We need to house a set of accurate history books

Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics, tweeted a thread:

Biden’s democracy saving efforts so far: No Supreme Court reform proposals No voting rights proposals No filibuster reform proposals No ethics reform proposals No campaign finance reform proposals No public campaign against the state voter suppression bills No public campaign to pressure Manchin and Sinema No public campaign against fascism No warnings about the authoritarian movement Continued expansion of executive power at the expense of legislative power Appointment of a timid institutionalist as attorney general One pretty speech about voting rights Massive expenditure of political capital on an infrastructure bill, coupled with massive compromise on the infrastructure bill, which still hasn’t passed Some good work on the pandemic ... Legally questionable military action in Syria Continuation of some of Trump’s worst immigration policies Appointment of extremely qualified experts to replace Trump’s bumbling, unqualified staff, restoring competence to govt leadership Cluelessness about the fascist threat Grade so far: C- (it would be a D, but I’m hopeful he’ll shift to filibuster reform after this coming week), which is up from Trump’s F- (and that was a gift because there is no grade below an F minus, so it’s not possible to truly grade Trump’s assault on the republic.

In another thread Shaub wrote:

Listen up, Europe, New Zealand other folks. Listen good. We’re gonna need you to carry some seed of democracy into the 22nd century. I know some of you aren’t up to the task. But we only need one or two countries to make it, so someone can house a set of accurate history books. We have some great books you can use. But you’re going to need to come get them very soon.

Brubs of the Daily Kos community wrote about an incident that rattled him. He was weeding his lawn and a young man came up and said he help. He was staring a yard service company using electric equipment and nature friendly chemicals. Two cop cars drove up.

Down went the window of the one closest to me. “Good afternoon sir, everything ok here?” the white officer asked. Not grasping the point of his question at first, I looked over to the young man; his head was down and body language was now stiff. I looked back to the cop, who was staring at him. That’s when the ridiculously obvious smacked me over the head: I’m an older white man in a fairly affluent white neighborhood, speaking to a young Black man standing over me while I’m on the ground.

The white person had to handle the situation. The blameless black person could do nothing. Brubs assured the officer he was fine. The cop cars drove off. He wondered if a neighbor had called the police.

The entire exchange lasted just a few minutes, and the chance to offer some witty comment calling out the officer was lost in my sudden awareness, and my desire to end the interaction. But I could, and I should, have done more. I wish I had asked the cop why? Why are you in front of my house? Why do you think you needed to make certain I was ok? Why didn't your dispatcher recognize the inherent racism in the initial call, if that is how you ended up on my doorstep? And why did you act like that young man was invisible during it all, with the exception of that initial look at him which was designed to signal why you were there?

Brubs gave the job to the black man. Commenter novapsyche wrote about having many white friends and ...

It took me until some time into my 30s that I realized that when I was out and about with my friends, I didn’t attract the baseline amount of ambient public monitoring. (That sounds paranoid; I assure you it is not.) It’s easier for Black people to go out in public when they have a White minder. I’m sorry to be so blunt about it, but it’s true. As long as I have a White friend or gaggle of friends around me, it’s like I have a societal hall pass. Someone’s vetted me and is vouching for me. Trust me, I do try to combat being so cynical.

TrueBlueMajority for Black Star Resistance of Kos wrote:

Which of these lines of asterisks is longest? Line One: ********************************* Line Two: *************************************************** Line Three: ****************** No one is watching you. No one has any idea which line you pick. Knowing the answer under these circumstances is one thing. Standing by your answer regardless of what others say is a completely different thing. ... [There is] evidence that even when people do know the factual answer, peer pressure will persuade them that going along with the crowd is better than making waves or standing out.

Here are a few of the situations that TrueBlueMajority asks us to consider:

* What if a close family member tells you excitedly in a phone call that s/he just heard line one is longest. Which line is longest then? * What if the highest spiritual authority in your worship community preaches that people who say line two is longest are damned for eternity? * What if you are in a work meeting with 20 people, and your boss goes around the table asking each person in turn which line is longest. All of the other 19 people say line three is longest. You are the last one asked for a response. What do you say? * What if a very highly educated person goes viral with a video insisting that smart people disagree about which line is the longest, because the word “longest” means something different to different people?

Dr. Lori commented:

There’s a direct and inverse relationship between one’s commitment to facts and one’s desire to be liked. If you’re secure in your self, it’s a lot easier to stand up to peer pressure.

The author replied:

That explains everything, Dr. Lori. Very few people have that kind of self confidence, and it is even discouraged in some fundamentalist cultures.

Commenter elfling added the answer one gives could be a matter of personal safety. The author noted some folks are not worth arguing with, then added:

Jane Austen has a wonderful phrase in Sense and Sensibility: “she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.”

Greg Dworkin, in his pundit roundup for Kos, has a few quotes of interest. From an article in the New York Times (author not named):

As lawmakers debate how much to spend on President Biden’s sprawling domestic agenda, they are really arguing about a seemingly simple issue: affordability. Can a country already running huge deficits afford the scope of spending that the president envisions? Or, conversely, can it afford to wait to address large social, environmental and economic problems that will accrue costs for years to come?

I mention this one not because I agree with it but because the excerpt – and, judging from the tone, the whole article – doesn’t mention an important aspect. This bill doesn’t and doesn’t have to run up deficits. It includes provisions to tax the rich, which this article ignores. Taxing the hugely rich is beneficial to our society beyond just raising money for government programs. The rich get their money by exploiting the working poor and taxing them restores part of the balance. The other part of the problem of the hugely rich is they have enough money to buy the government, which loses a basic function of protecting the little guy and the environment from the big guy. Dworkin also quoted EJ Dionne of the Washington Post:

It’s important to acknowledge another reality that goes beyond Manchin, Sinema and the Democratic Party as a whole: Severe structural problems in our politics and institutions are making it far harder to solve problems — and to have productive debates over how to do so.

The roundup included a quote from an article by Peter Sandman and Jody Lanard on Sandman’s website.

If you acknowledge that your opponents’ case is strong, some of them just might be open to the argument that your case is even stronger. If you claim they have no case, you have no shot. We call this “even-though risk communication”: * “Even though vaccine mandates are a huge blow to personal freedom, what’s more important right now, sadly, is that they are also a huge and essential step toward ending the pandemic.” * “Even though vaccine mandates are a huge step toward ending the pandemic, what’s more important right now, sadly, is that they are also a huge and unacceptable blow to personal freedom.” Concede the merits of the other side’s case before you build your argument that on balance – not 100% but on balance – your case is even stronger. And build your argument sadly, not triumphantly, taking full cognizance of the sacrifice you are asking of your opponents.

One more from the roundup – Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote that Sen. Joe Manchin doesn’t look or act much like a Bond villain.

And yet make no mistake: West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin has positioned himself to destroy the globe in a way that Auric Goldfinger, Ernst Starvo Blofeld, or Lyutsifer Safin could have only dreamed of. This Friday night’s news dump that Manchin will exercise his veto power as the most conservative Democrat in the 50-50 Senate to kill the lynchpin of President Biden’s climate change agenda — $150 billion to help utilities transition into clean energy and away from dirty fossil fuels including coal, from which Manchin and his family have earned millions — is a gut punch to the world’s environment.

Joan McCarter of Kos wrote:

The de facto president of the United States, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, had a busy weekend making decrees about the limits he is placing on the actual president, Joe Biden, in passing his big economic agenda plan in the Democrats’ budget reconciliation bill. He has informed the White House that he will not allow the core element of Biden’s proposal on climate change, the Clean Electricity Performance Program, which would accelerate utilities’ shift from coal- and gas-powered plants to renewable technology—wind, solar, and nuclear—to help reach the goal of zero carbon emissions in power generation by 2035. Manchin is having none of that.

McCarter then discussed the child tax credit (CTC) that is providing much needed income to poor families. Manchin doesn’t like it. So McCarter looked at details provided by the Niskanen Center that shows how much the CTC helps families of West Virginia and how Manchin’s demands for means testing and work requirements will make their lives worse.

He is purposefully harming his own constituents. Why he’s opposed to helping families isn’t clear, unless it’s because he is at heart a Republican. ... Manchin’s stranglehold on the Senate—and thus on everything from saving our democracy to taking this last opportunity to stave off catastrophic climate change—has to stop. He’s not going to change his mind on this out of altruism or enlightenment. It’s got to be raw political power at this point, the kind that only a president can [wield]. Biden has to stop treating Manchin as just another Senate colleague and start treating him as someone he can break politically.

As for that last one, see the first section of today’s post. Our future doesn’t look good. Lea McElrath tweeted:

Reporters keep pretending Manchin is acting in good faith and there’s a rational answer to the question of what he wants. Manchin picked means testing for Biden’s signature child tax credit on purpose because he knows it’s a non-starter. He wants to obstruct. He’s obstructing.