18 April 2017

As a newly avid reader of Lawyers, Guns, and Money, I have some thoughts on the blog's quality.

Occasionally, someone presents a really good insight, as for example this from Erik Loomis:

Second, this is indicative of a lot of reaction to Trump from Democrats since November 8. The amount of grasping at desperate straws has been disheartening. The idea that an electoral college revolt would reject Trump was the worst moment in this, but relying on the 25th Amendment is almost as bad. This kind of desperation shows how reluctant liberals are to deal with the real problem–the Republican Party. Donald Trump is nothing more than a slightly worse Republican than normal. That’s why the Republican base supports his agenda and why congressional Republicans are unwilling to buck him on most issues–except from the right! Getting rid of Trump solves nothing except some exceptional kleptocracy. But until I see Republicans outraged by Trump’s support of Erdogan, I’m not believing that they care one iota about emerging authoritarianism. It’s what they want if they can be the authorities.

Of course, Loomis also believes that workers have "no choice" but to work with the Democratic Party, as flawed as it is, to gain rights and improved conditions.  (My view is, in short, that this is usually a good idea, but in West Virginia it's a ridiculous joke.)  

I have heard a lot of people (well, old white men anyway) talk to me about politics with the unshakeable assumption that Republicans and Democrats will endure forever and ever amen  and that when one of these two immortal supports of the US body politic shows signs of weakness, we have to spend billions on a knee replacement (clunky analogy, but I hope my point is coming across.)  The notion that an obviously gangrenous leg might need to be removed to save the body always comes to my mind in response.  (Not to mention that this body was born with no legs as we would recognize them...)

And then, there's, I don't know what to call it -- men getting shocked, shocked that there is MISOGYNY in ACADEMIA, after they and their colleagues have already written copiously about a well-known orange-pated misogynist politician who won the Presidency after virulent misogynist attacks on his rival.  But upon some reflection, I recall that there's a gospel passage that might cover this.  Matthew's Jesus was tested by the Pharisees and Sadducees:

...they asked him to show them a sign from heaven.  He answered them, 'When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.'  And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.'*  You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.  An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to them except the sign of Jonah.'  Then he left them and went away.  (Matthew 16:1-4, NRSV)

 And this, dear readers, is why I am glad not to be working in academia right now.

*Or, if you like, "You can construct fine scenarios of electoral vote majorities for both candidates."

No comments: