Author Archives: Bill Humphrey

Bill Humphrey

About Bill Humphrey

Bill Humphrey is the primary host of WVUD's Arsenal For Democracy talk radio show and a local elected official.

Senate Republican protest is counterproductive

  By

The Senate Republican response to the Senate rules change is that they will all join together to slow everything down to a crawl, to punish Democrats for the reforms. New York Times:

The Senate slowly began working its way through a backlog of presidential nominees on Tuesday now that Republicans are virtually powerless to block confirmations, approving a once-stalled judge to a powerful appeals court and a new director for the agency that oversees federal home lending.

But Republicans, still seething over a power play last month by Democrats to curtail the filibuster significantly, have settled on a strategy for retribution: make the confirmation process as time-consuming and procedurally painful as possible for Democrats.

“There’s a price that has to be paid when people abuse the rules,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. “And let’s face it. These guys have completely obliterated the rules.”

Setting aside the irony of Senate Republicans saying the rules are being abused — and setting aside my view that it’s probably barely possible at this point to make it go any slower than it was — let’s accept the premise for the sake of debate. My question: do they really think this is going to be a persuasive argument to American voters, to convince them that the rules change was the wrong move?

U.S. voters, broadly speaking, love bold, fast action from government if it’s going to act at all. Senate Democrats saw a logjam, got fed up with it, and finally broke it. Republicans think forming a new one will win them voters. How? It’s just going to make Senate Democrats and voters even more likely to support changing even more of the Senate’s rules.

Slowing down operations to punish the majority for trying to speed up operations is only going to harden the majority’s determination to expand efforts to speed things up. Many Senate Dems are still skeptical of further changes and held out as long as possible against this limited reform. I’m sure a lot of them wouldn’t go along with more changes if they believed it had resolved the problem.

Being conciliatory and cooperative, instead of belligerent, makes way more sense as a long-term strategy to persuade people to stop taking options away from you. If you think everyone has characterized you incorrectly, you don’t go trying to prove them right by doing the thing they accuse you of, as a means of responding. That’s just poor strategy.

On the upside, Democrats aren’t taking the new abuses of the rules lying down:

“It’s retaliatory,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. “It’s revenge,” he added, noting that Democrats had a way of making things unpleasant themselves: by forcing Republicans to be physically present on the Senate floor while they draw things out.

“They’re going to have to keep speaking for four hours or eight hours at a time,” Mr. Harkin said. “And I don’t think they’ll have the stomach to do that on Fridays and Saturdays.”

How to Talk to Voters (Badly)

  By

TPM Livewire today:

Iowa Republican Senate candidate Mark Jacobs said the best way to connect with women is on an “emotional level.”

Jacobs made the comments during an interview with Iowa’s WHO-TV in Des Moines on Sunday.

“I think you have to connect with women on an emotional level,” Jacobs said. “And with a wife of 25 years and an 18-year-old daughter, I’ve had a lot of coaching on that.”

Because if we know anything at all about American politics, it’s that our male voters are uniformly stone-cold machines of hyper-rational logic who totally don’t freak out over any perceived threat to their status in the social, economic, and gender hierarchies, resulting in their surrender to factually incorrect emotional appeals and poorly conceived policy ideas.

In contrast, who can understand the mystery of women voting exactly in line with their financial, health, safety, and bodily autonomy interests time and again? Must be an emotional decision.

*eyeroll*

Republican Confusion on Mandela

  By

Most of the world has united to mourn the passing of South Africa’s former president and anti-apartheid leader, Nelson Mandela. Global opinion is pretty consistently sure about how to come down on this one person’s legacy, and that’s favorably.

But one pocket of confusion remains. Lots of Republicans right now seem to be unsure whether to praise Nelson Mandela or call him a commie terrorist. On that latter point, I was shocked to see former Speaker Newt Gingrich not only praising Mandela but actually on CNN defending his ties to communist activists (who were partners in the fight against apartheid when the U.S. was too busy calling the regime a Cold War ally). In general, regardless of many of their past views, GOP leaders have been saying the right things, even if their base is furious about it.

I guess Mandela was always confusing for Republicans. If you’re a Republican, there have always been two schools of thought. You could go with the Republican Senators in 1986 who voted in favor of sanctions on the apartheid government. Or you could go with the Republican intellectuals and Saint Reagan who not only vetoed the sanctions (which was overridden by the Republican Senate majority and Democratic House) but recruited the South African Foreign Minister from the all-white Nationalist government to call U.S. Senators to urge them not to override his veto.

I can’t even fathom what would make Reagan think that idea was a brilliant plan. I suspect we would be seeing impeachment proceedings under way if the U.S. President right now tried to enlist (for comparison) Iran’s foreign minister to make personal calls to members of Congress on not raising nuclear sanctions. It would nonsensical at minimum.

One almost wonders if Reagan thought “South Africa” was a vital part of the “Southern Strategy.” Appeal to one bunch of racist institutional segregationists as defenders-of-freedom, might as well appeal to them everywhere?

Don’t miss, by the way, that great time capsule of a New York Times article from October 1986 (also linked above). Tells you a lot about what specifically was going on at the time of the veto override, the surrounding Cold War politics that warped our policies toward so many regimes, and Reagan’s very bad decision-making on this issue. And it also has some great quotations from past and present Senate bigwigs, like then-freshman Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, who is now the Republican Minority Leader.

 

In any case, it’s certainly quite “curious” how Republican internet commenters are always ready to complain when anyone seeks to introduce nuance to discussion of famous white historical figures and leaders, who held problematic views in addition to some of their better positions/records for which we hail them today. And yet as soon as the discussion turns to someone like Nelson Mandela (or Barack Obama, particularly during both presidential campaigns), these same commenters are eager to make sure “the truth” about these figures — past associations or problematic views — is brought to light and even emphasized against the good.

The reality is that most historical figures are indeed complex figures, and they often make mistakes or hang out with the “wrong” people at some point in their lives. But it’s absurd and racist to try to hold everyone to a standard where White figures are revered and can’t be discussed accurately, while Black figures must be torn down and cannot be celebrated for even a moment without complaints.

When old-school propaganda meets the internet age

  By

The irony of the internet age and the rise of social media under autocratic states is that it not only hasn’t brought an end to traditional replacement-of-reality-with-alternate-reality propaganda (à la the Soviet Union’s totalitarian media) and toppled all the dictators, but it has actually provided new opportunities for some of the propagandists. Propaganda is not just co-existing but flourishing, at the moment, even in places with ample internet access.

Person of the Year

Case in point: Egyptian government propagandists on state-run and pro-coup television were so eager to promote their new dictator, General Sisi, that they convinced everyone that Egyptians could control the outcome of TIME magazine’s person of the year selection and ordered them all to vote for him in the magazine’s online reader poll — which has no affect on the final choice for the magazine (which the editors pick). More Egyptians voted in the global internet poll, open to anyone, than the number of Americans or Indians who voted. Then when General Sisi won that reader poll, Egyptian media produced a fake cover of TIME and reported (falsely of course) that he had been officially chosen by the magazine as Person of the Year.

fake-time-magazine-egypt

Obviously, given their easy access to outside media, most internet-using Egyptians are probably well aware of the distinction, whether or not they voted for him in the poll. It’s worth remembering, however, that a lot of Egyptians still get their news from television media and, unlike their Twitter-savvy brethren, aren’t necessarily exposed to alternate sources of information. So if the TV says TIME magazine picked their nation’s leader as the global Person of the Year, and shows a cover to prove it, then they might not know otherwise.

American TV News

Television is by nature an authoritative, one-way medium that many viewers can’t contradict or fact-check easily (and tend not to, even if they can). Thus, propagandists can exert a heavy influence without much to challenge them. And in the modern era, they can couple it with the power of the internet rather than being undermined by it.

The Egypt story might seem provincial and irrelevant to us in the United States, but let’s not forget that a majority of Americans — particularly from the older generations — still get their news from television each day. The influence of TV news producers, while substantially more open to challenge in the United States than in Egyptian state media, is still a powerful force with a rigid narrative.

Viewers receive a narrow (partly by nature of the time-restricted format) and often repetitive message and are strongly encouraged to put their trust in the networks — local, national, or cable — that they are being told The Truth. Network brands are marketed like other products through heavy promotion. The promos urge people to maintain high brand loyalty to a particular delivery service of what is (theoretically) open information that should — if it’s really The Truth, as advertised — be more or less the same across brands.

The Fox Delusion

Fox News Channel, of course has taken this philosophy much further. They brag that they are the highest-rated cable news network … after years of convincing viewers — who skew older and count on television to be factually accurate — that the news world outside (except for right-wing talk radio, of course) is filled with lies and treachery, and that only Fox News Channel and its hosts’ radio shows are able to bring you The Truth. So everyone on the conservative end of the spectrum jumped on the bandwagon long ago and stayed put, resulting in its rise to the number one spot (while liberals split over a range of sources). For a regular viewer, adjusting that dial away from Fox News means being exposed to the “liberal media” conspiracy beyond.

Fox News Channel broadcasts are riddled with demonstrable errors — not just in analysis, but in basic statements of empirical, encyclopedic facts — as many a media fact-checking website has shown every day. Its viewers know better by now than to check outside the channel or its partners for the facts, though, so there is little danger they will be exposed to reality. When they go to vote in U.S. elections, they are doing so based on information received almost entirely if not solely from one news universe that has built all its analysis upon totally fabricated underlying facts. It’s not just skewed interpretations being delivered to viewers, but even foundational “facts” lacking in truth.

All this holds true even in an age of easy access to a literal world of factual information, via the internet. The internet, for a Fox viewer, instead of a source of contradicting reality, becomes a network of websites affiliated with Fox News or run by other devotees and like-minded ideologues.

Thus, as I have discussed extensively before, Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and the conservative blogosphere have established an entire unchallenged, closed-loop parallel universe of news “reality,” much in the way a totalitarian government’s state media would. And just as with Egyptian TV’s fake TIME magazine Person of the Year cover, Fox News Channel is able to propagate its elaborate fiction through traditional means, with help from the internet, rather than being genuinely subverted and exposed by the internet, as we might have expected.

What does the future hold?

The internet, social media, and freer access to information around the world will undoubtedly play a major role in opening societies and exposing fictions presented as news — and certainly the U.S. internet community has already been ripping apart fraudulent news stories in the traditional media for many years and forcing corrections (from outlets that aren’t trying to create a parallel reality).

But for the moment, at least, the rise of the internet is not the cure-all for propaganda, whether on U.S. cable or on authoritarian governments’ TV stations. The meeting of the internet and propaganda isn’t like throwing water on the Wicked Witch of the West. The narratives and fictional worlds of propagandists don’t dissolve instantly in the presence of access to information. But eventually, they will crumble.

The interim period will not be without consequences. How do people, including Egyptians or Fox News fans, react when confronted by the harsh light outside the cave? Ultimately this confrontation will inevitably occur, as it always has, despite the propagandists’ efforts to steer people to favorable sources. Whether the clash with reality occurs in the form of the loss of U.S. election if you were under the false impression that everyone agreed with the worldview Fox News nurtured in you, or in the form of realizing at newsstands in a few weeks that TIME magazine hasn’t put Dear Leader on the cover after all, people seem react in two ways.

The first reaction is turning in anger to wild conspiracy theories that explain the disjunction — i.e. that inscrutable minority forces must be controlling outcomes — and encourage extreme responses to “correct” the conspiracy — i.e. that the opposing faction must be destroyed. The second reaction is accepting that the propagandists have misled their audience about The Truth outside.

Sadly, many people find discovering themselves massively wrong or realizing they have been to duped to be extremely embarrassing or humiliating. (Being manipulated is something that happens to other people.) And so these people generally resist accepting they have been conned at all costs, even if it means embracing the extreme conspiracy theories and doubling down on their misguided beliefs. And that’s when the politics in a country get really scary.

Carbon pricing and “economic uncertainty”

  By

American Conservatives these days spend a lot of time insisting in the media that policy-induced economic “uncertainty” — i.e. being uncertain as to whether Congress plans to raise or lower taxes in the long run, which is inherently unknowable* but is used to argue for “permanent” cuts — but the solution to this “uncertainty” from the corporate perspective has always been obvious.

Companies can plan for scenarios with higher fees & taxes and go forward accordingly. If Congress does raise the taxes, then they’re already prepared. If Congress doesn’t raise the taxes after all, then there’s no real harm done to the companies (and they might even find savings while hunting for ways to cut costs to keep profits up).

We are seeing this in action now according to a New York Times article about how several dozen major U.S. corporations are preparing for scenarios where Congress imposes some kind of industry-scale carbon pricing or tax system. Although not currently being seriously considered in the immediate future, given the makeup of Congress at this particular moment, this pricing would eventually likely be put into place to discourage high carbon footprints on a wide scale and probably to pay for some of the damage caused by unmitigated carbon outputs in the past.

More than two dozen of the nation’s biggest corporations, including the five major oil companies, are planning their future growth on the expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution as a way to control global warming.

[…]

A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans.

Without carbon pricing, dirty fuel and power sources like oil, coal, and natural gas are essentially given a big cost break compared to cleaner renewables by forcing everyone else to pay for their environmental damage (and health consequences) — a practice known as “externalizing” the cost. Carbon pricing aims to end the harmful externalities and force dirty fuel sources to compete fairly against cleaner competitors. It also forces companies to find ways of becoming more energy efficient to save money and reduce their tax burden.

So rather than dithering around being “uncertain” as to when or how exactly Congress will get its act together and establish carbon pricing schemes, major U.S. firms are solving the problem by preparing for the more expensive scenarios now, so they aren’t taken by surprise later. Poof! No more policy-driven uncertainty harms! And that’s why it’s never a valid argument that policy decisions should be undertaken solely to reduce uncertainty in the markets and business world.

Well, that and the simple reality that uncertainty is a basic fact of capitalism, so that’s understood to be part of the rules and risk of going into business.

 

*It’s “inherently unknowable” whether Congress will do anything “in the long run” because the Constitution prohibits any one cycle of Congress from passing a law that cannot be undone at any time by a future Congress. Thus it is impossible to pass a “permanent” tax cut that is truly permanent. So such measures, while enthusiastically received by their advocates, are of limited real benefit for ending alleged “uncertainty.”

UN backs French peacekeepers into Central African Republic

  By

After sectarian killings in the Central African Republic accelerated this week, leaving over a hundred dead on Thursday morning alone, the United Nations Security Council finally acted to authorize France to begin an active peacekeeping role, with its troops who were already on their way. Air and street patrols began today in the capital. The French troops join a small African Union force also on the ground already.

Background discussion: Episode 65.

Mali coup grave may have been found

  By

Mali investigators searching for 23 missing elite presidential guard troops who vanished a month after the March 2012 military coup have found 21 bodies outside the base of the coup leader. The transitional government, which succeeded him after regional pressure forced him from power, recently arrested him for complicity in kidnapping.

This terrible find was probably only uncovered because of all the international and regional attention on Mali after the coup government lost control of the north to Islamist rebels and had to be bailed out by France. Meanwhile, next door, the President of Burkina Faso has been in office since the 1987 coup — and as I understand it, according to the one surviving eyewitness account of the coup d’état, pretty much everyone in the presidential mansion was gunned down during that coup. Yet there doesn’t seem to be anyone calling for a new government and investigations there.