Culling the party down to a smaller, harder-right faction

While at lunch with my friend and debate partner today I talked about an opinion piece in last Sunday’s Detroit Free Press. The site may complain if you’re using an ad blocker. I was able to close that message. The author is John Corvino, a philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is gay and has a partner. Likely more than a dozen years ago I wrote about Corvino as the Gay Moralist who looked at homosexuality from the moral side, usually using the moral stance of the anti-gay crowd and showing how they aren’t applying it fairly to LGBTQ people. In the early 2010s Corvino also traveled America with a conservative man. Corvino would debate him at each stop, he saying same-sex marriage is good and his opponent saying it was bad. Neither changed the other’s opinion of the debate question. In this opinion piece Corvino talked about the limits of free speech. I and my debate partner have discussed free speech many times. Corvino phrased part of his argument in a way that would delight my friend:

But free speech disputes aren’t merely about permission to speak. They are about who belongs at the table — and whether there are limits to the viewpoints we should listen to, argue with or allow to change our minds.

That word listen is the one that interests my friend. You have a right to say what you want. But that does not mean I have to listen. 19th Century philosopher John Stuart Mill argued for a “big tent” approach – engage with all viewpoints. I could show the other person is wrong. I could be wrong. Even if I’m right the debate can sharpen my reasoning. But do I really want to listen to a person who insists the earth is flat? Contemporary philosopher Jeremy Fantl wrote the book The Limitations of the Open Mind. One limit is a deceptive argument. Suppose a convoluted mathematical proof concludes 2 + 2 = 5. Only those with expertise would be able to spot the fallacies. Another limit is arguments that harm people.

To engage open-mindedly with Holocaust denial, for example — to treat it as an option on the table — is to fail to express appropriate solidarity with Jews and other victims of the Nazi regime. More than giving offense, engaging those views could make someone complicit in ongoing oppression, possibly by undermining education about genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Back to Corvino’s debates, should we engage with opposing views to refute them? Fantl says that can have value but could be ineffective or dishonest, as in pretending to be open-minded when actually not. But there is space between open-minded and closed-minded. Constructive conversation happens here. Though neither changed the opinion of the other on the central question, Corvino said the debates built relationships and fostered mutual understanding. It also corrected his view of the other’s arguments. He found his opponent didn’t use theological arguments and didn’t hate gay people. They learned that Corvino does care about children’s welfare. While Corvino’s opponents didn’t change their view of same-sex marriage others very much did. Corvino’s conclusion comes down to this: Get to know the opponent and see them as human. When evidence doesn’t go your way, admit it. Look for the good in the other side. Bridge building is relationship building. Recognize you don’t know everything. Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos wrote that Fox Business gushed over Biden’s economy! Also, the University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment jumped a lot in January. Lots of other sources say the economy is in good shape and people are starting to notice.

The same Fox analyst also promised to scour the report "to see if there are signs that maybe the economy doesn't feel as, or isn't as resilient as it might seem." Shorter Fox-speak: Stay tuned, Trump. We'll invent bad news one way or another!

Eleveld noted the nasty guy is getting erratic trying to fabricate bad news for Biden: Torpedoing the border deal, pushing for Biden’s impeachment, rooting for an economic crash, and promising “bedlam” if he loses “(a chaos candidate promising chaos if The People vote against chaos).”

Trump knows New Hampshire and Iowa both exposed serious cracks in his general election voting coalition. The turnout and makeup of the electorate in both states suggests he isn't expanding the universe of Republican voters. He's simply culling the party down to a smaller, harder-right faction of the electorate. In short, Trump's not adding, he's subtracting. And if he's going to ride that smaller slice of the electorate to victory, he's going to need to trash the country in every way possible in order to depress turnout for Biden. That’s all fine by Trump because the main impetus of his every move is the sheer terror of spending his last living years in a jail cell. If he has to single-handedly unravel the country on his quest for freedom, so be it.

Dartagnan of the Kos community wants media to stop using the phrase this election is the “rematch nobody wants.” He linked to five such articles. The nasty guy has all this baggage yet Biden is “unpopular.” Dartagnan pulls on that a bit. Back when Biden won in 2020 was there much expectation he wouldn’t run for a second term? Well, maybe a tiny bit. But since he announced his 2024 run in November of 2022 he hasn’t wavered. And nobody “dreaded” a Biden-Haley contest. So what is this really about? It isn’t the Biden half of the equation. People don’t want the nasty guy in an election again.

Ultimately, it’s simply a “both-sides” talking point that does nothing but poison the political environment and further dampen voter enthusiasm. We must get this right; democracy is at stake.

I’ve got a big bunch of links to cartoons that have accumulated. I usually try to wait until I can match a cartoon to a story. But I now have lots, so I’ll share. The Department of Justice issued a report on all the things that police officers did wrong at the Uvalde shooting. This police group, that sheriff group, and all those other groups were not sufficiently trained. Those on the outside declared it was a hostage situation rather than an active shooter situation that required them to go in. That prompted a cartoon by Megan Herbert. The caption says, “How a 575-page report about school shootings that doesn’t recommend gun reform can be used to prevent future tragedies from occurring:” It shows a child with a couple of the thick volumes tied to his front, a few more tied to his back and one protecting his head like armor. In the comments of a pundit roundup WhoWhatWhy wrote “Donald Trump may be a madman, but who’s got a big enough net?” That’s over a cartoon by Jon Richards showing the nasty guy as Napoleon saying all sorts of things that are too small for me to read. A guy holding a net asks, “Now?” A guy holding a straightjacket replies, “Just about.” John Darkow of the Columbia Missourian posted a cartoon of an elephant opening a refrigerator and finding the nasty guy sitting inside. The elephant says, “Leftovers again?!” In the comments of a second pundit roundup Wes Rowell drew one of Nikki Haley. Biden and the nasty guy say, “We’d like to be president.” Haley replies, “Too old!” An old couple says, “We’d like to retire.” Haley responds, “Not old enough!” Aaron Rupar tweeted a screen capture of Kevin McCarthy over a banner saying, “McCarthy: Will serve in Trump Admin if asked.” Elie Mystal added, “Can somebody please get this man a dominatrix so he can carry on his submission kink in private.” In a third pundit roundup, Greg Dworkin of Kos quoted a tweet, then offered a paraphrase:

Basically, New Hamphsire Gov. (and Haley surrogate) Chris Sununu is giving the GOP party line: “Rapist or crook or insurrectionist, never you mind. There’s nothing worse than a competent Democrat who’s a decent person and I’ll never ever vote for one. Otherwise the public will get ideas.”

And Santiago Mayer tweeted about DeathSantis leaving the presidential race:

Ron DeSantis should be forced to carry his presidential campaign to term.

Pastor David Hayward tweeted a cartoon with the caption:

When someone tries to take away your rights, that’s call persecution. When someone else gets rights you already enjoy, that’s call sharing.

Tjeerd Royaards created a cartoon of Davos. Rich people are in a presentation room lounging against huge sacks of money. The lecturer points to the screen that has the words, “How we could save the world.” It shows the earth ready to roll over a cliff into flames but prevented from doing so by huge sacks of money. Mike Peters posted a cartoon showing two boys. One says, “I thought Republicans were pro-life...” The other replies “...Yeah, but they aren’t pro-children.” Pedro Molina of Kos posted a streets scene in which all the faces of the immigrants are replaced by targets. One say, “It happens every election year...” Jen Sorensen of Kos posted a comic titled “Billionaire Buttinsky on Campus.” The summary: A billionaire swoops into campus and tells the administration he will donate big bucks if the university gets rid of their diversity program.