A Freedom of Speech Problem Raised by the Trump Candidacy.

1.  Donald Trump says grotesque things at his rallies.

He has a right to do so. This isn't really a problem.

2.  People protesting Donald Trump show up to his rallies and mayhem frequently ensues.

This is a problem because there is an apparent conflict between the right of Trump to say what he wants and the rights of protesters to express their views. And it's a tricky one. First of all, as long as he's not receiving federal money, Trump seems to have the right to exclude whomever he once to from his events because the restraints of the First Amendment apply to the government and anyone receiving funding from it. Trump is receiving the Secret Service's protection, however, and maybe that's enough to make him "government" under the First Amendment. I don't know; if you do, send me an email and I'll update this.

In terms of free-speech values – not necessarily the same thing as what the law does or doesn't protect – I think that both Trump and the protesters have have a right to have their views heard. I do not approve of anyone disrupting Trump's public speech by rendering it inaudible, invisible or inaccessible. It doesn't matter that talking over his opponents is one of Trump's favorite debating tactics. It doesn't matter that a profit driven media has given Trump far more of a platform that he and his substance-free ideas deserve (thereby drowning out other voices.)

Now for some specific cases (dealt with based on "free-speech values" rather than the letter of the law). If a Muslim woman wishes to attend a Trump rally, wearing a headscarf, I think that she should have the right to do so. If she does nothing else and a disruption ensues, that is the fault of whomever was not able to tolerate her presence. If someone enters a Trump rally and walks up and down the aisle with a sign – not speaking and not obscuring anyone's view – I think that this should be acceptable as well. People can dislike what other people have to say but they really shouldn't have a right to disrupt their message by reacting to it either. In terms of free speech issues involving Donald Trump rallies, this cuts both ways.

Trump: platonic narcissistic archetype

                                   
This cartoon nails Trump's platonic narcissism: as a med student studying for boards, psych questions involving narcissistic personality disorder have lost their intended difficulty: whether or not that's the answer just depends on whether or not the described patient sounds or acts like Trump.

Reality check on Presidential Policy Positions

This is a reminder that the House controls taxes. Not the President.

To oversimplify, a President can really (and reliably) do three important things: appoint federal officials (i.e. SCOTUS nominees), command the military and veto legislation. They also have, at least in theory, control over Executive Agencies.

Policy proposals involving legislation - i.e. most of them - are just talk unless you've got a hold on both Houses of Congress. Which a Democratic president elected in 2016 almost certainly would not - the GOP has a hold on the House.

So when Bernie Sanders starts talking about his policies (e.g. tax policies,) it's good to remember that anything involving legislation would get nowhere. It's the policy he doesn't talk about - the way I imagine he'd deal with the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, etc. - that I found appealing enough to give him my support. But he won't be the nominee, and disappointed Bernie supporters need to come to terms with that. Because only one party has a realistic chance of controlling Congress and the Executive branch, and it's not the Democratic one.

Trump, "In the Flesh"

David Gilmour's lead guitar has always attracted me to "In the Flesh," but it's the correspondence of Donald Trump and his campaign to Roger Waters's lyrics that cause me to share it (it hardly bears noting that the album's title is also Trump's signature issue):

                                         

The first stanza captures what Lindy West eloquently described in "What are Trump fans really afraid to say?" 

Last Night's Debate

What everyone will remember is Trump and Rubio clashing over the size of Trump's penis. But what I find just as troubling is Cruz's selling himself as "pro-freedom and Constitution-loving" when the effects of his policies would be to reduce freedom (good luck with family planning other than abstinence under Cruz) and he has already signaled an unwillingness to respect Constitutionally-prescribed procedures (no hearings for an Obama SCOTUS nominee) when doing so violates the paramount principle of political expedience.

Today's GOP continues to drain the meaning out of "freedom" and the "Constitution" by continually invoking the terms as content-empty symbols for their faction and preferences.  

Prayer, Superstition and Malheur

Ammon Bundy (a mormon) recently cited God's command - "I was asked to do this by the lord" and "I did it how he told me to do it" - in occupying the Malheur Wildlife Reserve. 

In doing so, he Bundy outed himself as a prophet: "A divinely inspired interpreter, revealer, or teacher of the will or thought of God." Which is hardly shocking considering the non-response to George W. Bush's claim of divine marching orders behind the invasion of Iraq. 

"Prayer" in today's United States has been transformed by evangelicals into a conversation with God that deals with worldly maters. Prayer, to the evangelical, is often means of asking for something in the world to happen. Anyone in a Southern town is familiar with "prayer requests" that seek to increase the likelihood of some worldly outcome by having more individuals express their will to God that it happen. Prayer can also be a means of receiving orders on how to act on a worldly matter, such as with Bundy, Bush and many paranoid schizophrenics. 

The Koch brothers' fascist (I'm serious!) roots, the nature of fascism, professional values . . . and Citizens United

"Socialist" has become a term of abuse, a burden that any Democratic Presidential aspirant must shed. "Fascist" would seem to be the inverse of socialist. However, many would reject the application of "Fascist" to someone  on the right as shrill or at least figurative. After all, the Nazis are our picture of evil, its platonic form in modern minds. But closer inspection yields that fascism does not have at its roots exterminating entire ethnicities. That was just a means to the end of consolidating power: as Goering put it at Nuremberg, "All you have to do is tell the people they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." If a group of people is troubling you as a leader, claim that they're attacking or against the country, a fifth column waiting to emerge as soon as the conditions are right. 

There's nothing inherently fascist about this; what's more fascist is being willing to tolerate it and any other repugnant means of securing power. Which is where Fred Koch, the father of the Koch brothers, enters the picture. His business was built upon the funding of the most notorious totalitarians of the 20th century. As reported by the Guardian: 

John Lennon's Working Class Hero and my previous post

When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear

It's only gotten worse since Lennon wrote that. There are fewer ways to make a decent living in this country. The jobs that remain wherein a decent living can be made are fiercely competitive to win. The fear rarely ends with the job; when qualified people who desperately want your job abound, you'd better not do anything to lose it. Like publicly stand up for things that might piss off your boss. Like being your own man. 

As soon as you're born they make you feel small,
By giving you no time instead of it all.

I was in law. One thing that made me change career paths was realizing that many highly desired jobs in that field have blurred the line between being at work and being off. Young associates are given a firm-specific Blackberry when they come aboard. If that thing starts flashing at 12:30 am, it's time to return to work, even if they don't have to get out of bed to do so. Somewhere, in the back of the young associate's head, they are always at work.

Top Federal Income Tax Brackets over Time

In this post I'm focusing on brackets, not rates. Averaging 20 different top brackets over a century (all inflation adjusted to 2013) yields an average top bracket threshold of  $12.4 million.  Our current top bracket of $406,000 is 3.3% of this figure.

Brackets: Averaging the number of brackets for the same years, yields an average number of 17.8. Our current number of brackets is 7.

                

My opinion: there are many reasons to consider expanding the number of brackets and doing so above the current top bracket. Tax revenues could remain the same while per-capita disposable income could increase. I think that such an increase would lead to a more stable society and a healthier economy, with more money being made by Americans being spent on goods and services.

This is without even treating the demise of the "Middle Class" as a self-evident harm as is common in today's political discourse. Adjusting brackets and rates seems like the simplest way to keep the middle class afloat. 

Of course, the individuals interested in a person making $400 million paying the same amount in taxes as a person making $400,000 are those who make more than $400,000. Our current political system allows individuals to wield influence in proportion to cash on hand. This probably needs to be changed before politicians begin to discuss obvious solutions to problems that, to many in this country, are obvious.

Chart below the jump: 

Parallel Realignments

Interesting thoughts from a friend:

I think we are seeing two simultaneous realignments around class and inequality. One is the have-somes and the have-a-littles against the have-a-lots; the other is the have-less-than-they’d-expecteds against the have-nots. The former is fueling the rise of economic populism on the left; the latter involves people trying to hold on to the government benefits they “earned” against people making “unearned” claims on government. [ . . . ]

One of these two realignments is reshaping presidential politics. The other is reshaping congressional and state-level politics. This disjuncture is partly a question of institutions—gerrymandering and the like. But it’s also a question of political engagement. Fifty-eight percent of eligible voters voted in the 2012 presidential election; 36% voted in the 2014 congressional elections, leading to an overrepresentation of conservative-leaning constituencies.

So I think that, while the public as a whole might be moving to the left, American politics is moving in two directions simultaneously. The system as a whole will move left only if a lot more people—millennials, new Americans—get involved in non-presidential politics and build new institutions capable of sustaining more robust political engagement.

Who Turned My Blue State Red?

Why poor areas vote for politicians who want to slash the safety net.

NYTIMES.COM|BY ALEC MACGILLIS

What has happened to facts?

Last night there was a Republican debate. Few would dispute that the audience appeals were strictly visceral. Candidates did not bother trying to say things that made sense, let alone that were true. Ted Cruz, for instance, spoke of precision carpet bombing, which is an oxymoron. The current leader in the Republican field, Donald Trump, habitually makes false claims.

How did facts - or lies - lose their power?

One possibility - not that there's likely one answer - is that everyone has a source for whatever they believe now. Anyone can find an authority who reinforces their beliefs and disparages people/authorities/ideas/media that challenge them. Perhaps the presence of creed-specific echo chambers has led to epistemic closure within them

But the idea of an echo chamber seems to suppose semantic beliefs, ones that can be verbalized and that maybe in some way are mutually consistent. And maybe that's a problem with the idea. Statements have become markers for being in a group rather than building blocks for ideas that can be advocated or defended. A crowd cheering the notion of precision carpet bombing may just be full of people too stupid to notice a contradiction, but it's more likely to be full of people cheering the rejection of articulable belief beyond articulation of support/loyalty for a party or candidate. "We have our facts, you have your facts," they might say to the outgroup, "so who needs facts at all?"

An explanation of my apparent fixation on the U.S. Constitution

Some people apparently read this blog. They may have noticed that the Constitution comes up a lot when I start ejecting opinions. I can understand why some might be put off by this. For one, Constitutional fetishization / founder worship is one symptom of today's problematic right-wing politics, which apparently seeks ownership of American symbols like the flag, Constitution and "our troops." But, more generally, it can be annoying to see someone invoking the same thing over and over (monomania?)

So let me be clear about my attitudes towards the Founders and the Constitution.

The Founders were men just like any other men, imperfect and a product of their times. But their times, if a member of their high social stratum, were intellectually fertile and ambitious. Among other things, the behavior and work of the Founders reflected the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment:

The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause, its violations and its enemies

• Justice Hugo Black: In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
• Pick a founding father and you'll find a similar expression of views. 
• James Madison: a  practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
• Based on the above, "In God we Trust" shouldn't be codified by law as a national motto nor should it be on our coins. The history of this practice is recent and rooted in wartime paranoia and it has continued support among the current political party that seems to oppose any "wall of separation."

• I'm going to defend my views against some anticipated objections:

Unforeseen Consequences

This is what happens when you don't think your foreign military adventures through. 

Let's look further back in time: 

Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's secular and democratically elected leader, was overthrown in a 1953 coup orchestrated by the UK and the U.S., who then propped up a secular but undemocratically elected and autocratic regime whose excesses led to the rise of an unsecular, undemocratically elected autocratic regime in opposition to U.S. interests. America soon threw its support behind an secular, undemocratically elected autocratic regime at war with Iran . . . 



. . . who became an adversary and whose demise - in addition to the human and financial costs involved in bringing it about - helped lead to the advent of the Islamic State as described in the first link.

The Constitution trumps The Declaration of Independence (which people should quit invoking.)

Some people quote the Declaration of Independence to make claims about what the Founders of this nation valued and thus the character of this nation's fundamental values.

These people should stop. The only part of the Declaration that had force of law was the declaration that the U.S.A. was coming into being. All the other words were, to put it bluntly, unnecessary. 

On the other extreme, every word of the U.S. Constitution is law - "the supreme law of the land." As soon as it came into existence, it rendered the Declaration a historical artifact. 

If someone tries to support their political views by referring to the Declaration - particularly when it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution - don't let them. 

Hoist on its own "evenhandedness"

I feel like the (ugh, hate the phrase) "mainstream media's" general unwillingness to identify lies as such outside of the editorial pages/shows over the 2K's is finally coming around in a way it doesn't like. If the NyTimes presents birther screaming as a tenable point of view (even if just by implication/omission) it shouldn't be surprised when candidates feel no obligation to substantiate any assertions. 

http://www.nytimes.com/.../candidates-stick-to-script-if...

Candidates Stick to Script, if Not the Truth, in 2016 Race

NYTIMES.COM|BY MICHAEL BARBARO

The Founding Fathers didn't have pistols or assault rifles

I grew up in the South, bird hunting and all that stuff. Yeah, it's a part of the culture - in that many rural homes will have a shotgun or two and maybe a single shot hunting rifle.

Any gun that you can conceal on your person or get more than three shots off without reloading is a person-killing device. I'll say it - I don't think handguns should be available to the general public, let alone assault rifles. If you think having a mass-murder machine is part of your regional or national heritage then you're wrong. In the 1780's you could get off a shot every 15 seconds if you were a fast reloader.

P.S. - If you're worried about the federal government dominating you then demand more transparency in its operations and accountability from its officials. You're not going to beat it militarily, not even with a well regulated militia. 

Kim Davis

Since around 1995 - maybe before (I know, I know 1861) - the current unholy, unconservative, unrepublican coalition on our country's right political wing has rejected the legitimacy of government whenever government processes - elections, laws, judicial rulings - don't go their way. Government shutdowns, Clinton impeachment, Obama birth certificate fiasco, and then this nonsense: I can't imagine someone being dumb enough to cite the First Amendment in defense of failing to execute their duties as an elected official but now I don't have to.

Kim Davis clearly didn't feel that the Rowan County Clerk's office was, to quote Kennedy's 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a "great office that must" not "be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group."

If I remember correctly, those Houston Protestant Preachers were worried about Kennedy carrying the Pope's water. What's strange about today's brand of pan-Protestant-evangelicals is that they don't know whose water they're carrying. In lieu of a Pope they heed a miasmic echo chamber of politico-religious hucksters, nuts and verses whose incoherence is a model for its adherents. The Vatican knew it all along: If you let Kim Davis interpret the Bible it'll mean whatever the hell she wants it to.

What should a Good American value?

I saw a picture of a friend displaying markers of Orthodox Jewish piety. It made me think: he has notions of what it means to be a good Jew. I have other Jewish friends who have largely different notions of what it means to be a good Jew. But there is some overlap. And they are serious about being what they define as a good Jew and not letting Jewishness fade away. 

What quality might define a good American? What part of our national fabric - of Americanness - should we not let fade away? 

I think that a Good American must value freedom of expression. Even when it makes us uncomfortable or even feel unsafe. 

Because, for one, this value makes Americans different. Jews have ancient traditions and heritage that defines them. Americans don't have that. We are a new people, a new type of people even - a people lacking a genetic or geographic heritage. (In my experience, Europeans find it strange when Americans say "I'm Italian" or "I'm Scottish." But, unlike many Europeans, Americans have genetic/geographic origins that are independent of their state of citizenship.) 

If Americans continue to let people say what they will and believe what they will as a fundamental value, we will continue to be different. Because allowing that to happen is so unnatural and unprecedented. It goes against the grain of human tendency. It is natural for society to suppress unpopular ideas and voices.

Regarding freedom of expression as the fundamental, cornerstone value has a unique protective effect for a good society. It is a dogma that protects against dogmatism as the basis for oppression. It disallows regime-sponsored punishment of heretics, a common feature of every oppressive regime I can imagine.

A cultural shift is underway in this country in which freedom of speech is slipping as a keystone value. A walk through a college campus might illustrate this. Speech and speakers are being suppressed on the grounds that it makes certain people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. 

The students on these campuses, and everyone else, must realize that the free circulation of ideas is essential for a healthy academy, just as the free circulation of blood is necessary for a healthy body and the free circulation of money is necessary for a healthy economy. 

Valuing freedom of speech as an American is not just the continuation of a tradition. It is partial maintenance of the Enlightenment-era spirt underlying this country's creation, Constitution and political identity. If we wish for our oft-invoked Founders' beliefs to remain relevant to our national character, we should maintain freedom of expression as a paramount value. As someone once said, it's the First Amendment for a reason. 

Hobby Lobby

This ruling is not a disaster but rather the extension of one: Citizen's United and its establishment of corporate personhood under the Constitution. This case, supported by the same five justices as in Citizens United, will not have great precedential power. I hope and expect that Citizens United and corporate personhood will be discarded by the Supreme Court in my lifetime.