...although this is probably more of a gripe about American voters.
I was cheered by the news that Justice Juan Merchan has fined Donald Trump for violating the gag order that is supposed to prevent the latter from commenting on the judge, prosecutors, witnesses, their families, et al in his ongoing New York criminal trial.
But on the other hand, every time Trump inches closer to donning the proverbial orange jumpsuit, his poll numbers seem to rise.
Somewhat along those lines, I saw this item earlier today, in an e-newsletter I receive from conservative opinion columnist Byron York: "On Sunday came a poll from CNN that was simply devastating for [President Biden]’s reelection hopes...the poll showed Trump with a 6-point lead over Biden, 49% to 43%, in a head-to-head national matchup...Even more damaging for Biden was that when asked to assess both the Trump and Biden presidencies, 55% of those surveyed called Trump’s presidency a success, while 61% called Biden’s presidency a failure."
I'm not sure which adjective is best-suited to describe my reaction to the yellow-highlighted phrase above: shocked? Appalled? Aghast?
I think this lawfare is blowing up in Democrats' faces. It seems moderately clear that a majority of voters don't think Trump should be on trial or punished; and the events of January 6th apparently have been flushed down the memory hole.
538 (fivethirtyeight.com) has polls from a variety of sources that are all over the map.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Americans always love a circus, and my guess is that there are enough people who are titillated by the prospect of just how weird things Trump Part II might get that will push him over the top.
Nobody ever accused Americans of being overly smart or empathetic. We've voted in awful people before. We will again. Maybe in a few months.
"I think this lawfare is blowing up in Democrats' faces."
ReplyDeleteThe use of the word lawfare implies that the legal cases against Trump are underhanded and illegitimate efforts intended to harm him politically. I don't know if that is what you intended. See Jonathan Chait's article in New York Magazine titled Donald Trump Is Not the Victim of ‘Lawfare.’ He’s a Crook. An excerpt:
“Lawfare” means using the law as a weapon to get Trump. Conservatives ranging from the Trumpiest wing of the movement to the most Trump-skeptical — the ones who used to attack him as a crook — have all employed this term to describe the entire range of Trump’s legal problems, from his New York fraud conviction to his indictments in New York and Atlanta to both of Jack Smith’s federal cases.
The advantage of this catchall term is that it allows Trump’s defenders to ignore the specifics of Trump’s misconduct, or at least to analyze it in a highly selective way. There are indeed a couple instances in which Trump has faced legal challenges that are questionable (the attempt to disqualify him from the ballot based on the 14th Amendment) or downright weak (Alvin Bragg’s indictment over hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels). Conservatives tend to focus obsessively on these cases, and “lawfare” is a permission structure that allows them to use these cases to ignore or discredit the others, where Trump’s behavior is impossible to defend.
Yeah, it's a handy way for Republicans appalled by Trump to blame him on a supposed Democratic plot to discredit him with unwarranted lawsuits (like you said). Bill Kristol was peddling this on something Raber was watching that I was only half listening to. Republicans, much like Trump, are painting themselves as victims as if they had nothing to do with supporting him, nominating him, and standing by his policies.
DeleteThis the first definition of "Lawfare" from Collins dictionary: "the strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent." In this case, the claim is that prosecutors bring charges against Trump to hurt politically. I can buy that.
DeleteWhich of the charges against Trump do you believe have been brought to harm him politically, and which (if any) have been brought legitimately to address wrongdoing?
Delete1. New York civil fraud case.
2. New York "hush money" case.
3. Georgia election interference case.
4. Federal case charging mishandling of classified documents.
5. Federal case charging election interference.
6. E. Jean Carroll's first and second defamation cases.
7. As unindicted co-conspirator, Arizona phony electors case.
Well they all ought to harm him politically. The expected outcome for ordinary people who break the law in various ways is that they are likely to be prosecuted. But Trump is *special*. If you don't believe it just ask him.. Any of them are legitimate in that he actually did the things he is being charged with. But if I were asked to pick the gravest ones from a civil viewpoint I would say 3, 4, 5, and 7. Maybe #5 is supposed to cover the events of Jan. 6, 2021 in which he attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. But to me that is the most serious and the one they should have concentrated on. .Merrick Garland would have made a good SCOTUS justice. But he seems lacking as an AG. The Jan 6 case should have been first rattle out of the box , so to speak. And it should have been early.
DeleteI agree. Repubs grousing that "lawfare is just helping Trump" should be slapped. IMO, the GOP owes the entire country an abject apology for supporting Trump in the first place and should be working diligently to rectify the situation, not blaming Democrats for trying to bring that clown to account.
Delete"Which of the charges against Trump do you believe have been brought to harm him politically, and which (if any) have been brought legitimately to address wrongdoing?"
DeleteI don't consider those categories to be mutually exclusive. But Democratic (and Republican) prosecutors aren't obligated to prosecute every possible violation of the law. In deciding that question, one useful question to ask is, "In case we lose the next election, are we incentivizing the other side to go after our guy, tit-for-tat?" What's the appetite here to see Joe Biden prosecuted for, say, storing classified documents in his garage? Or Hunter Biden prosecuted for any of a hundred illegal acts? Or Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigieg, or Gavin Newsom, or whoever is going to be the next Democratic candidate?
To run through your list:
1. New York civil fraud case - waste of time; should have skipped
2. New York "hush money" case - waste of time; should have skipped
3. Georgia election interference case - Trump said some pretty egregious things in a meeting which was recorded. But the more substantive Georgia violations haven't been tied ot him personally yet, as far as I've seen. Still, perhaps should have led with this rather than the New York cases, as the weakness of the New York cases sets the public's expectation that all of these are politically motivated and therefore bogus. But then again, Fani Willis's personal and professional irresponsibility has cast doubt on this prosecution, too.
4. Federal case charging mishandling of classified documents. - this is the strongest case against Trump. If the lawfare strategy was to pick one case to pursue (which, politically, might have been the most astute approach), this would be the one to choose.
5. Federal case charging election interference - certainly, he has minions who should be tried and convicted. How much Trump's actual fingerprints are all over this one, I'm not sure.
6. E. Jean Carroll's first and second defamation cases - he would have been well-advised to settle the first one, and then shut up so the second one wouldn't have been brought. I don't think these will wound him politically.
7. As unindicted co-conspirator, Arizona phony electors case - same as the GA case, without the damning recording (and without the misbehaving prosecutor). I'd think he has minions who would be in real jeopardy.
I agree with you about the NY cases.
DeleteI still don't see one of these categories though which really addresses the events of Jan. 6. That is the one which needed to prioritized. They got some downstream convictions. But there are some that stick to him and he shouldn't be allowed to weasel out. I will never forget as long as I live what I saw that day.
Agree with you about the E. Jean Carroll cases.
I am so disappointed in the Georgia case. Fanni Willis certainly shot herself in the foot.
The Arizona case should definitely bring down some minions.
Are the prosecutors all Democratic? This makes it lawfare. Is Trump guilty of these things and prosecutable? I would answer yes to this as well. The Democratic Party has a history of lawfare going back at least to Ralph Nader in 2000. They worked to keep him off the ballot and out of the debate. The Democratic Party always fights state-by-state to keep third parties and independents off the ballot. They fight for things like replacing the electoral college with the popular vote but even that might not be enough to save them this time. For ranked choice voting, nothing as far as I know. But the Democrats' weakness stems from their abandonment of the working class in the 80's and 90's. They are trying to run on identity politics and reproductive rights while catering to Wall Street and corporations and big donors. And this last triple war bill with the Democratic Senate members waving Ukrainian flags in the chamber. Rah, rah, sis boom ba. Unconditional support for the Israeli genocide is losing Biden votes. I don't believe I can cast a vote for Biden. It has nothing to do with his age but he's all in on this foolish military confrontation on many fronts for which we are not in shape. Of course, I can't vote for Trump either. I've heard rumors that a Heritage Foundation wrecking crew is ready to go to work as soon as Trump is re-elected. They will eviscerate the government, especially in the regulatory areas. I would expect my big fat government pension to take a hit. I could live with that. But, if they zero it out and cut out my medical coverage, it'll be a real lifestyle change. So Biden losing can have real negative personal consequences for me. But so be it. I'm done with the happy clappy genocide supporters. If the Green Party makes it to the ballot in PA, I'll vote for Jill Stein. Otherwise, I'll write her in.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Party doesn't have a history of lawfare?
DeleteI've voted third party before. Can't do it this time.
DeleteYes, the Limousine Libs abandoned the working class, though Biden gained back some cred when he visited the UAW picket line and has continued to buddy up with UAW pres Shawn Fain here in Michigan. Gov Whitmer and Mich Legislature have also overturned some rules that work against unions. And labor has no better friend than Katie Porter of Cailfornia, though she seems to have cut her career short with her failed Senate run.
DeleteThe 538 polls seem to show that Dem incumbents are in pretty good shape against Repubs. So Trump II could face a lot of opposition to stuff like gutting your pension. Hoping you will consider voting in Democrats down ballot in your state.
Of course, the Republicans are no better. But their approach is voter suppression as far as I can tell. I have no problem with Trump being prosecuted. I just think that the Democrats are blaming all their problems on voter irrationality when they have done so many things to drive them crazy. I would vote for Biden except for the genocide. When I get the silly emails from the Democratic Party, I send back a reply that I'll vote for Biden when he stops sending military aid to Israel. I can't vote for this insanity. Fetterman became a huge no strings attached Israel supporter. I am so done with him. I now reply to his funding requests with suggestions he'll get his money from AIPAC. I'll look at the lower-level democratic candidates on a one-by-one basis. Senator Casey voted for genocide and war, too.
DeleteYeah, I used to consider myself too "principled" (to echo Mike Johnson) to vote for either party. After wasting votes for John Anderson and Gus Hall that did nothing to stop Ronald Ray-gun, I just sucked it up and voted Dem as the lesser of the evils.
DeleteOff topic, but Happy May Day, workers of the world. Feel free to sing along: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcsuvDolIKg&pp=ygUaSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hbGUgdG9ueSBiYWJpbm8%3D
ReplyDeleteWhy is he song "Now is the Month of Maying" going through my head?
DeleteThere's that Julie Andrews "Lusty Month of May" song from Camelot, if you can stand musical theater. https://youtu.be/vvrE_ekDXQc?si=EW23Cu9MAk0FY2bs
DeleteLOL, Jean, Camelot was our high school musical when I was junior. I was in the "ladies in waiting" group, didn't have a speaking part. We just had to sing "Guinevere, Guinevere, in that dim mournful year..." And my mom had to sew my costume. She was not happy.
DeleteGood song. I bought a little music box in formerly east Berlin several years ago that plays it. Along with a t-shirt that said "Held der Arbeit" ("Hero of Labor") for my protege Damien. My latest music box acquisition plays the Polish National Anthem, Dabrowski's Mazurka.
DeleteGeez, Jean - from "The Internationale" to "Camelot" in the space of about 40 minutes?
DeleteI'll cop to being the resident musical theatre nerd, but I have to admit, I've never quite understood the appeal of "Camelot". Songs like "How to Handle a Woman" and "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" always struck me as a little tin-eared (at least philosophically if not melodically), at least by the time I sort of became aware of them, sometime in the mid-1970s.
(I missed the whole Camelot/Kennedy thing, so apologies to those for whom that association resonates).) If anything, it seems safe to say that (philosophically, at any rate) those numbers haven't aged well. I understand they rewrote the book for a revival mounted within the last year or two on Broadway, but I don't think it did very well.
Anyway, all that said: I have to admit I do really like "Lusty Month of May". Julie Andrews was in peak form. Here's a more recent, live performance from BBC Proms (which admittedly encompasses some of the same elitism that Camelot does), with Sierra Boggess singing it. She also has a really fine voice. Be warned that this version is preceded by about 3 minutes of orchestra-only prelude; I think these BBC Proms efforts strove to be faithful to the original scores, so presumably that's how it was done on stage, too (although the recording you provided wisely excises it). If you want to skip all the instrumental stuff, fast-forward to about the 2:58 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t--e0S5kelY
I loathe musicals except for Gilbert and Sullivan, which parody musical theater. The Seven Deadly Virtues from Camelot is akin to a patter song. Raber insisted we see Gypsy one year at Stratford. That was better than I expected, but I would rather have seen Much Ado About Nothing.
DeleteYeah Commies to Camelot in under an hour. I blame the meds and coffee. Going thru a batch of good days since mid-April. Give me a couple weeks and I won't be able to follow simple instructiond or get out of a chair.
More high school musical memories; dress rehearsal for Camelot. The guy who played Lancelot had a mustache drawn with an eyebrow pencil. One of the ladies in waiting (not me!) came back from break with eyebrow pencil smeared all over her mouth. Lancelot was smeared too. Someone finally told them to go check in a mirror.
DeleteI loved musicals but saw the movie versions. The later ones seem a bit preachy on the LGBTQ stuff and not as musical. I guess I dropped off with "Grease" since I'm not a fan of John Revolting. But, when I was a kid, the beautiful voice and beautiful face of Shirley Jones was always a great treat. I consider "Blues Brothers" to be a great musical. Glad you had some fun being in one, Katherine.
DeleteForgot about The Music Man, with Robert Preston and his pool table. The Boy liked that movie, being a trombone player. I liked Victor/Victoria because the songs took place on stage instead of people singing loudly in each other's faces at romantic intervals, but, uh oh, LGBTQ material, so can't have that!
Delete"He gave River City the library building but he left all the books to HER." Probably a reason I took up the French Horn. Mr. Preston came out of the closet in Victor/Victoria. His stentorian voice was great in both movies. If it's part of a larger story with some heterosexuals in it, I'm ok. Lots of Sci-Fi today has LGBTQ characters. Most recently, "Three-body Problem", "Bodies". I've watched these with no problem except maybe with the science. I just watched the movie about gay civil rights activist Bayard Rustin and it was great. I would probably want to watch a movie about the composer Poulenc. I can probably relate to his spiritual side and his feeling of loss at the death of his loved one. But I'm not into gayness as some sort of funny entertainment for the rest of us.
DeleteMy high school did The Music Man the following year, when I was a senior. I thought it was fun at the time, but looking back I found it kind of cringe. Everyone was for getting Marian the Librarian married off to Harold Hill, because the worst thing in the world would be staying a single librarian. So much so that it would be fine if she married this rando con artist who came into town the day before yesterday. But of course he was motivated to change his ways. Uh huh, right.
Delete"I think this lawfare is blowing up in Democrats' faces. It seems moderately clear that a majority of voters don't think Trump should be on trial or punished; and the events of January 6th apparently have been flushed down the memory hole."
ReplyDeleteJim, I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly here. Is your point that Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for his crimes because it has made his base mad? My feeling is they're going to be mad and tribal and feral anyway, and giving Trump a pass because he's Trump and thinks he's invincible gives the idea that he's above the law.
I'm saying that the harder they go after him in court, the better he seems to do in the polling. If he actually spends a night in jail, presumably his numbers will go up again.
DeleteIt's maddening and insane, but what can be done? The man conspired to stay in office after he was voted out. What do you suggest? A presidential pardon? The only thing that can be done, it seems to me, is for Democrats to work as hard as possible to defeat him in the upcoming election. I don't see how it is possible to ease up on him by backing away from prosecuting him for his very real crimes.
DeleteI'm just surprised the abortion rights thing isn't working better for Biden. Is it because with the aging of the "me" generation, post-menopausal women don't really care because they don't have a need for it. Some older women seem ideologically attached to it and, if they think it's morally permissible, would want the option for their daughters. But the juice doesn't seem to be there. Maybe Trump deflected it by saying it's up to the states and won't oppose abortion rights at the federal level.
DeleteThe right to life people in our town are very worked up that Biden might enact a right to abortion as a federal law in response to feminist pressure. I think the whole subject is political Kryptonite.
Delete" ... the juice doesn't seem to be there."
DeleteSome are out of juice from helping single daughters who kept their babies. I know a fair number of women in this situation. They do babysitting for grandchild and support care for daughter whose co-parent is less than stellar. They're still committed to keeping abortion safe and legal, but they don't get too strident about it for fear of making their daughters feel some implied criticism.
I also think the juice is hidden to a large extent in the substantially larger percentage of women than men who say they will vote for Biden.
I agree - it is maddening and insane, and I also want to see him held to account. Ultimately, I think you named the right approach: beat him in the election. In fact, beat him so soundly that any claims he makes (as he surely will) that the election was rigged will be met with eyerolls.
DeleteThere has been some work toward accountability already. The hearings conducted by Congressional Democrats under Nancy Pelosi were both necessary and effective. That's probably the single best exercise in accountability so far.
Democrats in the House also attempted, and failed, to impeach him. The failure was foreordained, but perhaps it was worthwhile, for reasons of accountability, to at least put him in trial.
It would be good to at least see him tried in criminal court for withholding (and seeking to conceal) the classified documents. Perhaps after the election, if he loses.
P.S. to above, I'm definitely with you in feeling dismayed about the Trump voter hive mind.
ReplyDeleteWe have a local election/primary next week. One of the offices being voted for is county supervisor (in some locations they may be called commissioners?) There are two guys running, both have campaigned energetically. We have one that is our preference, but we were saying yesterday that we would think it was fine if the other person got it. They're both good people, with different approaches. I was saying that once upon a time we could say that about a presidential election. But that was in the before time.
ReplyDeleteIn deciding that question, one useful question to ask is, "In case we lose the next election, are we incentivizing the other side to go after our guy, tit-for-tat?"
ReplyDeleteYou might have a point if you buy the Republican lie that the prosecutions against Trump are part of a coordinated plot orchestrated by Joe Biden. That would be "lawfare." But all the prosecutions against Trump are the result of individual prosecutors taking their cases to grand juries, not the result of a coordinated plot. If Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, Kris Mayes, and Letitia James had conferred and, say, Smith had suggested to Bragg that Bragg slow-walk his case so as not to go first, or that he drop it altogether, because that was the best strategy for damaging Trump's chances for reelection, that would be exactly the kind of thing Trumpian conspiracy theorists are alleging. But that is not what in reality occurred.
I would be going too far to claim there was no element of partisanship involved when only Democratic prosecutors brought charges against Trump. But if all prosecutors viewed things from a purely nonpartisan perspective, why do we have Republicans and Democrats run against each other for district attorney positions? And how many Republican prosecutors would dare to bring charges against Trump no matter how evident his guilt? It is no surprise only Democrats have acted here.
. . . . the other side to go after our guy, tit-for-tat?
Merriam-Webster defines tit-for-tat as "an equivalent given in return (as for an injury) : retaliation in kind." Do you really mean to imply that it would be "tit-for-tat" to prosecute Biden for his mishandling of classified documents. Is there some kind of equivalence between Biden's carelessly handling a few classified documents and Trump taking boxes and boxes worth, refusing to comply with official requests for their return, lying about what he had, all culminating in an entirely justifiable FBI raid?
What there is to fear is not "tit-for-tat" retaliation if Trump is elected. It is the kind of corruption of government authority Trump falsely accuses Biden of, but is himself perfectly willing to engage in.
Right - I don't think these state and federal prosecutors are actively conspiring and coordinating with one another. Personally, I haven't heard the accusation that Joe Biden is the spider in the center of the web, directing all these actions.
DeleteBut nor do I suppose that each of these prosecutors independently thought up, all by themselves and in a vacuum, the idea of investigating Trump with a view to charging him with crimes. There are actors in the world who see the law as a weapon for attacking opponents, including political opponents, both to contribute to the partisan "team" and to advance one's own political career. I've read that Letitia James and, I think, Alvin Bragg openly campaigned to go after Trump when running for office.
And I suppose, in the partisan liberal legal community, there have been conversations about utilizing the law to hinder or even take down Donald Trump.
Republican and conservative partisans put Bill Clinton through similar hell some 30 years ago. It gave rise to Hillary's accusation of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy". Here is Wikipedia's recap of that lawfare - I hadn't remembered all the details, but reading them here, it all comes back to me:
"In response to ongoing accusations surrounding the Clintons' investment in a real estate development known as Whitewater in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Attorney General Janet Reno had appointed an independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, to investigate those accusations in 1994. [10] Starr's investigation began to branch out into other issues, from Filegate, to Travelgate, to Bill Clinton's actions in the civil case of his alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones prior to his presidency. In the course of the last of these, White House intern Monica Lewinsky signed an affidavit that she had not had a relationship with Clinton, but Lewinsky's confidant Linda Tripp had been recording their phone conversations and offered Starr tapes of Lewinsky describing her feelings for, and alleging intimate encounters with, the president. Clinton was asked to give a deposition, and accusations that he lied about an affair under oath first made national headlines on January 17, 1998, when the story was picked up by the conservative-right e-mail newsletter The Drudge Report. Despite swift denials from Bill, the media attention grew."
We're all well-trained to lapse into partisan mode, but in trying to think through the morality of this lawfare, I think much of it is morally justifiable, or at least defensible. Bill Clinton's committing #MeToo offenses before that term existed was a significant violation, and I don't doubt that Trump has committed many other crimes than those he has been charged with so far.
But even if it's justifiable or at least defensible, is it prudent? Does it work to the common good? Even viewing it through a partisan lens, is it wise?
I don't know if it's prudent or wise. But it's the way the cookie crumbles, for any ordinary citizen who commits crimes in full view, or even not in full view. I believe the legal term is "eff around and find out".
DeleteIs it just to prosecute small frogs for crimes, but let a big one skate by, because they're big, and have a lot of friends, and will make things unpleasant?
Katherine - true; I wouldn't want to live in a country with a legal double standard. But prosecutors have a responsibility to the common good. I am not certain that "throwing the book" at Donald Trump at this particular moment serves the common good. It seems to be becoming more clear by the day that it's *not* serving the common good.
DeleteTo be sure: if he is convicted of crimes, perhaps that will change some voters' thinking. But so far, the trend seems to be cutting in the opposite direction. It's perverse. But it indicates that a lot of voters think these prosecutors have ulterior motives. At least, that's my reading of the situation.
"Prosecutors have a responsibility to the common good."
DeleteI'm confused: So all these prosecutors should get together and decide which cases they'll let slide so Trump doesn't get too much sympathy? Isn't that pretty much a conspiracy to turn the electorate against him? How does election interference work to the common good?
In effect, Jim, you almost seem to be granting Trump the immunity he claims. Everyone likes to say that no man is above the law, but if prosecuting Trump seems to be increasing his popularity among his base, then his lawbreaking must be overlooked. Once again, Trump is saying he will not abide by the results of the upcoming election. Many fear violence if he loses the election, and some even fear it if he wins. I can't accept that someone whose offenses are as serious as Trump's should not be prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteIt's a difficult problem. Then, too, if he wins, it's widely thought that he will seek to pardon himself (including for the state charges, which would be doubly ridiculous).
DeleteAt the same time: it seems to be pretty mainstream legal doctrine that, while he is in office, he's immune from criminal charges and suits, for obvious reasons. And it's been a longstanding policy of the Justice Department not to affect elections by bringing charges against candidates or releasing information about them during an election season (James Comey notwithstanding). Neither of those items is an exact fit with Trump's circumstances, but it suggests that, not only is prudence being exercised, but that these prudential considerations have even been enshrined as policy.
It would have been best to bring charges against Trump immediately rather than wait (and, as I noted above, in at least one or two of the cases, it would have been better not to bring the charges at all), and to try to have the cases tried and the verdicts in before 2024 rolled around - certainly before the first primary vote was cast or first delegate selected.
And there is still the ultimate democratic backstop: beat him in the election.
Back to the original post for a moment: I saw an item earlier today suggesting that there are two concrete, issues-based reasons that Trump's presidency is now viewed as a success by a majority of voters:
ReplyDelete* Lower inflation and interest rates than what has prevailed during Biden's presidency
* Less activity / better control of immigrant activity at the southern border
The ascendancy of immigration as one of the key issues that concerns voters is one of the big political developments of the last decade.
One more thought, as I've invoked the notion of the Common Good in these comments: I view inflation as a Common Good issue, in that it impacts everyone to one extent or another. That said, it surely hurts people with low and fixed incomes more than people who are better off.
The corrosiveness of inflation almost certainly is an important reason that blue collar voters, including voters of color, are attracted to the GOP. Apparently they perceive Donald Trump and his party as likely to bring about lower inflation. I am not sure what to think of that perception. I think Joe Biden genuinely wants to be a champion of the American worker (although I think his party has lost the plot); and I think Trump is more style than substance when it comes to delivering on kitchen-table issues. I also think American presidents don't have much direct control over inflation.
As regards the Common Good, I think immigration is more complicated. But my sense is that immigrants improve American society in many ways, and in that sense, immigration is a Common Good issue.
Common good arguments in and of themselves get you caught in a philosophical morass. People argued eugenics was a common good because it eliminated mental and physical "defectives" as a drain on public time and money. People argue for abortion on demand and assisted suicide on similar grounds; it alleviates suffering and takes burdens off caregivers. The people who want to keep out immigrants because they're diseased criminals who don't speak English are appealing to the common good.
DeleteI'm not enamored of this line of thinking.
Last comment before going back into hibernation: If the Church has special consideration for the poor, oughtn't the common good be defined with that in mind?
DeleteFor instance, as you say, inflation isn't good for the poor, but you can't try to lower it by taking away social programs that keep the poor afloat. Controlling illegal immigration is a common good, but you can't do it by separating families and losing kids in the foster system.
The Church helps us to refine our notions of the common good and to identify acceptable methods for achieving it. I presume Catholic Republicans are aware of this and will vote accordingly.
Right - my understanding of what underlies the common good is: all of us are poor, except for a relatively few elites who have the ability to put their thumb on the scales of justice and the economy for their own benefit. That's a very traditional view of human society - it describes most/all societies, anywhere, ever.
DeleteWe might say the Preferential Option for the Poor helps detail that picture by pointing out there also is a stratum (or more than one) at the bottom of the social ladder to which basic human rights and necessities (food, shelter, health care et al) are denied. Another observation that resonates everywhere and at all times.
I think immigration is primarily a Preferential Option for the Poor issue: the immigrants themselves are poor and powerless. They are utterly dependent on the humanity and generosity of the US.
I think inflation is a Common Good issue: it hurts everyone.
The inflation rate during Obama’s last 4 years was considerably lower than during the Trump years. Do you think the people who want trump because of inflation would call for Obama to return to office.? Historically, the long term inflation rate in the US is about 3%. Biden is a bit higher, but real incomes are up on average, unemployment is at a record low. Higher real incomes and low unemployment spur demand, which can push up prices. Remember - the market clearing price of goods is the intersection of supply and demand ( in a “ perfect” economy). New jobs slowed a little bit this month - so now Wall Street is expecting ( hoping) that the Fed will lower interest rates. But 99% of Americans are clueless about economics and the republicans continue to push the lie that the economy is worse under Biden, when the opposite is true of most measures of economic activity. Crime is also way down, but according to the right wingers, it’s way up. What hope is there when so many people swallow these lies?
DeleteHi Anne. How are things going?
DeleteKatherine, my husband’s health has been stable now for two months. The Stanford docs identified several serious problems while he was in the hospital, started treatments then, and referred him to several specialists.Thats the good news. But I need prayers for my extreme anxiety and depression. Every day is a struggle to get through. I try to hide my feelings from my husband but sometimes fail. I so want to go home but there are still obstacles. I dread waking up each morning. So I try to take it one day at a time. We have to find a new place to live once we can go home, clear 51 years of stuff, fix the house and sell it. I’m not sure yet how we’re going to manage that. My lifesaver has been joining a small Lectio group at the local Catholic parish. The 4 other kind people in the group keep me going each week. They have showered me with love, prayers and kindness. So I may end up Catholic again because these 4 people have been showing Christ’s love to me, holding me up. True Christians. If there were more like them, the church in America would stop the hemorrhaging of cradle Catholics, and of converts like Jean.
DeleteI'm so glad you have found some good people to spend time with. I know it is overwhelming to think of the task of sorting out your house and selling it. The only bright spot in that is that it seems to be a seller's market right now.
DeleteGood news that your husband's health has stabilized.
You are in my conntinued prayers.
I don’t recommend stress, fear, anxiety and depression for weight loss, but I’ve gone down two sizes. My once too tight jeans are now too loose. I’m working now not to lose any more weight.
DeleteI don't know if you have considered something like this:
Deletehttps://www.caringtransitions.com/
Anne said:
ReplyDeleteThe inflation rate during Obama’s last 4 years was considerably lower than during the Trump years
So good to have you back! Especially with the wealth of knowledge you bring to such topics! We need more of that. That is why I became interested in Statista. They like to present interesting data and are much less attuned to the “gossip” and “opinions about other people’s opinions” which dominates even media like the NYT.
I am glad to hear your husband’s medical condition is being systematically treated.
Even better news that you have found a support group!
While it is not important to me that the group is Catholic, that is a plus if it allows you to become reconciled to your Catholic background. The reality of Catholicism is that many Catholic laity, priests and bishops are not really admirable people now nor have they been in history. However, we have and have had our share of saints. I am happy to build my life around the positive factors and people in Catholicism and ignore the rest. I hope you ultimately find that you are able to do that for your Catholic background in some fashion
Is your support group mostly women? It just dawned on me that you live in a very male family world of husband and sons. There was a research study (I have lost the citation) which said that our mental health, whether we are male or female, is dependent upon the number of women is our immediate social network. Marriage is a greater benefit to males because it adds a woman to the man’s network. Adding more men to one’s network does not benefit either men or women! I guess women tend to create and maintain caring networks.
This is the gardening season for me which is really a lot of work from April through June, so I am finding it difficult to keep up with this blog on a daily basis.
Jack, as someone interested in statistics, you might be interested in Florence Nightengale's famous rose chart (you can Google it), which plotted death rates relative to efforts by Britain's sanitary efforts in the Crimean War. It was among the first examples of "infographics," which has become a whole field of study in my former journalism dept.
DeleteCritics then (and now) cautioned the extrapolating conclusions from graphics vs data tables, but Florence wanted to get Queen Victoria's attention with her report, and dryly said that the Queen "might read it if there were pictures."
I was happy to get in my tiny herb garden yesterday. Watch out for thunderstorms today.
In the mental health system, I always used tables rather than graphics. One of my mentors told me that I never had to sell data. People who did not like the data might deny it at first but would eventually come around as others talked about it and accepted it.
DeleteTherefore, as the person who facilitated planning and evaluation processes, my job was to help reach consensus on the facts and let others suggest explanations and solutions, and then as an umpire try to help them evaluate the situation.
By presenting my audiences (board members, managers, consumers, family members) with tables that contained all the data, it usually became self-evident what numbers were important even without my narrative about probability. They had to look at a lot of unimportant numbers, but they quickly recognized when they came across very different numbers.
Most tables were simple (Age X Sex, Race X Sex) with some dependent variable (# of people treated, amount of treatment, length of treatment). Large differences were readily apparent and did not need my narrative that the probability was less than one in a hundred that this happened by chance. It was easy to figure out things like less than one in twenty, or that the numbers were just too small to draw any conclusions.
The tables all looked similar, and a lot of the numbers were the same or similar. It might sound like a boring process, but it gives people a very complex multidimensional view of an agency. As the Queen Victoria type lady who chaired an agency evaluation committee said to me: Now I feel that I really know what that agency does!
Nightingale collected data in tables, but was not above using charts to dramatize conclusions to reach the influential but dim and chauvinistic members (all men) on sanitation boards. We have her to thank for the U-bend in our plumbing that keeps gases from accumulating in our houses and blowing them up, which happened fairly frequently as indoor plumbing in cellars were first introduced.
Delete