Bannon's Strategy: Shock Event

For the first time here, I'm posting someone else's ideas.  

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College.  She posted it on her FB page on Jan 29, 2017.

"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today. What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event." Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.


Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it. Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.

My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.


I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.


If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.  But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.  A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.


If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.  Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."  Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."

Time for the 25th

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution allows for removal of a US President who is unable to discharge his duties.

On January 10, 2017 I sent this email to my father when he pointed out that DJT isn't the Oval's first narcissist:
**************************************************
Dear Dad,

"Narcissism and "narcissitic personality disorder" are different.  

I've met plenty of narcissists but from my observation of DJT (and in spite of my total lack of psychological training) I say he's a wonderful match for narcissistic personality disorder.  Here is the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual 5 (DSM) definition of "narcissistic personality disorder".  As you may know, DSM is the definitive guidebook for classifying mental and emotional disorders used by all providers and payers: We've all seen all of these in DJT.

"The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, the following criteria must be met: 

A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by: 

1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b): a. Identity: Excessive reference to others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal may be inflated or deflated, or vacillate between extremes; emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem. b. Self-direction: Goal-setting is based on gaining approval from others; personal standards are unreasonably high in order to see oneself as exceptional, or too low based on a sense of entitlement; often unaware of own motivations. 

AND 2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b): a. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self; over- or underestimate of own effect on others. b. Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality constrained by little genuine interest in others‟ experiences and predominance of a need for personal gain 

B. Pathological personality traits in the following domain: 1. Antagonism, characterized by: a. Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert;self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is better than others; condescending toward others. b. Attention seeking: Excessive attempts to attract and be the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking. 

C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations. 

D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual‟s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment. 

E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual‟s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma)."

**************************************************************

I see nearly every criteria met by DJT's behavior every day.  The analysis of DJT in this piece raises his disease to an ever more dire level, classifying it as "malignant narcissism"

So it's not too soon to begin putting the 25th Amendment into action.

#POTUSLIES

Since Donald J. Trump announced his candidacy he's been lying.  Some friends in the GOP have asked me to wait until he's President to pass judgment.  Watch his actions, they say, if he wins. OK.  He's POTUS.  Herewith, the lies that have started to flow from him and his administration.*

January 24, 2017: WashPo reports that #POTUSLIES when he says he'd have won the popular vote were it not for non-existent voter fraud.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/at-white-house-trump-tells-congressional-leaders-3-5-million-illegal-ballots-cost-him-the-popular-vote/?utm_term=.a3d91a2bc9ee&wpisrc=nl_az_most

January 23, 2017:  CBSNews reports that #POTUSLIES by packing CIA audience with friends and allies who cheered, thereby lying to the cameras about support for him from the assemblage and the agency in general.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-say-theres-a-sense-of-unease-in-intel-community-after-trump-cia-visit/

January 23, 2017 WSJ: WHITE HOUSE BACKS 'ALTERNATIVE FACTS'

http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-backs-alternative-facts-1485144074

I love this headline. It quotes Kelleyanne Conway in an interview on MEET THE PRESS saying that Sean Spicer wasn't lying when he said DJT's inauguration crowd was the biggest in history, he was merely referencing alternative facts.  That's a perfect insight into DJTWorld.  There are no truths.  There is not objective reality.  There are only a selection of "facts" from which we pick while drafting the narrative (today's word for fiction).

How #POTUSLIES in this story is simple:  all objective data prove that fewer people attended his inauguration than BO's first inauguration.  The WSJ story documents it nicely.  Sean Spicer on camera in front of the WH press corps lied that DJT's crowd was bigger than BOs because DC Metro ridership was higher.  That's not an alternative fact.  It's a lie the WSJ documents.

Here's the disturbing part.  We think reality TV is actually real.  We now have a POTUS who was born of reality TV.  Reality TV is not real.  It's fake.  It's fiction.  It's entertainment.

Next up:  Non-fiction and Fiction sections of libraries to merge.

* (I use the term POTUS here as shorthand for the entire Administration, because while the fish stinks from the head you will start smelling the lies further down the body.)

Second source for these lies is here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/trumps-press-secretary-just-told-4-whoppers-in-5-minutes-233984

Trump 'Lies' and Honest Journalism

I trust you saw this.  If you haven't, and you can get into the piece at WSJ.com, it's worth your time.  Gerald Baker, Editor in Chief goes to great lengths to make this point:  Journalism isn't supposed to tell you if a candidate is a liar, it's only supposed to give you the facts and let you decide if the candidate is a liar.  Baker says:

"To refrain from labeling leaders’ statements as lies is to support an unrelenting but not omniscient press, one that trusts readers’ judgments rather than presenting judgments to them. If we routinely make these kinds of judgments, readers would start to see our inevitably selective use of a moral censure as partisanship. We must not only be objective. We must be seen to be objective to continue to earn our readers’ trust."

Here's the problem with Baker's argument: because he and the leading conservative press think they're only writing for their primary reader -- people who actually can make sound judgements about the character of guys like Trump-- the WSJ and their ilk allowed Trump's ascension by not branding him a lying BS artist in month 1 of his campaign.  Their assumption about their audience is dead wrong: they're not just writing for their primary reader.  Rather they are setting the standard, the tone, and the agenda for the conservative press.  If a scion like the WSJ had called Trump what he really is -- a liar -- Fox and other outlets likely would've followed suit.

WSJ's primary readers generally don't buy DJT's BS.  We knew he didn't believe it when he said Mexico is sending us rapists and drug dealers; he was merely playing to the crowd to get their ire up and grab headlines.  He was deceiving his base to achieve an objective.  This BS became the core of his campaign.  

He said we should kill the families of terrorists....and on and on.  When he said during his debate with HRC that he'd hire a special prosecutor to put her in jail, he was lying -- speaking a falsehood in order to deceive and achieve his result.  Last month at a rally when "Lock her up" broke out he said, "That played well before the election but now we don't really care, right?"  

Unlike the WSJ's primary readers, Trumpeters -- the 40 million or so yahoos who generated the momentum that got him the nomination and scared the GOP into full support that gave him the platform for victory -- can't make that same sound judgement.  

• They think The Apprentice is really how businesses run.  
• They think Trump's a bona fide billionaire who made it on his own.  They don't know (or care) that the $2MM stake from his Dad would've been worth more than he is now had he put it in an index fund instead of losing untold millions on horrible business decisions. 
• They think he really was just engaging in locker-room banter when he said he can grab a women's p---y anytime he wants.  Calling it "locker-room banter" was a falsehood intended to deceive. 
• They REALLY THINK a guy who builds casinos and hotels has the acumen, the judgement, the temperment, the experience, and the education to be POTUS

Had the WSJ, The National Review, The Washington Examiner, FoxNews, and the rest of the true conservative media called Trump what he is -- a serial liar -- from month 1 instead of sucking on the teet of the ratings bonanza he drove, we'd be inaugurating Ted, or Jeb, or Marco in 15 days instead of the most dangerous person to move into the White House in the history of the American Experiment. 

Sadly, Baker has doubled down on the WSJ policy to let readers judge who the liars are.  And sadly, 40-50 million angry yahoos will continue to cheer for the reality show premiering Jan 20 at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Let's hope the ratings tank and the show gets cancelled.  Soon.

Your America Must Survive

Dear Hillary Voter,

If you are the passionate believer in America you claim to be you must fight for America's survival starting today.  You outnumber Trump voters by 106,053, you're better educated, and, by and large, you're motivated by hope not fear, optimism not anger, progress not regress.

Your America was born of an idea that defeated the world's most powerful empire...and did it again when she was just 29 years old in The War of 1812.  Your America survived Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears.  Your America survived the loss of 620,000 souls -- 2% of the population -- in the Civil War, more souls than were lost in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam combined.   Your America survived the Spanish Flu of 1918-1920 in which 50,000,000 died worldwide and 1 in 4 Americans were infected.  So many Americans perished that we began to run out of coffins and gravediggers.

Your America triumphed over fascism in Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan.  It vanquished communism in the USSR and China (yes, China where capitalism is slowly replacing communism while democracy remains a dream).  Your America's values have freed hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, from the bonds of political oppression and economic privation in Eastern Europe (Poland, former East Germany, Ukraine, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and Asia (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, Taiwan).

Your America -- a country defined by the ideals of freedom, equality, acceptance, love, charity, and a belief in the greater good over naked self-interest -- must and will survive if you fight for her.

Nationalism, fascism, and demagogues have crushed lesser democracies.  But your America, where half of you voted for hope over fear, need not suffer that fate.  Listen deeply to the fears of your neighbor who voted for Trump.  Your weapons are freedom of thought, reason, and discourse. Over 50 million angry, frustrated, scared Americans live amongst us.  You can demand they salute and support the ideals of America-- freedom, equality, acceptance, love, charity, and a belief in the greater good over naked self-interest--in spite of their frustration and anger, and you can marshal those shared ideals to fight together for America's survival.

Your America can and must survive.  But she needs your open heart, steel spine, and clear head today.

Release the Student Hostages

The anti-charter school campaign in MA maintains that voting for the ballot initiative and increasing the number of charter schools will drain $400 million from public schools.  First point: charter schools ARE public schools.

The Department of Ed website specifies how school districts with students who leave and go to charters are given state aid to offset the cost of sending that student to a charter.

When a student leaves a district for a charter school the state reimburses that district for 100% of the tuition cost charged to the district by the charter school for that one student in the first year the student leaves.  So in that first year the losing district does not have a student to educate but the districts gets every penny it has to send to the student's new charter school for his/her tuition.  In year 2 of the student's move to the charter the district that lost the student gets a reimbursement from the state of 25% of the tuition cost.  To be clear: in year 2 the losing district no longer has to educated the student who has gone to the charter school yet the district gets 25% of the tuition that the district has to pay to the charter; no student to educate, 25% of the money that leaves the district paid back to the district by the state.  

This continues for 5 years after the student departs.  100% reimbursement to the district in year 1, 25% reimbursement in years 2-6.  At the end of 6 years the legislation assumes the district who lost the student 6 years ago will have adjusted their costs to accommodate the lower enrollment brought on by students leaving to go to charters.  At that point the district losing students does not have to pay any money to educate the students who are gone yet the district is collecting taxes from its residents to educated students it does not have enrolled in its system.  It is that money that the district sends to the charter school who is now educating students who live in the district but are not going to the districts' schools.

So, will increasing the number of charter schools drain $400 million from public schools?  Yes, probably, but it will not drain any money away from well-functioning school districts where students' parents believe the education is worthy, where kids are not leaving in droves for better charter schools.  It will affect failing school districts with horrible teachers and poorly managed administrations.   And the money it "drains" away is money a district gets in taxes but does not need for students it no longer educates.

Since the teachers union won't give up tenure and let taxpayers (via their district administrations) fire bad teachers, charter schools are the counterpunch.  You don't get to have guaranteed employment disconnected from your performance AND guaranteed revenue flowing into your failing, horrible school.  You have to pick:  no tenure & better district schools where good teacher stay and bad teachers go, OR keep your tenure and release your student hostages.

NFL Players Take a Cheapshot

On September 13 I posted this on FB:

"And then it hit me: NFL players may face a 4-game suspension for possibly knowing about a football being deflated, but it's fine if they publicly disrepect the United States and her National Anthem. Got it."


The part of my inital post that seems to have aroused ire from many friends was that when NFL players "...publicly disrepect the United States and her National Anthem" they suffer no consequences.  One friend said "I don't think it is disrespectful at all to not stand. I think it is the greatest thing about our country...so different from the rest of the world. We can express ourselves by questioning authority and even the symbols of the country we live in. It's what makes us great." Two other friends agreed.  My son implied I was suggesting "an employer should punish someone for doing something that is still within their constitutional rights."  One other friend agreed with me due, I expect, in large part to his 30 years of service in the Navy. 

My assertion that the sitting players are disrespecting the US and her National Anthem rests on this belief: The National Anthem represents the essence, the spirit, the totality of all that is America. (You can stop here if you don't agree with that belief).   It does not just represent the racism in our country. 

Standing up is a broad, well-accepted sign of respect in our culture (gentlemen will commonly stand when a respected or honored member of society enters a room; the assembled in a courtroom will stand when a judge enters; the congregation at a wedding stands when the bride processes). This is why people who respect the essence of America expressed in her National Anthem stand when it is performed. Ergo, sitting -- the opposite of standing -- conveys the opposite message, ie. disrespect, be it for the essence of America or a judge in a courtroom. The players who sit or take another position besides standing are therefore disrespecting the essence of our country.  They are not joining in a pointed protest against racism in the public square.  They are disrespecting the essence and spirit of the very political system that guarantees the right to free expression.  In denouncing the entire system that guarantees free expression they are not, in fact, strengthening it. They are damaging that same system. 

Not every display of free expression strengthens our polity. A woman in the public square organizing an overthow of the government because racism/bigotry/sexism or another cancer infects parts of the polity would not be strengthening our country by her free expression, but rather she is promoting its destruction.  Similarly, the NFL player disrespecting the essence of America by sitting during the National Anthem attacks her broadside, damning ALL that she represents INCLUDING freedom of expression. 

Second Point (wherein my son says I imply an employer should punish someone for doing something within their constitutional rights): In fact, yes, that is what I'm implying. Many, many constitutional rights are limited by the contract between employer and worker. You cannot exercise your freedom of movement or assembly or expression when you have agreed to work at a job from 9-5; you can't leave at 1:30 if you're tired; you can't assemble with friends in the breakroom whenever you want; you can't curse at clients. But you have willingly suspended your rights in exchange for the rewards of the work.  By the same token, NFL owners could make standing at attention during the National Anthem a job requirement in the same way that players can't drag down an opponent via the facemask. That is just another job requirement owners -- through the NFL -- place on their employees. 

Final thought: These protesting players are grandstanding, risking nothing of value to themselves and gaining maximum spotlight time. Why not use their celebrity status off-field, off-camera, to damn the cancers of our body politic direclty via social media, live apperances, and so forth? Or, refuse to play the game one week in protest of our society's ills, thereby risking fines or other consequences that would have a personal impact on the player himself. THAT level of free expression would gain my enduring respect.