Category Archives: political cowardice

The False Equivalence Trumpists

Posted on by

Trying to pick your least favorite type of Trump supporter is not easy. The competition is stiff, and there are strong arguments for all of them.

Trumpist Typology

Greed Trumpists. There’s the Greed Trumpists, who will put up with any Trump outrage – kids torn from mothers and put in cages, white supremacy encouragement, coordinating with foreign enemies interfering in our democracy — to get a tax cut, even a tax cut that represents relative crumbs compared to the mountains of loaves lavished on billionaires.

Personality Cult Trumpists. There are the Personality Cult Trumpists, many of whom watched far too many episodes of The Apprentice with an uncritical eye.  They find Trump entertaining and embrace the myth of Trump’s deal-making skills and “only I can fix it” hucksterism, despite his pandemic response debacle and tax returns that expose Trump as a bumbler of epic proportions.

Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. Then there’s the Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. They ignore of the dozens of Trump’s extreme anti-Christian actions—serial sexual abuse and infidelity and cutting food subsidies for the poor to name just a couple — that make a mockery of the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes  in order to hoard as many Fallwell-endorsed judges as possible.

Tribal Trumpists. Who can forget the Tribal Trumpists, who will let Trump take their loved one’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) health protections and Social Security benefits just to be able to say that their Red Tribe of “real Americans” stuck it to the Blue Tribe of “libtard snowflakes.” Go team!

Changeophobe Trumpists. Changeophobe Trumpists are fearful of our fast-changing world and ever-nostalgic about the glories of what they view as the good old days of their childhoods. They are particularly susceptible to Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” by keeping coal dirty, light bulbs inefficient, America white, global competition at bay, and bigotry unchallenged.

Racist Trumpists. The Racist Trumpists are obviously a very strong contender for least favorite.  They insist that Trump’s villifying of immigrants and people of color is a “refreshing rejection of political correctness,” instead of a wink and a nod to the full spectrum of racists, from those of us who are sometimes lousy at recognizing systemic racism to full-blown white supremacist activists like the Proud Boys, Aryan Nations, Volksfront, American Freedom Party, Ku Klux Klan, and White Aryan Resistance.

Thug Trumpists. And then there are Thug Trumpists, who can’t recognize the difference between bullying and actual strength, and gravitate towards authoritarian personalities to serve as a binky to make them feel more secure in the face of their overblown fears of our changing and more diverse nation.

False Equivalence Trumpists

But the last month of the election is when we unfortunately have to be hearing a lot from perhaps my least favorite type of Trump supporters — the False Equivalence Trumpists.  They continually declare that “both sides do it” to make their vote for the most bigoted, incompetent, and corrupt President in U.S. history seem somehow defensible.

Since last night’s presidential debate, the False Equivalence Trumpists were out in full force, complaining about “both candidates” being equally bad and lamenting that they “once again have to choose the lesser of two evils.” 

Though they carry an air of intellectual superiority in their assertions, False Equivalence Trumpists are among the most intellectually lazy of all of the Trumpists types. 

Obviously, both candidates have sold out to a special interest, lied, supported an unwise policy, or made a big mistake. Same as it ever was.  But from that truth, False Equivalence Trumpists quickly jump to the safety of “both sides do it equally,” instead of digging into the facts to determine which candidate does it more.  In a democracy, doing that kind of qualitative differentiation is a voter’s duty, and they consistently shrink from it.

Because False Equivalence Trumpists find it distasteful to be held accountable for supporting an imperfect candidate, they stubbornly cling to the truth of “both sides do it,” but not the whole truth.  The whole truth is that any fair-minded analysis comparing Trump and Biden will show that Trump is much more incompetent, much more bigoted, much more dishonest, and much more corrupt. 

But this group of Americans lacks either the judgement to see that truth, or the courage to speak it.

The False Equivalence Trumpists are top-of-mind right now because, we are entering the final month of the presidential campaign with about 6 percent of the voters somehow still undecided.  Tragically, these pathologically indecisive Americans could be decisive on November 3rd.  The fact that the fate of the nation, and maybe even the planet, falls to this group of Americans is crazy making and terrifying.

On Minnesota Police Reform, Show Me The Money

Posted on by

In the wake of the George Floyd murder, I’m appreciative that the Minnesota Legislature finally is about to pass some police reforms. But I’m also pretty underwhelmed.  

Based on reports I’ve heard, it seems heavy on mandates and light on investments in changing the face of law enforcement. The compromise package that will soon pass includes things such as requiring officers to intervene in cases of abuse, banning choke holds and “warrior training,” and having a better statewide database on abuse cases. 

That’s all good stuff, as far as it goes.  The problem is, it doesn’t go very far.  The New York Times summarizes the debate and the unfinished business:

“Ultimately, legislators could not reach a deal that reconciled the Democrats’ calls for far-reaching changes to police oversight with Republican leaders who supported a shorter list of “common-sense police reforms” that included banning chokeholds in most situations and requiring officers to stop their colleagues from using unreasonable force.

Democrats said the plan passed by the Republican-led Senate consisted of tepid half-steps that were already in place in most law-enforcement agencies and did not rise to the moment’s calls for dramatic action. Republicans balked at the proposals passed by the Democrat-controlled House to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons and put the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, in charge of prosecuting police killings.

Republican leaders later said they had agreed to alter arbitration proceedings when officers are accused of misconduct, but Democrats said it was not enough.

All week, state legislators held emotional hearings on proposals to increase oversight of how the police use force and are disciplined; change the process for firing officers; and explore alternatives to policing, such as sending social workers to respond when people in mental distress need help.”

What About Ending Marijuana Prohibition?

I was disappointed that putting the marijuana prohibition question on the ballot wasn’t part of this session focused on preventing future police abuses. After all, the ACLU has documented that marijuana prohibition is a root cause of much racial profiling and police abuse:

A Black person in Minnesota is 5.4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person. Minnesota ranks 8th for largest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests.  In 2018, marijuana possession arrests accounted for 35% of all drug arrests here. 

Although the overwhelming majority of Minnesota counties have racial disparities, Goodhue, Olmstead, St. Louis, Ramsey and Carver Counties have the worst records, ranging from Black people being 7.07 times more likely to face arrest than whites in Carver County to 11.19 times more likely in Goodhue County.  

Arrest rates decreased in states that legalized marijuana, but racial disparities remained. 

It’s clear what we need to do. Let’s take marijuana enforcement off of police officer’s plates, because marijuana is much less dangerous and addictive than legal alcohol, and it’s leading to much police abuse.

I understand this would have been a very tough sell with Senate Republican leadership, but this topic should have at least been part of the discussion. Legislators should have seized this educable moment to further build already strong public support for legalizing marijuana. (KSTP 2018 survey: 61% support marijuana legalization, including 54% of Republicans)

Reforms That Require Substantial Investment

Also missing from the list of reforms are any proposals to professionalize policing that costs more than a nominal amount of money. Spending money is something that both sides avoid, because neither side wants to take the political hit for proposing offsetting spending cuts and/or tax increases.

For instance, how about paying for a rigorous De-escalation and Racial Justice Re-Training Academy, to give every Minnesota law enforcement officer in the state extensive training about how to do their job more respectfully, lawfully, safely, and effectively.  How about requiring all officers to subsequently pass a training proficiency test to prove they did more than doze and wise-crack their way through the training? 

To keep this re-training top-of-mind and up-to-date, how about also funding biennial supplemental training courses, such as we require for other professions with life-and-death powers (e.g. Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits for medical professionals)? 

How about a Police Professionalization Fund to establish financial incentives for local governments that hire college-educated officers and/or officers from under-represented communities?

How about a Hometown Officer Fund to pay for moving expenses for officers who move their home into the neighborhoods they are serving?

(Note, a couple of these good ideas came from Wry World Messrs. Lambert and Austin.)

Think about it. More officers who are college educated people of color whose family lives in the community they serve and have extensive and regular training about how to be a different kind of public servant.  All of that coupled with the changes in the current bill would go a long ways toward changing the toxic culture in many law enforcement departments. 

But all of those things cost money. The State should be funding them because many unenlightened and/or financially strapped local governments are unlikely to do these things on their own without financial help. 

But apparently legislators from both parties still aren’t willing to put their money where their mouths are. So unfortunately there’s much more police reform work to do in the 2021 session.

Desperate Klobuchar Puts Cheap Shots Over The Truth

Posted on by

Throughout her career, Senator Amy Klobuchar has always stuck to political “small ball,” refusing to use her carefully hoarded political capital to fight for the proposals that will take patience to enact, but will make the biggest difference for struggling Americans.  The Star Tribune explains:

But as Klobuchar pursues the pragmatic politics of constituent service and bipartisan dealmaking, she faces some frustration on the left, particularly among gay activists and environmentalists who see her playing it safe in the middle of the road.

“There are big, fundamental system change issues we have to address,” said Steve Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, which has battled Klobuchar over climate change legislation and her support for a new Stillwater bridge over the St. Croix River. “Dealing with swimming pools is good and important to families, but it doesn’t change the big drivers of our society.”

So, last night it was hardly surprising to see Klobuchar taking cheap shots at Senator Elizabeth Warren over Warren’s championing of for Medicare for All, which will obviously be challenging to pass in the near term.

“The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is whether it can actually get done.”

Bam!  Klobuchar is likely high-fiving her (ducking) staffers this morning.  She’s in the news!  She’s finally relevant!

But from a progressive standpoint, here’s the fatal flaw with Klobuchar’s lifelong approach to leadership.  Once upon a time, the following things were all considered by moderates like Klobuchar to be “pipe dreams not plans,” or things that Klobuchar would not deem worthy of a fight because, in their day, they didn’t immediately have the votes to pass:  Medicare, civil rights, voting rights, minimum wage increases, and marriage equality, to name just a few. 

Those things just happen to be some of the crowning policy achievements of the modern Democratic Party, and they never would have been enacted if progressives with political courage hadn’t fought for them at a stage when the votes weren’t there.

Senator Klobuchar’s biggest problem isn’t that she has a sordid record of being immature and cruel to staff, as disturbing as that is to those of us who believe that character is revealed by how you act when no one is watching.  Klobuchar’s even bigger problem is that she will never be the kind of courageous leader who fights the most consequential fights for ordinary families, when the fight is not yet politically advantageous to her in the short-term.

As for Medicare-for-All, 247 independent economists recently are on the record countering Klobuchar’s criticism that Senator Warren’s approach will cost too much.  Those economists find that Medicare-for-All will cost Americans less than the current corporate-driven system protected by Klobuchar, not more.

In the letter, the economists underline the savings of the multi-payer insurance system in the United States, especially compared to other countries. “Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for health care,” the letter states, “but of reducing total health care outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently.”

Economic analyses by the Mercatus Center and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, for example, have projected the Medicare for All would reduce total national health care costs by hundreds of billions of dollars each year while simultaneously guaranteeing safe, therapeutic health care for every person in the United States.

Senator Klobuchar is smart and does her homework, so she understands this truth.  She also understands that if the votes aren’t immediately there for Medicare-for-All, Democrats will adjust, and try to enact Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It or Obamacare improvements until the votes for Medicare-for-All do exist. She knows that’s how legislative strategy works.

But Klobuchar, hovering at just 2% in an average of national polls, is obviously desperate.  So last evening, she went with a self-serving cheap shot over the truth, and advocated the easy policy path over the more impactful policy path.  To Minnesota progressives, that sure sounds familiar, which may explain why she is running in fourth place in her home state.

Minnesota’s Trumpublican Trio Owns The Trump Damage

Posted on by

This week, statewide coverage featured Minnesota Republican Congressman Erik Paulsen, Tom Emmer and Jason Lewis mugging with President Donald Trump’s lead partner in crime, Vice President Mike Pence.

The news coverage serves as a helpful reminder to Minnesotans that these three gentlemen have enabled Donald Trump’s disastrous presidency every step of the way. They have slavishly voted for the mean-spirited Trump agenda about 90% of the time. It reminds us that the reelection of Minnesota’s Trumpublican Trio is effectively a referendum on Trump’s corruption, chaos, incompetence, and extremism.  A few things that Minnesotans should be reminded of during campaign season:

WEAKENING OUR HEALTH PROTECTIONS. These three congressmen repeatedly supported Trumpcare, which would have stripped health protections from 51 million Americans, and only had the support of 17% of Americans. They are also complicit with Trump’s ongoing sabotaging of the historically effective Affordable Care Act protections. Moreover, they oppose efforts that would make health protections much more available and affordable, such as with a national reinsurance program, restoration of the Cost Sharing Reductions (CSR) they cut, and giving Americans the option of buying into the popular and efficient Medicare program.

DEFICIT SPENDING TO ENRICH BILLIONAIRES. Paulsen, Emmer, and Lewis brought us Trump’s trickle down tax code, which gives a huge tax break to the wealthiest 1% at a time when we are suffering from the worst wealth inequality since 1928. The top 1% got an obscene 83% of the benefits provided in the tax bill, creating the largest transfer of wealth to the richest Americans in the nation’s history.

Oh, and by the way, these self-proclaimed “deficit hawks” put the $1.5 trillion cost of their lavish tax giveaway to the wealth on the federal credit card that our kids and grandkids now have to pay.  Absolutely shameless.

PUTTING TRUMP ABOVE THE LAW. They have turned a blind eye to Trump’s repeated obstruction of justice during the investigation into Russia’s attack on America’s democratic jewel, our free and fair elections. This obstruction of justice is far more extensive than the actions that forced President Nixon out of the White House, but the Republicans of 1972 had enough integrity to fulfill their oversight duties and push Nixon out, while these contemporary Republicans are cavalierly shrugging it off.

PUTTING NRA CONTRIBUTIONS OVER COMMON SENSE GUN PROTECTIONS. They have blocked common-sense gun protections that enjoy overwhelming public support, because they and their guy Trump value NRA donations over the wishes of the people they were elected to represent.

PUTTING CORPORATIONS’ NEEDS OVER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS. They have marched lockstep behind Trump as he has racked up the worst environmental record in our lifetime.  For instance, Trump made the United States the only nation on the planet to not sign the Paris accord on climate change.

These are just a few examples, but the list of pro-Trump votes is a long one. According to FiveThirtyEight, Rep. Emmer votes with Trump 87% of the time, Rep. Lewis votes with Trump 90% of the time and Rep. Paulsen votes with Trump 97% of the time. Clearly, a vote for Emmer, Lewis, and Paulsen is effectively a vote for the historically unpopular Trump.  Minnesotans who are fed up with Trump need to be speaking out, donating and organizing against them.

Why Not Regulate Guns Just As We Already Regulate A Similarly Dangerous Hunk of Steel?

Posted on by

Imagine that you turned on the news today to learn that Group A of politicians was accusing Group B of politicians of plotting to confiscate all automobiles.  As evidence, Group A was noting that Group B supports requiring users of vehicles to be licensed, registered and of sound, mind and body, and opposes the use of armored tanks or monster trucks on community roadways.  In that news story, imagine that Group A is insisting that no vehicle regulations be used.  After all, they claim, any regulation would be equivalent to, or would surely lead to, confiscation of all vehicles.

We would think Group A was delusional, even though we all adore cars and are vehemently opposed to them being confiscated. But that, my friends, is the world in which we are living, when it comes to gun control.

Almost every debate about responsible gun control regulation is dodged by gun advocates. Instead of debating proposed gun regulations on the merits, gun advocates instead claim that the mere mention of a gun regulation constitutes ipso facto evidence that guns are about to be confiscated. That ridiculous assertion has been trotted out there for decades, despite the fact that gun confiscation has never even been proposed by a mainstream politician, much less come close to being enacted.

Obama_gun_control_confiscation_memeGun advocates promised President Obama would be a gun confiscator, and they rushed out to buy stockpiles of weapons and ammunition.  To no sane person’s surprise, it never happened, even in the first two years of his presidency when Obama’s party controlled the House, Senate and White House.  It was never even proposed.

Obviously, no one is going to confiscate guns, because there is no political support in America for confiscating guns. It hasn’t happened, and it’s just not going to happen.  We need to put those confiscation delusions to rest before America can have a reasonable debate about how to responsibly regulate guns.

A Familiar Regulatory Framework

How should America regulate guns?  My approach is simple: Let’s regulate guns similarly to how we regulate cars and trucks.

Think about it:  Both motor vehicles and guns are hunks of steel that pose relatively little public danger when used responsibly, but are extraordinarily dangerous when used irresponsibly. For that reason, society keeps motor vehicles legal, but we regulate them to reduce the risk of harm.  Therefore, we should regulate guns just as we regulate motor vehicles:

  • Users should be licensed.
  • Users should have to pass a basic safety-related test in order to get a license.
  • Users who are not physically or mentally equipped to safely operate the equipment should not be licensed to do so.
  • There should be rules for safe use of the equipment.
  • Users who don’t use the equipment responsibly should lose their license.
  • Each piece of equipment should be registered.
  • Equipment registration data and user licensure data should be readily available to law enforcement officials to help them enforce laws.
  • The equipment should be able to be used in many parts of the community, but not in all parts of the community.
  • The equipment should be required to have locking devices to help the user secure it from theft and use by minors and other unlicensed citizens.
  • The equipment should be required to have reasonable safety features.
  • The equipment makers should be held liable for failure to produce safe equipment, just as every other manufacturer is.
  • Types of equipment that are unnecessarily dangerous to the community shouldn’t be legal.

That’s what American society does with cars and trucks, with relatively few complaints or abuses, and that’s what we should do with guns.

Would applying the motor vehicle regulatory model to guns stop every accidental shooting, murder, mass murder, and suicide? Of course not. Just as regulated motor vehicles still are dangerous, regulated guns would still be plenty dangerous. But just as motor vehicle regulations limit the harm caused by cars and trucks in society, gun regulations would limit the harm caused by guns in society.  It would make a difference.  It would make things less bad.

So let’s have an honest debate about that familiar and successful regulatory model.  And for once, let’s have the debate without getting side-tracked by ridiculous delusions of confiscation.

Note:  In the wake of yesterday’s horrific and all too familiar shootings in Las Vegas, this is a Wry Wrerun.  A very similar version was originally posted in October of 2015.

On Marijuana Prohibition, Minnesota Legislators Are Not High On Substance

Posted on by

Cursor_and_Support_increases_for_marijuana_legalization___Pew_Research_CenterI recently wrote to Minnesota legislators to ask them to end marijuana prohibition, as many states have recently done. The responses I’ve received have been disappointing, not because they disagreed with me, but because they were utterly vacuous.

In matters of political debate, I’m a big boy. For more than thirty years, I have worked in and around bare knuckle politics. I grew up a liberal in a deep red state (South Dakota), so I am very accustomed to losing arguments. Still I value a good substantive discussion, because that’s how attitudes change over time.

But what I got back from Minnesota legislators was birdbrained political handicapping, not substance. I sent them a note with this evidence-heavy blog post, and expected at least a somewhat substantive rebuttal to my arguments.

Instead, I got responses like this from Minnesota legislators (excerpted):

“…it is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future that the Minnesota Legislature will take such a step.

…

Numerous concerns have been expressed about the negative impact legalization would have on public safety, and the incidence of addiction.

…

Nonetheless, please know should any proposals related to marijuana come before me, I will give them the thoughtful consideration they merit.”

Blah, blah, blah. I don’t use marijuana, but reading these responses made me dumber than any drug ever could.  Every response I received had a similar cavalier shrug of the shoulder, political handicapping, “some people say…” passive aggressiveness, and refusal to state a personal position or respectfully rebut mine.

In my misspent youth, I spent a few years drafting such responses for a U.S. Senator.  So I’m a bit of a connoisseur of this dark art.  My liberal former boss always insisted on providing his mostly conservative constituents with his evidence-based arguments.  He felt he owed them that, that it was a sign of respect.  I got nothing of the kind from Minnesota legislators.

Obviously, the chances of overturning marijuana prohibition under a GOP-controlled Legislature, U.S. Department of Justice, Congress and White House are nonexistent.  But I took the time to contact legislators because I wanted to educate them, compare notes and move the conversation forward.  I know that popular opinion on this issue is changing rapidly, and that election swings change political calculations overnight, as we saw with marriage equality. So I sincerely wanted to gain a better understanding of how Minnesota legislators were processing the issue.

If Minnesota legislators really believe that marijuana is more addictive than alcohol, show me your data.  If they really believe that marijuana laws aren’t being used to disproportionately punish people of color, show me your data.  If they really believe that marijuana kills more people than alcohol, or causes more health problems, show me your data.

And if you concede the accuracy of all of the data that I’ve supplied, explain the logic of continuing prohibition of marijuana, while expanding the availability of much more destructive alcohol products.

That type of disagreement I can respect. That kind of disagreement moves the democratic dialogue forward. But using “it’s not going to pass” and “some interest groups say…” deflections as a substitute for substantive debate is for pundits, not policymakers.