Political Theatre category archive

When you start with wrong assumptions, you invariably reach wrong conclusions.

Peter St. Onge once dismissed Trumpery. As he considers how wrong he was, he struggles to understand its appeal and finds inspiration in what happens in newspapers’ online comment sections, where unleashing ugly is ubiquitous.

Racism and bigotry, I believe, play a larger role than he seems to imply in this short piece. White folks like me often fail to perceive the pervasiveness of racism in this society. We forget ignore that racism doesn’t necessarily wear a hood and announce its presence; it also wears formal evening dress and sips its cognac most delicately in the parlor, while speaking in dulcet tones of the opera and the art exhibit.

Nevertheless, I think he does accurately describe part of the elephant (I’ll leave it to you to determine which part). Follow the link and give it a read.

The Booman looks askance at those who are protesting that President Obama should have nominated a woman or a minority or even a minority woman for the vacancy on the Supreme Court and that nominating Merrick Garland was somehow a misstep. A nugget:

First of all, the Republicans (and their presumptive nominee) do a fine job of making clear that they are not the party for racial or religious minorities. We don’t need a high profile fight over the Supreme Court nominee to drive home that point.

Secondly, racial animus and religious bigotry are not what is driving the Republican strategy of obstruction here. They actually like Merrick Garland despite him not being a follower of Jesus Christ. What picking a candidate the Republicans like has done is highlight that this isn’t about anything other than power politics. And that’s precisely what makes their position so indefensible. After all, progressives aren’t solely disappointed that Merrick Garland is an “old white dude;” they’re primarily disappointed that he’s seen as a moderate, centrist judge. Had Obama picked Leondra Kruger or Jane Kelly instead, their ideology would have been the main subject of debate rather than the tactic of total obstruction.

From the standpoint of the politics of the nomination–and there’s always politics involved in a Supreme Court nomination, sometimes moreso than others, and this is definitely a moreso time–nominating Merrick Garland was a brilliant move. It highlights Republican intransigence by putting the party in the position of having to choose whether to betray one of its own.

Follow the link for the rest of the Booman’s analysis.

If you have trouble getting the embed to play, go here.

In a column written before yesterday’s primaries but accurately anticipating the outcome as regards Little Marco, Daniel Ruth looks for lessons in the demise of the Rubio campaign and finds a few. Here’s one:

As we inch closer to Tuesday, here’s what we’ve learned.

We’ve learned that not all nasty, backstabbing, relentless negative advertising campaigns are equal.

Follow the link for more.

Little Marco packs it in.

Via Kiko’s House.

Michael Smerconish.

In The Guardian, Marilynne Robinson explores how the Republican Party managed to shoot itself in the foot with Trump. A nugget:

In fact, the Republican situation is such a tangle of unintended consequences that it is impossible to sort it all out, or to make the attempt without laughing. They re-jiggered their primary system to enhance party influence in choosing a candidate, and Trump, the great orange-haired Unintended Consequence, has played their innovations like a fiddle.

For years they have gerrymandered districts to make them “safe” for their representatives in Congress, thereby incubating a culture of politicians who are too odd and extreme – and white – to appeal to a national electorate. Their restrictions on voting can be expected to have the same effect.

In other words, they have seized one kind of power at the cost of another, and in the process exacerbated every demographic problem that threatens their future as a national party.

Daniel Ruth offers obsequies for Little Marco. A snippet:

The last rites for the Rubio candidacy are being prepared. There’s been no shortage of finger-pointing and chin-rubbing over what went so terribly wrong.

It’s pretty simple, really. You can have all the best advisers and all the money in the world and none of it is worth a bucket of warm spit if you still have a lousy candidate.

Click to see the original image.

Really, a year ago, could you have imagined . . . ?