aryan mystics and Hegelian dialecticians. Machiavelli, Confucius, Rand, Mao, Strauss and all their ilk wove verbal spells to justify the use of raw power by those who already had it - or soon intended to get it - free of any obligation to negotiate with those who might suggest alternative methodologies of statecraft.

I mean, really, were the Communist theoreticians who justified a narrow clique of Party Nomenklatura families any different from the churchmen who preached in support of the slavocracy in the Old South, or the Social Darwinists who wove excuses for robber barons in the 1890s?

This commonality keeps being obscured by a bewildering storm of particulars. Which, of course, serves the common interest of their Ideologist Guild.

Alas, we keep buying into one or another of these trips. Take the latest version: majority rule.

Now, please. Let me avow that majority rule is vastly better than any previous political oversimplification. Indeed, it began as a reform generated by the Enlightenment, won at great cost, overcoming desperate opposition by every kind of social elite. In other words, majority rule was better than minority rule. (But is there something even better still?

No quasi-mystical catch phrase ever contained more essential wisdom than the one asserting that states derive their legitimate powers from "consent of the governed."

But what does 'consent' mean? Majority rule helps guarantee against the worst kinds of tyranny - those featuring iron-fist repression by a truly narrow, unaccountable and coercive elite. Hence, if we ever do have a dictatorship, it will cover the fist with silken gloves, and suffer great lengths to convince us that "we" (the majority) voted for it.

Still, that will not protect minorities. Nor will it ensure that statecraft is performed with attention to CITOKATE. (Criticism is the only known antidote to error.) Indeed, it is quite possible for majorities to be flat out, cockeyed wrong.

Moreover, majorities can also be manipulated. Whether based on ethnic, religious, sexual, lifestyle or political differences, it is easy to create a sense of "us" and "them". Such distinctions can be leveraged through propaganda, as Hitler used his campaign against Jews, gypsies and other minorities, to mobilize large portions of Germany, both before and after the election of 1933.

Consider the statement above. "Such distinctions can be leveraged through propaganda" to manipulate majority opinion. Are we immune? And by "we" I mean even we modernists? (If you do not ever doubt or question yourself, you do not belong on this list. Go away. Now.)

Are "modernists" immune to propaganda? No! We are human and thus can be swayed. Indeed, for most of our lives we have been subjected to "pro-enlightenment propaganda" in the greatest indoctrination campaign of all time!

Some of you have heard my riff on this, many times. But it bears repeating. So, next time we will talk about Enlightenment Propaganda... how effective it has been... and why this very success may be the reason why the romantics are now fighting back so hard.

Continue to: Part II: The Propaganda of the Enlightenment

or: The Myth of Majority Rule Part III

See more: Politics for the 21st Century

=====     =====     =====


A couple of science notes that you'll find amusing, in light of some of my novels...

*Augmenting the Animal Kingdom Wired News May. 3, 2005 **James Auger in his controversial new book, Augmented Animals, envisions animals, birds, reptiles and even fish using specially engineered gadgets to help them overcome their evolutionary shortcomings. He imagines rodents zooming around with night-vision survival goggles, squirrels hoarding nuts using GPS locators and fish armed with metal...

*Chimeras on the Horizon, but Don't Expect Centaurs New York Times May 3, 2005 *** If research on human embryonic stem cells ever gets going, people will be hearing a lot more about chimeras, creatures composed of more than one kind of cell. Such creations -- of pigs with human hearts, monkeys with human larynxes -- are likely to be unsettling to...

*A journalist tracks down the source of a claim, often cited by
greenhouse denialists, that most of the glaciers in the world are
growing: This one is very important!