Traumatically low self-esteem

As psychiatrist James Gilligan, who spent years working with violent prison inmates, observed: all violence is an attempt to replace shame with self-esteem. It is an illuminating and important insight.

How does a child turn into a violent sadist? By being traumatized at the hands of those they relied on, beyond the ability to trust anyone, beyond hope of self-esteem. They internalize this hopeless, isolated, humiliation and must inflict violence on others to get a twinge of what feels to them like self-esteem. The suffering and helplessness of their crushed victims confirms for them that they are powerful after all, to be respected, and feared.

In one sense this seems obvious, after years watching the nonstop sickening performance of a thin-skinned, whining “strongman” who controls one of our two major political parties, banished all critics and bent it to his perverted will. He perceives violence carried out in his name as love, as he observed on January 6 when the “patriotic” mob of political martyrs were forced, by a massive bipartisan cabal of his cheating enemies, to attack Capitol police. He’d never seen so much love, he tweeted, as when his people were passionately injuring dozens of cops in his name.

It is true of any narcissist who is far enough on the scale to behave psychopathically. They literally cannot help what they do, though that’s no excuse for their predictably treacherous behavior. They are compelled by a desperation someone not traumatized to the extent they are can ever fully comprehend.

These creatures need to feel the power of hurting others, otherwise they feel utterly worthless. The humiliating feeling of being undeserving of love motivates monstrous behavior. The attempt to gain self-respect, respect and love by dominance, fear and manipulation is, as Gilligan points out, a misguided attempt to replace shame with self-esteem.

I point this out because knowing this basic mechanism of all abusers is important, if you are faced with one of these supremely destructive assholes. Once you see abusiveness in your personal life, say nothing (appeals to empathy or fairness are futile with these assholes) but put maximum emotional distance between yourself and one of these hopeless, reflexively harmful humanoids.

A Short history of this spasm of American Fascism

Although she makes no reference to the oligarchic designers, and prime beneficiaries, of the Republican strategy, increasingly shameless since the 1980s “Reagan revolution” of divide, enrage, terrify and exploit, Heather Cox Richardson writes as succinct a summary of how the Charles Kochs and their filthy ilk, aided by the Leonard Leos and their filthy ilk, orchestrated the fanatical chaos of our current political moment:

In the 1980s, radical Republican leaders set out to dismantle the government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. But that system was popular, and to overcome the majority who favored it, they began to tip the political playing field in their direction. They began to suppress voting by Democrats by insisting that Democrats were engaging in “voter fraud.” At the same time, they worked to delegitimize their opponents by calling them “socialists” or “communists” and claiming that they were trying to destroy the United States. By the 1990s, extremists in the party were taking power by purging traditional Republicans from it.

And yet, voters still elected Democrats, and after they put President Barack Obama into the White House in 2008, the Republican State Leadership Committee in 2010 launched Operation REDMAP, or Redistricting Majority Project. The plan was to take over state legislatures so Republicans would control the new district maps drawn after the 2010 census, especially in swing states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It worked, and Republican legislatures in those states and elsewhere carved up state maps into dramatically gerrymandered districts.

In those districts, the Republican candidates were virtually guaranteed election, so they focused not on attracting voters with popular policies but on amplifying increasingly extreme talking points to excite the party’s base. That drove the party farther and farther to the right. By 2012, political scientists Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein warned that the Republican Party had “become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

“It [the GOP] is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

source

and my plan

Don’t forget John Roberts

From Heather Cox Richardson yesterday, on the long judicial coup run by the cunning, privileged owners of the activist extremist party that is now calling itself MAGA (see, also John Birch Society):

In 1986, when it was clear that most Americans did not support the policies put in place by the Reagan Republicans, the Reagan appointees at the Justice Department broke tradition to ensure that candidates for judgeships shared their partisanship. Their goal, said the president’s attorney general, Ed Meese, was to “institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can’t be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections.” 

That principle held going forward. Federal judgeships depend on Senate confirmation, and when McConnell became Senate minority leader in 2007, he worked to make sure Democrats could not put their own appointees onto the bench. He held up so many of President Barack Obama’s nominees for federal judgeships that in 2013 Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) prohibited filibusters on certain judicial nominees.

McConnell also made it clear that he would do everything he could to make sure that Democrats could not pass laws, weaponizing the filibuster so that nothing could become law without 60 votes in the Senate. . .

She then details McConnell’s right-wing judiciary appointment mission, and how he removed the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, when the time was right, to get a couple of 50% supported nominees on to the court, after denying Obama his constitutional right to nominate a replacement for Antonin Scalia eight months before the 2016 election.

. . . Throughout his tenure as Senate majority leader, McConnell made judicial confirmations a top priority, churning through nominations even when the coronavirus pandemic shut everything else down. Right-wing plaintiffs are now seeking out those judges, like Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas, to decide in their favor. Kacsmaryk challenged the FDA’s approval of the drug mifepristone, which can be used in abortions, thus threatening to ban it nationwide.

Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court, Trump appointees are joining with right-wing justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to overturn precedents established long ago, including the right to abortion. 

source

Don’t forget America’s most partisan balls and strikes umpire John “Corporations get to say ‘go fuck yourself'” Roberts. How does this smiling corporate shill, who schemes behind the scenes, votes in every key case with the right-wing fraternal order of the Federalist Society block, and has authored some of its most infamous decisions, get a pass from even someone as brilliant as Heather? How is he, the man who, although he didn’t vote with the other four to kill Roe v. Wade, gleefully signed on to nullify the power of federal regulators, keep an insurrectionist on the ballot in Colorado and immunize criminal acts committed by a criminal president, among other MAGA endorsed rulings, still seen as somehow “moderate” or an “institutionalist”?

Look no further than his infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder when he ruled that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, which he acknowledged righted a historical injustice, was no longer necessary. His argument is bland and pristine: Congress relied on forty year old data when they reauthorized it, so me and four Federalist Society diehards are undoing their uninformed, undemocratic activism. True, except that he was lying about the forty year old data, as it turns out. As I wrote when I read the decision:

Only when you read Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent (another magnificent piece of clear, precise legal and moral logic) do you realize the audacity of the Roberts majority’s legal sleight of hand. You learn that the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act was passed, after 21 hearings and 15,000 pages of evidence of ongoing discrimination in the states under preclearance, by a vote of 390-33 in the House and, after further debate, 98 to 0 in the Senate. Reading the John Roberts decision you’d have no reason to suspect that President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization into law a week later, as Ginsburg writes:

recognizing the need for “further work . . . in the fight against injustice,” and calling the reauthorization “an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect.” 

Nah, says John Roberts, we’re going back to that golden time when the wealthy land owners, the ancestors of our greatest billionaire donors and close friends, made all the decisions for the USA.  Dignity and respect, after all, are just words, and ridiculous ones when applied to those who deserve neither. Strike three, bitches.

I began writing this yesterday, and today the Gray Lady herself chimes in on Roberts. Here’s how he teed up the question posed by the Roberts court in Trump v. US:

The justices instructed lawyers from both sides to address a broad question: “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure.”. . .

. . . On April 25, the justices and the lawyers in the case gathered for oral arguments in the courtroom, across the street from where the Jan. 6 rioting had taken place three years earlier. The clamor from the Capitol attack had been audible from inside the court building, former employees recalled in interviews, and afterward, security sharply increased and fences shielded the building.

During the arguments, however, several conservative justices said that they wanted to focus not on what had happened that day, but on broader legal questions.

“I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case,” Justice Alito told the courtroom.

“I’m not focused on the here and now of this case,” Justice Kavanaugh said. “I’m very concerned about the future.”

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Gorsuch said.

For the Thousand Year Reich, no doubt.

Here’s a bit about Roberts’s fundamental dishonesty:

One footnote left scholars wondering whether former presidents could ever be prosecuted for taking bribes. An N.Y.U. professor was startled to discover that the opinion, which leaned heavily on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 case on presidential immunity, truncated a quote from that decision, changing its meaning.

Verdict: Federalist Society stalwart and Nazi fuck.

MAGA influencer of the week

She traveled with Donald “People don’t leave my rallies” (think roach motel) Trump to his most excellent September 10th debate in Philadephia, a debate he won, he said, like 98 to 2, and then on his September 11th rounds. Her overt racism, proud “white nationalist” self-identification and penchant for lying and promoting wild, unfounded conspiracy theories provoked Trump sychophant Lindsey Graham to urge Donald to distance himself from her. She fired back, questioning coy bachelor Graham’s sexual preference. Klan Mom Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized her racism as too extreme and appalling even for Greene (wow!), and Trump’s companion’s response was to remind the world of Greene’s extramarital affair and compare her to a “hooker” (arguably not unfair, but still).

Meet 31 year-old Laura Loomer.

The NY Times described her this way:

A far-right activist known for her endless stream of sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-Muslim and occasionally antisemitic social media posts and public stunts, Ms. Loomer has made a name for herself over the past decade by unabashedly claiming 9/11 was “an inside job,” calling Islam “a cancer,” accusing Ron DeSantis’s wife of exaggerating breast cancer and claiming that President Biden was behind the attempt to assassinate Mr. Trump in July. source

Wikipedia:

Loomer continued to advocate for the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump in 2024, telling The Washington Post, “I’m happy to dedicate all my time to helping Trump, because if Trump doesn’t get back in, I don’t have anything.”[54] Loomer was brought as a guest by Trump to Philadelphia where he engaged in the September 10 presidential debate with opponent Kamala Harris.[55] The following day, Loomer attended events alongside Trump commemorating the September 11 attacks. Loomer had previously endorsed claims that 9/11 “was an inside job.”[56] According to anonymous sources on the Trump campaign, Loomer reportedly influenced Trump to publicly endorse various false conspiracy theories, including the claim that Kamala Harris hid her black heritage and the claim that Haitian immigrants were eating other people’s household pets in Ohio. Loomer also posted a tweet referencing stereotypes of Indians, saying that if Harris, who is half-Indian, were elected President “the White House will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center.” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right member of the United States House of Representatives, condemned this remark as “appalling and extremely racist.”[57]

As part of a promotional deal for the pet food brand Pawsitive on her Rumble channel, Loomer filmed herself eating dog food.[58]

. . . Early life and education

Loomer and her two brothers were raised in Arizona.[21] She attended Mount Holyoke College, leaving after one semester; she said she felt targeted for being conservative.[22] She transferred to Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida, and graduated in 2015 with a bachelor’s degree in broadcast journalism.[22][23] Loomer is Jewish.[24][25]

Oy! No, not Jewish, please, for the love of Jesus…

In an otherwise fair account of takeaways from the recent presidential debate about pet eating

Among a panel of fourteen writers assembled by the Times to opine about who won the debate thirteen of them call it clearly for Harris. The following throw away line was embedded in another headline article, their six takeaways from the debate:

In her response, Ms. Harris bored into Mr. Trump’s agenda rather than her own. It was typical of a debate in which she appeared most at ease talking about Mr. Trump rather than fleshing out her own plans for the presidency.

In other words, from the Grey Lady’s perspective, Harris, in her two minute answers, during which her main job was driving home the contrast between herself and the insane idiot behind the other podium, an idiot with a detailed plan, written for him, for unaccountable oligarchs to take over our government forever, kept focusing on the psychopathy and danger Mr. Trump displayed in his lying non-answers rather than giving wonkish details of her own policies. Fair enough. . .

Corporate media truly, truly can’t help themselves. Heaven help us all.

NY Times “sane washing” Trump

For the Times writing “what Trump seems to be saying….”, after giving an extended section of an incoherent statement by the Orange Polyp, is not a problem. The New York Times always exerts itself to interpret and explain the nonsensical non-answers that Trump always gets a pass for. Lawrence O’Donnell’s analysis of the media “sane washing” Trump’s raging incoherence is precise and brilliant.

O’Donnell applauds the New York Times for trying, for the first time, to stop sane washing Trump’s dangerous blathering. Then he points out that they just can’t help themselves, reading this section of the paper’s lead article focusing on concerns about Trump’s age and cognitive abilities (the article, which I saw online in the wee hours this morning, was gone from the homepage when I woke up, maybe somebody at the Times is watching O’Donnell’s show):

Mr. Trump’s response to the child care question in New York on Thursday underscored the concerns. Often his mangled statements are summarized in news accounts in ways that do not give the full picture of how baffling they can be. Quoting them at length, though, can provide additional context. Here is a more extended account of his reply on affordable child care:

“It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that — because the child care is, child care, it’s, couldn’t, you know, there’s something, you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care.”

“What he seemed to be saying was that he would raise so much money by imposing tariffs on imported goods that the country could use the proceeds to pay for child care. In itself, that would be a disputable policy assumption.”

source

In spite of reflexively “sane washing” Trump’s incomprehensible word salads and most dangerous threats in headlines and news articles every day, the New York Times editors do actually know the truth, as they point out with great clarity in today’s editorial:

Some of Mr. Trump’s other promises are even more vague. Mr. Trump was asked after a speech last week if he would act to make child care more affordable. He said he would, but in the following two minutes, he didn’t manage to say anything coherent about how.

In other areas Mr. Trump has been more specific, but his plans would be disastrous.

He has proposed a tariff, or tax, of up to 20 percent on imports from foreign countries, along with an even higher tariff on imports from China. That bill would be paid by American consumers, in the form of higher prices, no matter how many times or how loudly Mr. Trump says otherwise.

He has proposed rounding up and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. Beyond the enormity of the impact on the lives of immigrants, their families and communities and the expense of the plan itself, mass deportations would blast a hole in the American economy, depriving employers of labor and retailers of consumers.

He has proposed extending tax cuts for the wealthy and for large corporations. Repeated experiments over the past half-century have made clear that the benefits of such tax cuts do not trickle down, do not generate economic growth and do not pay for themselves. They just make the rich richer.

I don’t have any insight into the Grey Lady’s reflex to reframe and normalize the Nazi point of view expressed by American fascists who are vying to take permanent control of the nation they claim is a smoking ruin of wokeness and colored criminals. Beyond that, all I can really say is fuck those putos.

Here’s Seth Meyers, making the same point, but with a great dollop of humor:

[1] The headline and article have been replaced at the top of the mobile app by this exercise in obfuscation and both-sides to every story syndrome, which buries the obvious fact, expressed plainly in today’s editorial, that tariffs are paid by the consumers of the nation that imposes them. Mexico didn’t, according to some experts, pay to build Trump’s fucking wall, Grey Lady:

For Trump, Tariffs Are the Solution to Almost Any Problem

The former president has proposed using tariffs to fund child care, boost manufacturing, quell immigration and encourage use of the dollar. Economists are skeptical.

So are high school graduates who paid attention in class…

Sly handmaiden of fascism

The Grey Lady, inscrutably, specializes in inventive headlines that frame issues to favor an increasingly deranged and desperate American Nazi’s candidacy. Look at the big challenge facing Kamala Harris at the upcoming debate with Donald, as framed by the NY Times. Oh, my!

As the Times idiotically frames it, Harris seemingly has to distance herself from the “unpopular” Biden while seeming to support the remarkable range of good policies she and the shockingly successful Joe Biden administration put into law during three short years.

You see, the headline suggests, if she criticizes the unpopular Biden — she takes a grave political risk. At the same time, if she supports him and their record of achievement 100% — apparently that’s an equally perilous position.

She’s on a greasy tightrope, suggests the NY Times, with a highly motivated Trump, jaws open, sharp teeth glistening, well-honed playbook in his back pocket, poised for a fatal pounce if she takes one misstep in this supremely delicate balancing act.

For a much smarter take on the upcoming “debate”, here’s my mother’s favorite, Frank Bruni. The sections below his fine opinion piece are like a cool drink on a hot day.

Rhetorical question: when did the NY Times become the fucking Völkischer Beobachter?

Quick question about polling

I think this is a nice illustration of the bullshit of current polling numbers, numbers heavily relied on by corporate media in its amoral, anything for more clicks, bettors’ guide to the horse race coverage of presidential sweepstakes.

I’m reading a piece by Robert Reich, a very smart guy with informed opinions and good arguments to back them up. He calls the piece Trump’s Woman Problem and it outlines how women should tip the election to Harris/Walz. Women vote in higher numbers than men, Reich points out:

There are 3 million more women in America than men. And they almost always vote in larger numbers than men. In 2020, 74 percent of adult U.S. women said they voted, vs. 71 percent of men.

That split has held true for more than 40 years — in every presidential election beginning in 1980, according to the Center for American Women and Politics.

There’s also a big split in voter registration: 89 million women told census surveyors they were registered in 2020, vs. 79 million men.

Fair enough. Then Quinnipiac tells us this:

A Quinnipiac Poll in mid-August found a similar gender chasm among likely voters in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania: Women backed Harris 54 percent to 41 percent, while men went for Trump, 49 percent to 42 percent. (Overall, Harris was up 48 percent to 45 percent.)

Women vote in higher numbers, they favor Harris by 13%. Men vote in lower numbers, they favor Trump by 7%. How does that average out to a 3% “overall” lead for Harris?

All an American can do is leave a comment, here’s mine:

Anyone else see a problem with these polling numbers?

Women are the majority of Americans, 89 million women were registered to vote in 2020, vs. 79 million men, and they consistently vote in higher numbers. Then this puzzler from Quinnipiac, after reporting that Harris is up 13% among women and Trump leads by 7% among men, and Robert Reich, who is brilliant, has no comment? How does the spread of 13% of a larger group for Harris and 7% for a smaller contingent for Trump come out to only a 3 point lead for Harris?

A Quinnipiac Poll in mid-August found a similar gender chasm among likely voters in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania: Women backed Harris 54 percent to 41 percent, while men went for Trump, 49 percent to 42 percent. (Overall, Harris was up 48 percent to 45 percent.)

This nonsensical math underscores the horrific fact that we are not presently living in a moment where ordinary rationality seems to apply. Discussing things based on agreed upon facts, seen in the light of Reason, seems to have gone the way of ethics, decency, fairness and self-respect. The virally infectious nature of intolerance, hatred and rage leaves anyone not ruled by those things puzzled as to how we arrived at this ominous place.

I feel a sense of futility as the comment I was urged to make immediately disappears under hundreds of more popular comments, and the discussion of those comments. This is the future we are now living in, boys and girls. Ask Quinnipiac, they’ll tell you the same thing.