Institutional decay

[Admin]

Delegitimizing charity and declaring people culpable without any evidence, let alone conviction (but hey, these people are the law and order people, right?

Millionaire Donald Trump demanded on Monday that the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation shut down, calling it “the most corrupt enterprise in political history.”

But while Trump’s own charitable giving has been repeatedly shown to be less than he has claimed, the Clinton’s foundation has raised and distributed millions of dollars toward global health, empowerment of women, reducing childhood obesity, addressing climate change, and rebuilding Haiti. If Trump’s advice were followed, these works would end.

The Clinton Foundation’s 2014 IRS filings indicate some of these efforts. The organization spent more than $4 million on climate and economic development programs in central America and the Caribbean, more than $2 million on climate work in East Asia and the Pacific, more than $6 million on South American economic development, and more than $8 million on climate and economic efforts in sub-Saharan Africa. It also gave $2 million in grant money to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a non-profit that works to promote healthy lifestyles for kids. An examination by CharityWatch found that at least 88 percent of the funds raised for the organization go to programs, earning the Clintons’ foundation an “A” rating. FactCheck.org confirmed that figure. 

Indeed, Trump once praised the Clintons’ foundation and directed his own foundation’s funds to it: “The Clinton Foundation was helping with Haiti and with lots of other things, and I thought it was going to do some good work, so it didn’t make any difference to me,” he said in January, adding that he was disappointed to learn it had used some funds for “private aircraft and things like that.”

Miser Trump Demands Clintons Shut Down Their Charitable Foundation — ThinkProgress

[Martin K]

Amazing stuff, the facts simply don't seem to matter. There were 8 independent inquiries on Benghazi, nothing was found that showed any severe neglect on the part of Clinton. In fact, it was Republican cut backs on spending on safety for embassy's that might very well be more to blame. From The Hill:

Republicans have sought to cut hundreds of millions of dollars slated for security at U.S. embassies and consulates since gaining control of the House in 2011. Democrats are scrutinizing the GOP proposals in the wake of attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East, one of which saw Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans murdered.

“This is a disturbing example of the Republicans’ meat-ax approach to cutting every aspect of the government, no matter how essential,” said Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) in a statement to The Hill.

Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.

The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate. 

But, as you say Admin:

• People from the law and order party is still blaming Clinton despite 8 independent inquiries
  
• Waste more money for more inquiries (for instance, the emails where the Republican FBI nominee chose not to prosecute Clinton)
  
• People from the law and order party routinely criminalize Clinton without much, if any evidence, let alone any criminal convictions..
  

[Admin]

Yea, good find Martin. And as well, here is the model: cutbacks in public spending can often generate some dysfunction, and then they shout "You see, government doesn't work, it's always the problem, never the solution.."

[Admin]

Of course, the 'liberal' media are also under constant attack and delegitimzation efforts. Compare the following:

If a terrible natural disaster in Louisiana can be blamed on a Republican president, then it’s one of the biggest stories of the decade. If the lack of a public statement on a Louisiana disaster during a presidential vacation might reflect badly on a Democratic president, it’s best to treat the flood as a “page A4″ story, check-the-box journalism.

The Cultural Isolation of the Elites Is Primarily Driven By the National Media | National Review

The governor of flood-ravaged Louisiana asked President Obama to postpone a personal visit while relief efforts were still underway. ... He made the same request to Donald Trump, declaring, reasonably, that while aid would be welcome, a visit for the sake of a photo op would not. Sure enough, the G.O.P. candidate flew in, shook some hands, signed some autographs, and was filmed taking boxes of Play-Doh out of a truck. If he wrote a check, neither his campaign nor anyone else has mentioned it.

Economist's View: Paul Krugman: The Water Next Time

Right-wingers have attacked Obama non-stop for not going to Louisiana. Turns out that was a request from the governor (which Trump had to ignore, of course)..

What's even more galling is that it's the same right-wingers who are in total denial about climate change, the force behind increasing weather turbulence..

[Admin]

Now, there could be reasons for an investigation (although needless to say, this isn't Trump's call), but once again, delegitimizing institutions when the outcome isn't the one hoped. Earth to Trump, investigations have open outcomes, otherwise we wouldn't need them..

He went on to say that the investigation calls for special circumstances, as the US Department of Justice "has proven itself to be a political arm of the White House." "After the FBI and Department of Justice whitewash of the Clinton email crimes, they certainly cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton's crimes," Trump said at a campaign rally in Akron, alluding to Clinton's use of a private email server.

Trump calls for special prosecutor in Clinton Foundation scandal - Business Insider

[Admin]

See the playbook? This is done over and over again. There is an urgent need (like fighting Zika). Bills are proposed, but Republicans add some completely unrelated hobbyhorse to it, like defunding Planned Parenthood. The Democrats rightly refuse this extortion attempt.

And what happens, the Republicans then blame the Democrats that they don't care about Zika..

During a fast fundraising stop in Miami, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton made an appearance at Borinquen Clinic, a community health center on the front lines of the growing Zika epidemic, and urged Congress to return for a special session and “get a bill passed.” However, Clinton neglected to mention it was Senate Democrats who, at the last minute, scuttled a deal negotiated by the House and Senate approving a $1.1 billion for Zika response. Their main objection? The bill restricted funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

Democrats put Planned Parenthood ahead of Zika | TheHill

[Admin]

Keep it honest, Donald..

Donald Trump distorted the facts about former secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails when he said in Texas that “the FBI found thousands [of emails] she never turned over, and now just recently found another 15,000 more.” Trump is right that the FBI recovered “several thousand work-related emails” that Clinton did not turn over to the State Department, as FBI Director James Comey disclosed in July. But the FBI did not “just recently” find “another 15,000 more.” Instead, it was recently announced that the FBI recovered a total of about 14,900 emails during its yearlong investigation of Clinton, including the “several thousand work-related emails” that Comey cited in July. Also, Trump claimed that Clinton deleted her emails to “cover up her crimes,” but Comey said the FBI found “no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails [that the FBI found] were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

Fact check: Trump on Clinton’s emails

[Admin]

Perhaps even the Republican 'establishment' is under the same decay, although there is much to be said for arguing that they brought this largely onto themselves (see here for probably the best explanation of that).

However, somehow the Freedom Caucus and the likes of Ted Cruz (look here to see what kind of a person he really is) were arguing the establishment was caving. 

This is nonsense, of course:

Instead, before making his strong indictment of Trump, he starts by repeating the myth that Republicans in Congress haven’t opposed Barack Obama. Except for blocking Obama's Supreme Court nominee, he said, "it’s tough to pinpoint exactly how things would be substantively different if Nancy Pelosi were speaker and Harry Reid the majority leader.” 

This is exactly the kind of mythology that makes Republican voters willing to support Trump.

If congressional Democrats had retained the majorities they held back in 2009-2010, they almost certainly would have passed comprehensive immigration reform, a climate change bill and even some sort of gun safety legislation. Democrats on appropriations committees would have spent more on domestic programs (no one would ever have heard of a sequester), and Democrats on the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees would probably have paid for that additional spending with additional taxes on the wealthy. The minimum wage would be higher. Obama’s preschool and community-college initiatives would be law.

And not only would Democrats have confirmed a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia -- and Obama would likely have nominated someone younger and more liberal than Merrick Garland – but most of the current 11 vacancies in circuit courts and 72 vacancies in district courts would have been filled with confirmed judges. Instead, Deace makes the preposterous claim that Republicans “rubber-stamped all of Obama’s administrative and lower court judicial appointments.”

More Blunt Truths From Republicans, Please - Bloomberg View

[Admin]

Some extraordinary stuff from a conservative radio host (Ziegler) and the author of the article (which you really should read in whole) has worked three years for Glen Beck. How the media were delegitimized, but Republicans might very well reap what they sawed.

One of the chief problems, Sykes said, was that it had become impossible to prove to listeners that Trump was telling falsehoods because over the past several decades, the conservative news media had "basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers." "There's nobody," he lamented. "Let's say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it's a falsehood. The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that, 'By the way, you know it's false.' And they'll say, 'Why? I saw it on Allen B. West.' Or they'll say, 'I saw it on a Facebook page.' And I'll say, 'The New York Times did a fact check.' And they'll say, 'Oh, that's The New York Times. That's bulls---.' There's nobody — you can't go to anybody and say, 'Look, here are the facts.'" "And I have to say that's one of the disorienting realities of this political year. You can be in this alternative media reality and there's no way to break through it,"

Sykes continued. "And I swim upstream because if I don't say these things from some of these websites, then suddenly I have sold out. Then they'll ask what's wrong with me for not repeating these stories that I know not to be true." Ziegler said he faced much of the same problem. "If you are a conservative talk show host, which I am, if you don't accept that it's likely Hillary Clinton has taken part in multiple murders, or that Barack Obama is a Muslim extremist sympathizer who was probably born outside this country — if you don't accept those two things, it's almost as if you're a sellout. You're a RINO. You're somehow part of the liberal elite. It's nuts. It's making my own show very difficult to do.

It's almost where to the point where we are not able to function." He continued: "It's almost like it's a disease, and it's taken over people. I don't remember this being the case four years ago. But something has happened. Something snapped. But now all of a sudden, if a story comes out, and it's not on Breitbart or endorsed by Drudge, it can't be true. Especially if it's about Donald Trump. Which is flat-out ludicrous."

"And look, I'm a conservative talk show host. All conservative hosts have basically established their brand as being contrasted to the mainstream media. So we have spent 20 years demonizing the liberal mainstream media. And by the way, a lot of it has been justifiable. There is real bias," he continued. "But at a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there," Sykes said. "And I am feeling, to a certain extent, that we are reaping the whirlwind at that. And I have to look in the mirror and ask myself, 'To what extent did I contribute?'"

Donald Trump breaks the conservative media - Business Insider

[Admin]

The rise of the American conspiracy theory

Damon Linker

August 30, 2016

America's presidential politics have become a dizzying scrum of insults and gossip that frequently veers into outright and angry conspiracy theorizing.

Blame democracy. It has killed our faith in "experts" peddling "truth."

The democratizing urge to tear down established authorities and institutions in the name of equality, begun a half-century ago and accelerated by technological innovations in the decades since, has undeniably empowered a new form of post-rational authoritarian politics. The reigning liberal institutions of the postwar era, which strove for objectivity and fairness (while frequently, and inevitably, falling short of them), first came under assault during the 1960s from both the right and left. Though the left did more damage at first by attacking the liberal establishment on civil rights and the Vietnam War, the right (empowered by the very excesses encouraged by the left) soon got the upper hand.

The right's early forays into radio, TV, and book and magazine publishing, artfully recounted in Nicole Hemmer's new history of conservative media, began to expand greatly in the 1970s. The idea was to build a more democratic counter-establishment to tear down and replace the liberal establishment, which kept conservatives out of positions of political and cultural power.

Over the coming decades, right-wing talk radio programs proliferated, Fox News was founded, and a vast array of websites (including The Drudge Report and Breitbart) began serving as an alternative source of news and information for millions of disaffected Republicans. These outlets trained continuous artillery fire on the mainstream media, credentialized "experts," and other members of the liberal establishment, relentlessly calling them out for apparent double standards, hypocrisy, and other signs of untrustworthiness.

The ultimate goal was to undermine the authority of these institutions.

The effort has been remarkably successful. But the result hasn't been what most of those leading the assault on the establishment initially hoped or expected. Instead of a conservative revolution to replace liberalism, we've ended up with a tribune of the alt-right seriously competing for the presidency. To see why it's turned out this way requires a brief detour into epistemology — the subfield of philosophy that studies knowledge and its foundations.

You probably haven't been to the city of Timbuktu in the African country of Mali. You've never seen it and most likely have never met anyone from there. Yet I bet most of you — just about all, in fact — assume and accept that it exists. But why? You have no personal experience of it at all. The reason is that you trust the authorities who have told you it exists: the map- and globe-makers, the people who mention it on the news from time to time, the teachers and authors of textbooks who made passing reference to the city and its storied history in lessons you learned as a child.

Most of the things we claim to know about the world beyond our immediate experience are held in precisely this way: on faith, as a matter of trust in those who bequeathed that knowledge to us in the first place. We know that a man named Socrates walked the streets of Athens 2,500 years ago. And that matter is made of atoms, which are themselves comprised of sub-atomic particles. And that a water molecule is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. And that the eighth planet in the solar system is a gas giant named Neptune. And that the Earth circles the sun rather than the other way around. And so on through countless other facts and theories that we accept on trust.

Now how about this: We know that greenhouse gases are producing destabilizing changes in the Earth's climate. And that human beings evolved from other species over millions of years. And that Barack Obama is a Christian. And that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the death of Vince Foster.

Large numbers of Americans deny those and many other assertions. Why? Because the trustworthiness of the authorities that make the claims has been under direct and continuous attack for the past several decades — and because the internet has given a voice to every kook who makes a contrary assertion. What we're left with is a chaos of competing claims, none of which has the authority to dispel the others as untrue.

That sounds like a recipe for relativism — and it is, but only (metaphorically speaking) for a moment, as a preparatory stage toward a new form of absolutism. Confronted by the destabilizing swirl of contradictory assertions, many people end up latching onto whichever source of information confirms the beliefs they held before opening their web browser. Instead of relativistic skepticism they're left with some of the most impenetrable dogmas ever affirmed.

What was once confined to UFO and Big Foot obsessives has now metastasized into the political mainstream and captured one of the nation's two major parties — with the encouragement of some of its most prominent members. Who's to say that Hillary Clinton isn't suffering from a debilitating illness? Just "go online" and you'll find all the evidence you need. What, you say she's denying it? Of course she is: That's exactly what we'd expect her to say!

This is what happens when the principle of democratic egalitarianism is applied to questions of knowledge and truth — when instead of working to reform institutions devoted to upholding norms of objectivity and verifiable evidence, critics turn them into a target for destruction altogether, transforming public life into an epistemological free-for-all in the process.

That things have degraded so badly is troubling. But it's nowhere near as troubling as the realization that we haven't got the foggiest clue how to reverse the damage.