I didn’t notice much thoughtful reaction to Trump’s speech last night. There was, of course, Lindsey Graham saying that Trump was very presidential. And there were lots of normal people making reasonable comments. But I didn’t see much analysis. And I think I understand why: there was nothing to analyze.

A good example of this comes from Matthew Yglesias, The Real Crisis Is That Trump Has No Idea What He’s Doing. It ends with, “Repudiation at the polls clearly hasn’t caused Trump to rethink anything about this disastrous approach, so we’re now all just left to hope for the best over the next two years. With luck, at some point, we’ll have a functioning government again.”

Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. And so he just falls back into repeating his usual talking points. The only difference was that there were several minutes of him demagoguing a couple of stories where immigrants killed Americans. I’m really not sure it will move public opinion — at least after it is widely reported tomorrow that his speech was filled with deception and performed by a squinting man with barely suppressed rage. I’m sure it was a big hit with the base, however.

Beyond Outrage?

But this is what our nation has come to. It’s hard to get outraged by what Trump did last night given that he (with almost complete support from Republicans) does every day. What is there to say that hasn’t been said countless times before? If people support Trump, there really isn’t anything that he could do that would change that.

Well… There was this article in The New York Times, A Florida Town Grapples With a Shutdown After a Hurricane. This town is in the panhandle of Florida — you know: Alabama. So it’s filled with Trump supporters. And this is best summed up by Crystal Minton, a prison secretary, and single mother, “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this. I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

It’s a remarkable statement. Were the good things the hurting of the right people? Who are these people who need hurting? They clearly aren’t the ones with real power over her. I assume they are brown people — especially from other countries.

It hardly matters. Her big mistake was to believe that Trump (or any Republican) would ever do what was in her interest. One good thing about Trump is that he’s laid the game bare. He doesn’t speak in subtext. And he doesn’t have any problem screwing over his own voters.

What’s sad is that even if people like Ms Minton do figure out that they’ve been conned, they will continue to vote Republican. They will learn not to vote for Trump (at least for a while) but will continue to vote for Republicans with the same policy.

Our Useless Media

Most of the writing about Trump’s predictable performance last night has been focused on the networks’ choice to air this garbage. As has been widely noted, the networks gave air time for a presidential speech on immigration to Bush in 2006 and Trump in 2019. But they denied it to Obama in 2014. Oh my! I wonder why?!

Most people claim that the networks were “played” by Trump. For example, Media Matters reported, The Networks Got Played. Ten years ago, I would have agreed. Now I don’t think so.

The people at the networks may think of themselves as liberal, but they are exactly the kind of people who benefit from Republican policy. The anchors and executives (the people with power) are all millionaires. They’ve done well by Trump’s tax cut. They may prefer a less-chaotic Republican, but Trump is delivering for them.

Systemic Failure

All of this — Trump, Republicans, the media — come down to systemic problems in this country. We have a president who was “elected” by a minority. We have Republicans throughout the nation in charge because of gerrymandering. The Supreme Court is conservative because norms are no longer followed and our entire system of government apparently depends critically on them. It’s all a mess.

The only good thing I can say is that as the country gets more and more unequal, it will become more and more likely that the people will rise up. But until them, at least half the nation will be looking for a president who will hurt “the right people.”

Steve Pearlstein is the author of Can American Capitalism Survive? — a liberal capitalist. Bhaskar Sunkara is the editor and publisher of Jacobin — a socialist. Vox decided to print a “debate” between them, Is America’s Future Capitalist or Socialist?

I don’t think much of it because Pearlstein and Sunkara get into the weeds of some issues and as a result, the “debate” is about one-tenth as long as it should be. The condescending tone of Pearlstein is also annoying, but that is not worthy of discussion — only to notice the way that these apologists always take this tone as a way to dismiss the idea that any systems besides capitalism are impossible. It’s their one-two punch: (1) Socialism can’t work; (2) Stalin! (They never grapple with any socialist systems that have worked.)

Stop Saying the Rich Will Care About the Poor Because they Care About Women!

But I was most struck with what seems to be the core of Pearlstein’s argument: we can save capitalism by reinstating norms. He points to the #MeToo movement. This is beyond ridiculous. Pearlstein has his head so far up his apologetics that he can’t see the truth.

I don’t know why capitalism’s apologists always fall for this. Let’s go over it again. LGBT rights were able to make headway because rich people are sometimes gay and rich people have friends and children who are gay. What’s more, LGBT rights cost the rich nothing.

The same is true of women. The rich have no problem with giving women equal rights. One way or another, they have gained their wealth through a system that benefits them at the cost of most women (and lots of other people). But they’ve got their money now! And they know their daughters will too. Mainstream feminism doesn’t pose any threat to their wealth.

Poor People Are Different

None of this calculus applies to poor people. To begin with, rich people don’t have poor children. They don’t have poor friends.

But most of all: helping poor people will require that the economy become more egalitarian. That is: it will cost them money — directly. And that’s in an absolute sense and a relative sense. I suspect if it were just absolute and the relative difference were the same, many rich people would go for it.

As a result, we will never undo, “Greed is good” — as Pearlstein fantasizes. Whatever happened to “Power concedes nothing without a demand”? How exactly do we move forward on norms by asking politely? Especially in the modern context where rich people live in different worlds than the rest of us? Twitter memes?!

The Post-World War II Delusion

Pearlstein also relies on the idea that norms after World War II stopped capitalists from abusing their power. He dismisses the fact that it had much to do with unionization. I have one immediate question, “Then why were these same ‘enlightened’ capitalists so keen on ramming through the Taft–Hartley Act in 1947?” I don’t believe that needs an answer.

But also, how is it that people take a 25-year-long period and turn it into some natural state? The century before was horrible. The five-decade-long period since has gotten worse and worse. And remember, all during that time, the rich were doing everything they could to change the system. The rich never saw it as anything but temporary.

And that period after WWII when businesses did take a broader view of their mission was a fluke. That’s not the way things normally work.

Can you imagine the rich ever agreeing to even a 5 percent increase in taxes? Even if a credible case could be made that it would postpone a violent revolution? I can’t. And so I can’t imagine the rich ever agreeing to economic democracy.

What Prevents Real Change

This all leads me to some uncomfortable thoughts about political change. It’s not like we live in a democracy — or a democratic republic. As long as we don’t have economic democracy, we wouldn’t have political democracy. And without that, there is no clear way to get economic democracy.

Centuries of legal opinion make private property a given that most people can’t even imagine questioning. (Note: not personal property.) It’s very much like the centuries where poor people didn’t question the Divine Right of Kings. Now they don’t question the Divine Right of Private Property.

Going even further, the vast majority of poor people think of the standing police force and army as something meant to protect them when that is just a pretense.

Pearlstein claims that the first order of business is to get “money out of politics.” Oh yes! That will save us! (Corporate and union, because they are the same thing!) Then only the rich and well-connected will be able to win elected office. Bravo! (Pearlstein didn’t mention publicly-funded elections, so I assume he’s not for them and just has this idea if you get money out of politics the rich won’t be able to bend it to their will.)

We Are Doomed

Ultimately, I’m a pessimist. But it’s not irrational. Humans are horrible. The only thing that keeps me humble is the fact that I struggle. If I were rich, I’m sure I would have created an impenetrable philosophical system that told me it was right to be able to buy truffles while others starved.

I am certain that America will continue its decline to the point that it puts someone like Trump in charge full-time. What I can’t imagine is how this mess of a nation becomes better for more than a couple of years at a time.

No amount of hoping will save us from the toxic system that our country is based on.

There is a time in any nonfiction writer’s life when they get good enough to use [sic]. And do they use it! It’s such a wonderfully passive-aggressive way to attack other writers. Generally, such writers eventually move past that point and never use it as a weapon. But they also learn that it is almost never necessary — especially on the internet.

Based on how most people use [sic], they must think that it means, “This is wrong.” But that is not it at all. Indeed, while it often does highlight errors, that is not its purpose.

What Is [sic]?

[sic] is short for sic erat scriptum. According to Google Translate, this means “thus it is written.” But it is better to think of as “literally” or “as written.”

And that’s all that [sic] means: the words before are meant as written. So I could write, “I’m felling spacd ot toda [sic].” And this is one of its most appropriate uses: to call attention to your bad humor attempts.

Traditionally, [sic] was used to indicate that anything in quoted text that might confuse the reader is there intentionally. So in quoting Shakespeare, I might write, “And all clouds that lowr’d vpon [sic] our houfe [sic].”[1]

Clearly, in this case, the [sic] is alerting to the user to the oddness. But more than that, it is saying, “This is how it is actually printed; I didn’t screw up.” And that’s very important because I’ve seen typos in quotes that writers introduced. I’ve done it myself when transcribing text.

Fix Errors in Quotations

But here’s the thing: [sic] is not meant to call attention to errors. And it is perfectly okay to fix any obvious errors and typos.

I hear people objecting. “What?! How dare you change another writer’s prose! You monster!”

There are several things wrong with this. First, only do this when it is clear. I’m sure you’ve seen things I’ve written here like, “He went to a a store.” Is there any doubt I meant to write, “He went to a store”?

Another issue is that editors and typesetters often put errors into a writer’s work. And that was even truer before writers and publishers had computers.

Only the worst pedants will complain unless you somehow change the quotation in a fundamental way.

But if it bothers you, put the changes inside square brackets.

Never Use [sic] as a Weapon

Fowler’s entry on [sic] is more of a rant condemning the use of it as a weapon. And rightly so! This usage is totally unacceptable.

And in the age of the internet, [sic] is almost never necessary because the reader already knows that any quotes are not transcribed. They are rather copied-and-pasted. So it is exactly what was written.

I suspect we will eventually get to the point were [sic] is primarily used as I first did in this article: to point out something the writer is saying.

But my main point is this: don’t be a jerk. In the end, you will only look small to the people who matter.

Afterword

You should probably be able to guess, given the intensity of this article, that I am a former sinner. So don’t take my hectoring personally. It’s more self-criticism than anything.

[1] I don’t know enough about printing to say if any of this is actually different in substance. But it clearly is typographically, so if you require it, imagine I am writing about changes in printing.

Getting rid of Trump is like stopping the bleeding of a gunshot wound. Sure, there are many other things that must be done. But first, we have to stop the bleeding. If Trump does nothing more that is bad in his remaining time, he will continue to poison our judicial system with Federalist Society approved judges. This is, by the way, why he can appoint them so fast. He doesn’t need to vet them. Like so many things in conservative politics, there are always groups supported by rich people who just happen to have a list of judges or a model bill for “reforming” environmental laws.

Why 2019 Could Be Good for Trump

The reason this year could be very good for Trump is that the economy may crash soon. And ironically, it could come racing back in 2020 — just in time to secure his re-election. Note the irony: the economy would be doing better at least in part because people thought the federal government would soon be back in competent hands. Yet such a thing would give Trump his best chance to continue his reign of terror. Not a very pleasant thought.

Of course, if the economy crashes, Trump will lash out. He will be very unhappy because his grasp of political science is as firm as his grasp of everything else — except maybe demagoguery. My concern is not him, however. What I would prefer not to see is a bunch of liberals celebrating a downturn in the economy.

Now maybe that isn’t likely because liberals at least pretend to care about all the damage this does to working people. But I don’t doubt I will see some “think pieces” about how the silver lining is that it is bad for Trump.

And that’s just not likely to be true. We are still too far out from the 2020 election.

Trump Could Lose Regardless — But Don’t Count on It

The counter to this (which others have made when I’ve discussed this general issue) is that Trump is so unpopular that he may lose even with a rip-roaring economy. And that’s true. As I noted in a comment, Lynn Vavreck’s book The Message Matters shows how this might work. The challenger needs to make the election about something other than the economy. In the case of Trump, it would be 1976 all over again: corruption, corruption, corruption.

But I still think this is a back-up plan. I’d rather see a stagnant economy in 2020. This would doom Trump and almost certainly lead to a quick recovery because it would mean no more trade wars, no more fighting with our allies, no more chaos.

The Suburbs Might Not Safe Us

More than that, I am very concerned about this article that has been floating around for a few weeks (under different titles) at Vox, What Do the Suburbs Want? It is always subtitled with something like, “How the Republicans lost the suburbs and how this may continue.”

Unfortunately, the case it makes is entirely dependent upon what people say they care about. And I just don’t trust these suburban Republicans. The reasons they give for voting for Democrats in 2018 are reasons they should have been voting for Democrats since at least 2008.

2018 Is Not 2020

What’s more, it was easy enough for people to cast anti-Trump ballots in 2018. But what about after 9 months of Trump campaigning and consultants grooming him. Won’t happen, you say? Trump has to be Trump? If Trump sees that he is going to be a “loser,” he may well become “kinder and gentler.” He used to be a populist, after all. Then, when it looked like the Republicans really wouldn’t support him he became a standard-issue Republican.

A flat unemployment rate would almost assure Trump being relegated to the dustbin of history. What’s more, a major recession right now that is due to Trump wouldn’t help the nation, and it would be terrible for workers.

One thing that drives me crazy is this idea that the Greeks invented Democracy. Even if you go over to the Wikipedia page History of Democracy, Athens as held up as the first real democracy. Gratefully, it does discuss what it calls proto-democracies. But there is a problem with this: ancient Athens didn’t have much of a democracy. And truthfully, neither does the United States.

The Important Kind of Democracy

I found an excellent article from the May 1919 issue of American Journal of Sociology, The Origins of Democracy. It is by J L Gillin of the University of Wisconsin. He notes that there are different kinds of democracies. But his interest is in “democracies that provide equality of opportunity[1] as between individuals and different classes, not only political, but educational, social, and economic, opportunity.” In other words, social democracy.

Gillin then bluntly notes, “Nowhere as yet has this form of democracy been fully realized.” I now see that this kind of social democracy as what we really need to be working toward. Conservatives, by definition, will always see the current power structure as right. Thus, when slavery was common, they saw it as the way things should be. And the extreme lack of democracy in all ways (even political) is seen as correct. The end of history!

Democracy in Tribal Groups

Gillin quoted Lewis H Morgan on the Iroquois confederacy:

What’s more, Morgan wrote:

Gillin discussed many other ancient democratic systems, including the Hebrews. But the most interesting is his contention that democracy arose out of the natural connections of small tribes of as few as 50 people.

More recent work suggests that pre-neolithic groups were generally egalitarian. It was the rise of cities and agriculture that brought social hierarchy (eg, kings, priests) and set roles for the sexes.

Hardwired for Democracy

Humans appear to be hardwired for democracy. In Nature Human Behaviour Kanakogi et al published Preverbal Infants Affirm Third-Party Interventions That Protect Victims From Aggressors (30 January 2017). What this seems to indicate is that babies as young as six-months-old have an innate sense of justice. And democracy is all about justice.

The problem is that socialization leads us to accept that certain injustices aren’t. That’s where we get ideas like the divine right of kings and meritocracy. It’s funny — Isn’t it? — that the overwhelming number of meritocratic people are third basers. When believers in meritocracy are pushed on this issue, they always retreat into genetics. And not only is this contrary to what science teaches us, it is just the modern equivalent of the divine right of kings.

Short-Circuiting Democracy in the West

Most people believe we are better off now than in the past. But pre-neolithic tribes seem to have a stronger sense of democracy. And even in the last 40 years, we’ve seen the United States regress substantially with regards to egalitarianism and democracy. This has reached a point where Republicans, by and large, don’t even believe in democracy.

If we are to survive, we start by seeing that democracy is not some western concept that we just “get.” Rather, we have developed a society that does all it can to stratify us for no reason other than to make the powerful more so. And this makes sense. In a tribe of 50 people, you simply can’t be that much more powerful than anyone else. In a global society of 7 billion, you can be much more powerful.

The fact that Mark Zuckerberg has approximately a half-million times as much wealth as the median American makes no sense. Yet most people are so used to this kind of un-democratic fact that it doesn’t even occur to them that there is a problem.

We Need to Change

Social democracy is our birthright. But we have allowed a system to thrive, based on the myth of meritocracy, that deprives us of it. Democracy is not a western idea. But the west has done an amazing job of retaining the pretense of democracy while depriving it of most of its meaning.

[1] Gillin is not using this phrase as it is normally used in political discourse today as simply a way to justify actual inequality. Clearly, real equality of opportunity is not just that the poor have the same legal opportunity as the rich. There is no equality of opportunity when a poor person has no capital to start a business while the rich have millions of dollars. The use of “equality of opportunity” in this case is nothing but propaganda meant to obscure the truth and stop social change.

[2] This is a slightly difficult concept. It is basically the group of people who are allowed to vote. It’s like “property owners” at the start of the United States. But instead, the group is defined by blood-relations.