This morning, Jonathan Chait noted that the era of the “reasonable Republican” did not last long, Conservatives: Let’s Prove We Can Govern by Shutting Down the Government and Impeaching Obama. Basically, the party tried to hide its kooks in the basement, but that isn’t working out too well. It is one thing to get Joni Ernst to not talk about the coming black helicopters while trying to get power. It is quite another to shut up the loonies once they have power. As Chait put it, “[I]t is already clear, just days after the election, that contrary to the fondest hopes of Boehner and McConnell, the kooks will not be going quietly.”

The biggest problem is that Obama insists on doing things and generally acting like he’s still president. And this is what I find so interesting. In 2008 and 2012, the Republicans were quite right to dismiss calls for them to change and work with the Democrats because of the “mandate” from the people. But in 2010, right after the election, Republicans everywhere were calling for no work to get done with the lame duck Congress. And even though they did not control the Senate or the White House, they thought that the Democrats should just kneel before them because they had won the most recent election.

Similarly, this election we’ve heard two things. First is the fairy tale that the Republicans are going to “govern” — as though people in the minority can’t govern. The same thing that stopped them from governing then will stop them now: they don’t have complete power to do exactly what they want. As it was, in 2011, Obama showed himself to be such a feckless negotiator that the Republicans got almost everything they wanted and still the crazies would not go along. Now they think they really have all the power. So in 2011, 98% wasn’t good enough. What is it today? Is 99.999999% of what they want not good enough?

What we see from Republicans is this hypocritical oscillation. When they win an election, they think they should be in charge, even though the United States government is not set up that way. When they lose, they yield not an inch. And this is a problem. Politics is not an art form. Perfection is never a possibility. So it is always a matter of making the best of a situation. That would normally mean accepting minor gains when you don’t have power and major gains when you do. But with the Republicans we get only a grand scheme that looks toward a day when they will have all the power and be able to realize the perfection of their vision. This is the danger of ideology and most often it leads to authoritarianism.

The Republicans can deal with their current situation well or poorly. The problem is that a great many of them have been sold a bunch of nonsense. One of the most common things that conservatives think is that politics is about the will. If only they stick to their principles, all obstacles will crumble. And it doesn’t matter how much power they actually have. Will Obama’s executive actions cause them to harm themselves? Very possibility. But it is important to remember that it is their addiction to ideological purity that stops them from being effective at their jobs. Sadly, it is also what makes them extremely dangerous when they do get complete control of Washington.

This is from a Vox article, This Chart Shows America’s Old Testament Thinking on the Death Penalty. It shows the change in the reasons that people give for support of the death penalty over the last 25 years. The “eye for an eye” reason was and still is the biggest reason for it. But it is going down. In fact, all of the reasons are going down. But there is one reason that didn’t even register 25 years ago, but which now is the reason 15% of Americans give for support of the death penalty: it saves tax-payers’ money.

That one is funny, because as anyone who even casually follows the issue knows: it costs a lot more to kill someone than it does to just lock them in a cage for the rest of their lives. Sadly, my experience when telling this to capital punishment fans is that they then start grousing about the fact that we don’t just just shoot them right there on sentencing. This position is untenable, so such conversations always leads to either (1) the fan turning back to “eye for an eye” logic; or (2) the fan claiming that wrongful executions are just an unfortunate aspect of their efficient killing system.

But think about the “saves tax-payers’ money” argument. It is a psychopathic argument: other people’s lives are not worth spending any money. These are the same people who think it is just fine with the huge oil companies getting billions of dollars in tax breaks. But paying a small fraction of that to make it slightly less likely that an innocent person is executed is just too much. This is not just the thinking of a psychopath; this is the thinking of a stupid psychopath.

The graph is also interesting in that “they will repeat crime” and “set an example” have gone down to almost zero support. So apparently, people have given up on these notions. This is good because they simply are invalid: people don’t escape from prison and the death penalty doesn’t discourage people from murder because murder is almost never a rational crime. And maybe these are the people who moved into the anti-death penalty camp, because overall support is down from 1991:

Regardless, what it all shows is that support for the death penalty is not rational. Most people are for it out of a sense of revenge (understandable but hardly good policy) or they believe it will do things it doesn’t do. But I think that people like myself who hate the death penalty should be careful. Many think that support for it is decreasing. But that’s not really true. As you can see in the graph, support peaked during the Reagan and Clinton years, but all that has happened since then is that the hateful fever has lifted. Now we are back to where it always is: with roughly 60% of Americans thinking it is a great idea despite the dozens of death row inmates who have been exonerated.

I disagree with Jonathan Gruber: Americans are not especially stupid. But they score very high on “evil.”

Tom Sullivan over at Hullabaloo brought my attention to this charming letter to their neighbor at the Unitarian Universalist church in Mountain Home, Arkansas. It came with a window shot out following the publication of a letter to the editor saying that they welcomed everyone regardless of “race, religion, or sexual orientation.” It is bizarre that this would cause such a violent response because this is the very definition of the Unitarian Universalists. This is why other Christians tend not to like them. Go to a universalist church and you are bound to meet some Buddhists. My take on universalism is that it means everyone is saved, everyone has God’s grace, everyone is going to heaven. It’s kind of like the Oprah Winfrey of religions.

But the response doesn’t seem much concerned about the welcoming of all the LGBT community. The problem seems to be that the darkies are welcome. I mean, that letter is filled with charm like “Chi-Congo.” But the best part is surly, “the nigger commie, Muslim, scholiast destroying the USA.” If it hadn’t come along with a bullet, I would assume parody. First, there is the fact that the description of the president is longer than my own parodies of an ignorant conservative. Usually, I just go with, “Muslim Kenyan socialist.” But then there is “scholiast.” What’s with that?! I had to look it up. It means: a commentator on ancient or classical literature. But commenter islandbrewer at Patheos put it brilliantly, “I think I have an old muslin scholiast that my grandmother made. It’s very pretty.” Anyway, it is just a clever way to throw in “pointy headed intellectual.” But it is clever.

The whole thing could have been reduced to a bumper sticker, “I’m a bigot, and I vote!” And this has been something we have known for a long time. Although they try very hard to hide it, the only reason conservatism in its current form is competitive is fear and hatred of “those” people. And the conservative elite know this. They are smart people. They know that voters don’t rush to the polls to vote for the party’s economic policies, which the voters largely disagree with anyway. It is more along the lines of this old joke:

I’m not saying that Republicans are primarily dependent on bigots. But I think at least 10% of their coalition is only there because of their bigotry. And without that 10%, the party would be at best a regional power. Bigotry is doubtless more important to the Republican coalition than are tax cuts. And that’s sad.

I would have thought that by now we would be past such blatant racist and homophobic appeals as in the letter above. I still think that the most important form of racism in America is white privilege as I discussed yesterday. But especially since Obama (and in reaction to him), we’ve seen a huge increase in this kind of base racism. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is good to have it “out in the open.” Because what we’ve seen is regression. And if we have people willing to apply the n-word to the president, it means the less obvious forms of racism are also ascendant.

But I do appreciate the letter. I think I will start referring to President Obama as the Scholiast in Chief. It isn’t a bad moniker — and I do mean it with great respect.

As we all brace for what is now and has always been the near certainty that there will be no indictment in Michael Brown’s death, it is a good time to consider black “irresponsibility” as a cause of their status as an underclass. This is the idea that whites have reasons for their racist behavior because of the “bad” blacks that are out there. The argument usually goes like this, “Sure, there is racism in America. And 95% of blacks are good, hard-working people. But there is 5% of the black community who ruin it for everyone!” It is a bizarre argument that admits white racism but then immediately minimizes it and blames blacks for all their problems.

Sadly, we hear this all the time from successful African Americans like Bill Cosby and President Obama. Most recently, we’ve heard this from Charles Barkley. That’s right: the basketball player, who really ought to be aware of his own luck. But of course, he isn’t. I’ve known for decades that he was a Republican. I guess being self-deluded goes along with being one — even if he has backed away from the party in the last few years. But this comment is very Republican, “We as black people are never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you are black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people… There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don’t have success. It’s best to knock a successful black person down because they’re intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they’re successful. It’s just typical BS that goes on when you’re black, man.”

Ta-Nehisi Coates took on this issue late last month, Charles Barkley and the Plague of “Unintelligent” Blacks. He looks at the history of this, which he calls “respectability politics” — “the inability to look into the cold dark void of history.” And what I didn’t know is that this dates back to the postbellum era. And in fact, in a certain sense, it goes back to slavery, when many whites justified the practice on the basis of the supposed savagery of African Americans. But it was only in the postbellum era when blacks themselves made this argument.

Coates quotes the African American mathematician Kelly Miller in 1899 saying, “It is not sufficient to say that ninety-five out of every hundred Negroes are orderly and well behaved. The ninety-five must band themselves together to restrain or suppress the vicious five.” Get it?! Blacks weren’t being denied rights and opportunities because whites were oppressing them; blacks were being treated like this because they weren’t distinguishing the “good” negro from the “bad.”

So all this stuff about gangsta rape and low hanging pants is just the most recent manifestation of this. Barkley said, “For some reason we are brainwashed to think, if you’re not a thug or an idiot, you’re not black enough.” But a century ago, Mary Church Terrell said, “According to the testimony of eye-witnesses, as well as the reports of southern newspapers [!], the Negroes who are known to have been guilty of assault have, as a rule, been ignorant, repulsive in appearance, and as near the brute creation as it is possible for a human being to be.” Nothing changes, and remember: this is what African Americans were saying about themselves.

Now, in a way, I totally understand this and salute it. These are people who are looking for answers in something they think they control. So I understand someone like Charles Barkley looking at people who are considered part of his “race” and thinking, “If only black kids acted more like upper middle class white kids, everything would be great!” There are two problems with this. First, the way that people in an underclass behave (eg, dress) is primarily a function of them being an underclass, not the cause of it. And by focusing on it, people like Barkley just give the power elite reasons to do nothing to change the racist structure of our society.

The second problem is that this assumes a racist precept: that black people ought to be judged by other black people. If I were judged based upon the actions of other white people — especially white men — I would never leave the house. I could make an outstanding argument for sterilizing all white men. But I’m not judged based upon what other white men do. This is the very core of white privilege in this country. And the lack of appreciation for this is the basis of systemic racism here.

I’m with Coates, “For if black people are — as I maintain — no part of the problem, if the problem truly is 100 percent explained by white supremacy, then we are presented with a set of unfortunate facts about our home.” It is as simple as this: you can’t fight racism by rebranding racial groups. Racism is reverse engineered: first comes and hatred and fear, then comes the rationalizations. So we have to deal with the racism, and not perfecting the “race.”

Earlier this year, Marco Rubio said, “What I disagree with is the notion if we pass cap and trade, for example, this will stop this from happening, when in fact half of the new emissions on the planet are coming from developing countries and half of that is coming from one country, China, that isn’t going to follow whatever laws we pass.” Around the same time, Charles Krauthammer said pretty much the same thing, “In the absence of [an emissions pact], all that we’re doing is committing economic suicide in the name of do-goodism that will not do an iota of good.” So these guys must be thrilled to read The New York Times last night, US and China Reach Climate Accord After Months of Talks.

But of course, they’re not. Jonathan Chait presented the early responses this morning, China Tries to Save Earth; Republicans Furious. James Inhofe claims it is not credible — even though he would be against it even if he thought it was credible. I mean, as James Inhofe will tell you for $25.95, global warming is a hoax. Mitch McConnell thinks the deal is meaningless, “As I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years.” That’s would be an excellent point if it weren’t totally untrue.

According to The Times, the deal requires that China “stop its emissions from growing by 2030.” It also requires that green energy “would account for 20 percent of China’s total energy production” by that year. That obviously does not mean that China doesn’t have to do anything for the next 16 years. McConnell is just being calculatedly stupid. But again, McConnell would be against this deal regardless, because his oil company backers are against it.

This all brings me back to my days in graduate school. We talked a lot about China and other developing countries and how it was wrong to expect them to simply stop their greenhouse emissions. There were a number of aspects of this. One was that we had used excessive emissions to build our country and power our industrial revolution. We are richer now and thus more able to switch to green technologies. The obvious solution to this is for the developed economies to pay for the developing countries to get green technologies. This, of course, is totally opposed by conservatives. But more important, China then and now doesn’t emit nearly as much carbon as we do per capita. The US emits about as much carbon as China does, but China has 4.3 times as many people. The fact that one fat America eats as much as ten starving Chinese does not mean that the Chinese need to go on a diet.

None of this matters to conservatives, of course. Any idea that implies that the United States is a country like almost 200 others makes them see red. And the idea that we would do anything that would help everyone — even when it includes ourselves — is anathema to them. The whole “What about China!” argument is part of the Global Warming Denial Stages. The point is conservatives refuse to do anything about global warming — not because they don’t believe it but because it involves collective action that doesn’t involve killing people. So literally everything they say on the issue is just a justification for doing nothing.

The first step of global warming denial is, “There is no global warming!” The final step is, “Humans are causing global warming, but there is nothing we can do about it!” What’s remarkable is just how many sub-steps there are in that last one. And you will notice conservatives commonly switch between steps. One will make a “Can’t do anything” argument, but then retreat into a “scientists disagree and I’m no scientist” as soon as actual policies that could fight global warming are proposed.

I was taking a political science course during the Iran-Contra hearings. I remember a student asking, “After Watergate and this, why don’t people stop trusting the Republicans.” My teacher — an old school Democrat — said, “People just see these things are being representative of individuals and not the party.” And that’s what will continue to happen here. Regardless of how badly this all goes, conservatives in the future will just say, “Of course the party was wrong about global warming!” And they’ll say that as they continue to fight every new threat we face. And the people will vote for them, because hell, it isn’t the ideology — it’s just those old conservatives! Anyway, by then, they will probably have managed to change the voting requirements to being over 65 years old and at least seven-eighths Caucasian.

According to Dustin Volz over at National Journal, AOL Becomes Latest Tech Giant to Flee From ALEC. AOL has not said why it is leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council, but it is part of a trend. “In the space of two weeks in September, Google, Yahoo, and Yelp announced they had already left or were in the process of leaving ALEC, an exodus that began when Google Chairman Eric Schmidt charged that the group was ‘just literally lying’ about climate change.” So good for those high tech films — always forward thinking! Or not.

For example, Occidental Petroleum is leaving the group. A lot of companies have left ALEC and a lot of them will continue to do it. That’s because ALEC is toxic. It has long been known just what a vile group ALEC is, but it got a lot of press after George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. It turned out that ALEC had been pushing open carry and stand-your-ground laws. What the hell did that have to do with business interests? Well, nothing. And as soon as it became a political problem, the group stopped that. It’s two and a half years later and Google only just figured this out?

What’s really going on is that corporations are like psychopaths. ALEC pushed policies like “starve the poor and cut my taxes,” so Google and AOL didn’t care if the group was also calling for the genocide of all Americans less than seven-eighth Caucasian. Facebook is “not likely” to renew its membership — showing once again that it is a follower of followers. But these companies should get no credit for leaving this vile group years after its villainy was clear. (That’s years before Zimmerman started swaggering around Sanford, Florida.)

But the truth is that there is no reason for Google and company to not jettison support for ALEC. The group has done its job. America has been harmed. The economic playing field has tilted toward rich companies and away from start-ups. Many people all over the nation have gotten away with murder. And most of all: the companies themselves have been enriched. Now ALEC is a political liability. Google doesn’t need it. I’m sure they can find another group (They probably already have!) to do the same things, but with a less embarrassing name.

This sums up the current situation:

Why does anyone support any of these companies? Why did these companies — Especially a healthcare company! — support ALEC? It is disgraceful, but fully expected. These companies hate us. If they could put the human race in The Matrix style pods and siphon off our energy, they would. I was being extremely accurate above when I described these companies as psychopaths. It is enshrined corporate law that they must act with the single focus of making money. And it has poisoned our entire society.

Have you always wanted to live inside a William Gibson novel? Good news: you already are! Except, of course, the cool parts.

H/T: Tom Sullivan

I’ve written a couple of articles about the threat that we now face because the Supreme Court decided to review King v Burwell. The first was, Supreme Court May Yet Destroy Obamacare — which goes over the case and how it could ultimately lead to the repeal of Obamacare. The second was just last night, Consservatives Will Kill Textualism to Hurt Obamacare — which discusses how the textualists on the Supreme Court will likely abandon their supposed judicial philosophy for the chance to harm the healthcare law they so hate. What I haven’t discussed is just what the effect of such a decision would be in the thirty-odd states that did not create their own exchanges.

Luckily, Jonathan Cohn is on the job, Here’s What the Supreme Court Could Do to Insurance Premiums In Your State. We are going to see insurance premiums go up — way up. This is a lot of disruption, “Nationwide, more than 4 million people living in 37 states would be in situations like these.” But there’s more. Because the premiums would quickly rise, most people would be unable to continue to afford it and this would have a destabilizing effect on insurers. And this would mean everyone else would be paying more:

I’m reminded of John Roberts disingenuous comment about just calling balls and strikes. This case is not about playing umpire. If the Supreme Court manages to gut Obamacare, it will be doing it as the partisan judicial arm of the Republican Party. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but it is literally true: if the Supreme Court does this, people will die as a direct result. And John Roberts and the rest of the conservatives on the court are delusional if they think they are just disinterested parties calling strikes.

The one thing that has most defined the Roberts Court has been legal scholars consistently amazed that cases that would have been laughed out of small claims court a few years ago finding a winning audience in the highest court in the nation. If Roberts is really interested in his legacy, he’s doing a terrible job of it. Roger Taney is mostly remembered for a single decision. Roberts will be remembered as the Chief Justice who oversaw the complete breakdown of law in the name of partisan gain.

In this case, the people most targeted are going to see an overwhelming assault. Cohn provided the following graph to show just how big an effect the lack of federal subsidies will be in the states that are directly affected:

That’s a 500% increase in Florida. Good thing they voted for Rick Scott! But that’s actually nothing compared to the people of Mississippi who will see their average premium go from $23 to $438 — an increase of over 1,900%! What’s most remarkable about this lawsuit is that this is exactly what it is trying to do. This isn’t some unfortunate side effect. The idea is to get people angry so that they kill the law. But if that doesn’t happen, it means that people will pay taxes and without getting any benefit from it.

I hate books and television shows with titles like, “America’s Stupidest Criminals!” It doesn’t reflect an understanding that most crime is the result of desperation. Robbing a liquor store is not at the top of most people’s list of, “How to make ends meet!” So I’m very understanding of the millions in our jails and prisons. But the kind of people who push lawsuits like King v Burwell are not desperate. They are simply harming other people — mostly powerless people — just to get an advantage. They are doing this because a tiny tax was enacted for the rich. That is, after all, the reason conservatives are against Obamacare. Forget the individual mandate and all that; they hate the law because it raised taxes on the rich.

So remember this graph when you hear conservatives talk with glee about the impending doom of Obamacare. This is what we are talking about. And these are not the people on welfare — those people won’t be affected. This is something that conservatives are doing to the working poor: people doing hard jobs for little money. That’s what modern conservatism is all about: afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable. They must be so pleased with themselves. Of course, that’s the great thing about being a sociopath: you always sleep well.

I bristle at most holidays, but Veterans Day has a special place in my mind. I’m not at all bothered by paying tribute to our veterans, but this holiday has a strong jingoist feel to it. Here in the United States, being against war is generally seen as being against the soldiers who we have do our dirty work. But that’s just a con. In general, people don’t like wars. So by grafting “support the war” onto “support the troops” our war mongers can get a pass.

Remember when Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have — not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time”? The implication there was that the Iraq War was existential. We had to go war right then. Of course, missing from this analysis was the six months that the administration used for a propaganda campaign to goose up support for that war. Where exactly was the support for the troops then?

Rumsfeld was answering a question from Army Specialist Thomas Wilson, “Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don’t we have those resources readily available to us?” But in the American psyche, support for the troops is putting a yellow ribbon on your SUV and never questioning the justice or advisability for the war. “America right or wrong!”

Last year, when writing about Veterans Day, I noted that most of our wars were useless and this does not reflect on the men who fight them, “It is no disrespect to Achilles and Hector to note that the Trojan War was useless and tragic.” But useless wars are a reflection on those who start them and those who sell them.

Veterans Day was originally Armistice Day — a celebration of the end of the very useless World War I. It was specifically intended to mark that war and the roughly twenty million who had died fighting it. At the end of World War II, Armistice Day was expanded to celebrate all veterans and the day was changed officially to Veterans Day in 1954 — the first one was 60 years ago today.

It is a technical distinction, but an important one. Armistice Day was always about veterans — specially dead veterans. But it called to mind the end of war — a great gift to soldiers everywhere. Veterans Day flips this on its head. It implies that veterans are a good thing to have. “Let’s make some more veterans!” To me the day is not about celebrating veterans, but of asking forgiveness. Does anyone think it was right to draft young men and have them die for the sake of World War I? Such a distinction is the difference between jingoistic “America, hell yeah!” and, as Woodrow Wilson said when first celebrating Armistice Day, an occasion of “solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service.”

I would think differently if something had changed. We can celebrate past wars and the people who fought in them. My concern is that Veterans Day is used to push casual war as an acceptable practice. Now the United States is in perpetual war. We might as well change Veterans Day to Soldier Day, for all the difference it makes. Many of the founders of this country were concerned about having a standing army. I wonder what they would think of us today with our standing wars.

So celebrate Veterans Day. Honor our veterans — living and dead. But don’t lose sight of reality. There are no “bloody good wars” — just bloody wars.