Political Theatre category archive
The (Back)End of Ideology? 0
Ed, at Gin and Tacos, citing the work of Philip Converse, posits five (not the usual two: left and right) types of voters. A nugget:
Re-read that last sentence. Does that sound familiar?
The most incredible thing about the Trump campaign from an academic/political science perspective is that we have the rare opportunity to observe a major party campaign with no ideological content whatsoever.
Read it.
The Scalias of Justice 0
At Above the Law, Elie Mystal predicts that many Republicans will hold their noses and support Donald Trump because of existing and potential Supreme Court vacancies. Here’s one of the more low-key bits:
Guns, abortions, and gays. “GAG” orders. That’s what the conservatives want the Court for. They are willing to put a xenophobic, snake oil salesman in the Oval Office so long as NOBODY has to bake a cake for a gay person.
Do read the rest.
See Petard, Hoist Oneself 0
Today, my local rag’s editorial consists entirely of quotations from Donald Trump.
It is a parade of poisonous puerile petulance.
DIs Coarse Discourse 0
Dick Polman foresees the next round of “On the One Hand, On the Other Hand”:
When I heard that, I sighed to myself, “Right on schedule. The normalization of Trump has begun.”
(snip)
That one candidate, regardess of how anyone might feel about her policies, has the demonstrable experience and qualifications to run the world’s preeminent superpower; and that the other candidate, by dint of his temperament, his zero public service experience, and his racism, xenophobia, and misogyny, is manifestly unfit.
Everything in that paragraph is factually incontestable. But most of the reporters, hewing to traditional standards, will pretend otherwise. They will be compelled to find “balance” – or, as we more accurately call it these days, “false equivalence.” And as evidenced by the episodes I quoted earlier, they’re already doing it. Their implicit mission is to place both candidates on the same plane. Their ’16 mission, in the brilliant words of one analyst, is “to make it Coca-Cola versus Pepsi, instead of Coca-Cola versus sewer water.”
Follow the link for more.
Afterthought:
Well, that answers the question at the end of the previous post.
Responsible Fiscals 0
Donald Trump proposes to run the United States the same way he ran the Trump Taj.
His campaign staff is trying to un-say it.
There are no clown shoes big enough . . . .
How long before this sort of idiocy becomes the new normal?
Purists, Reprise 0
John Aravosis takes on the Bernie purists. A snippet:
He’s quite correct.
Elections are not about purity, they are about winning. I say to the purists, “Grow up and vote in the real world. It’s the only world we have.”
Follow the link for the whole thing. It’s worth your while.
T(TP) Party 0
Governments who wish to snoop on their citizenry are fond of expressing the thought that, if you have nothing to hide, you won’t mind the intrusion (which is a fallacy, natch; some things should be private because they are nobody else’s damn business). Just for grins and giggles, let’s suppose the reasoning is valid and ask, does it cut both ways?
Read a bit of Trevor Timm’s remarks about the negotiations for the TTP and TTIP trade deals:
What progressive champion Senator Elizabeth Warren said then is even more true now: “If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”
Follow the link for much, much more.
Eyes on the Prize 0
Alfred Doblin doesn’t think much of Cracker Jacks’s new prizes, which will require access to either an Android or iJunk device to use, for Pete’s sake, or of what they may indicate. A snippet:
A 5-year-old boy should not need a smartphone and app to delight in a cheap prize. The prize was never the actual thing; it was in the unwrapping of the thing, the discovery of it, the touch and feel of it.
Take that away and we are diminished as people. We see a bunch of angry Americans pushing police cars not because of racial injustice, but because they dislike Donald Trump, and we call that “chaos.” We witness a tidal wave of refugees who want nothing more than a chance to live and we call that none of our business.
The Scalias of Justice 0
Dick Polman reports that some conservatives are now singing, “Gather ye Garlands while ye may.“
Dis Coarse Discourse 0
(Warning: Pap has been feeling the Bern. Take what he says about Hillary Clinton and down-ballot candidates with a grain or maybe even a whole damn lick of salt.)
Shaun Mullen offers his own take on the role of the media. Here’s a snippet:
Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! 0
The Guardian looks in on the circular firing squad: Republicans attempting to figure out who’s to blame for Trump.
This is the same bunch who have spent the last eight years pandering to the worst of America. They shouldn’t be surprised that, now, they’ve got it.
P. M. 0
Ed, at Gin and Tacos, reflects on the Republican Trumpocalyse. It’s a biting summary.
Here’s how he concludes it; follow the link to see why:
He’s quite correct, you know.
Style over Substance Something or Other
0
Now that Ted Cruz is off the island, I reckon that the Republican Party is now officially the reality show party, which prompts the question, is the Republican Party most akin to Survivor or Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo?
I’m voting for Honey Boo-Boo.
Will Bunch tries to figure it out. Here’s a bit from his post (follow the link for the rest):
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.