One-Party Rule

The following is an excerpt from the admin’s forthcoming book on Barnes & Noble about coming of age in the Sixties, working at the Fillmore East and the Village Voice in NYC, the Armadillo World Headquarters in Austin, TX, as well as the cascading succession of events in politics that turned him into the curmudgeon of today, railing about the sorry state we find ourselves in.

The pandemic aggravated the plight of American fam­ilies, providing hard lessons for this country—not the least of which is the effect on work­ing people, the com­mon core of society that keeps it func­tion­ing. In Septem­ber 2020 a Census Bureau survey stated that 10.5 percent of adults, some 23 million people, reported house­hold members weren’t getting enough to eat, a sharp increase from the 3.7 percent in a Department of Agriculture survey in 2019. At the same time, food-insecurity estimates for households with children ranged to nearly 30 percent. Yet as an October 2020 Washington Post report noted, of the $4 trillion approved in the pandemic aid relief package (exceeding the cost of the 18-year Afghanistan war), only 20 percent actually went to workers and families, the bulk targeted for businesses and the wealthy. The stock market reached all-time highs, while cars lined up for hours at food banks.

Hopefully this harsh reality will help us emerge from an age where public per­ception replaced know­ledge, goaded on by patriotic slo­gan­eering designed to gloss over the latest political chican­ery, shrouded in concert with a sham religiosity. The real­ity show of the Trump years has exposed those tawdry truths hid­den in plain sight, drowned out by the ministrations of who­ever says the craziest thing or wields the biggest microphone—the top story du jour. 

It seemed to me that politics had devolved into a suppurating pustule on the face of that “shining city on a hill” we’ve always fashioned ourselves—while paradoxically of­fer­ing some explanation why so many opted to vote for a to­tal wild card in 2016, the un­poli­tician: an electorate sickened by the business-as-usual approach to governance. But it doesn’t explain why so many still supported such bunco after four years of that ad­min­is­tra­tion, even bol­stered so blatantly by brazen voter suppression and a steady stream of right-wing dis­information.

Now, I’m not deluded into thinking that Democrats stand nobly high above the fray, beholden as they are as well to monied interests to fund campaigns. But at least they exhibit a semblance of care about the plight of the masses, if only in fighting a rear-guard action against plutocratic ­rapacity. (And they did, in fact, introduce an amendment following the election to overturn Citizens United.) Add to that continued Republican efforts to restrict voting through out­rageous gerrymandering and outright sup­pres­sion, including attempts at a massive purging of le­giti­mate (chiefly nonwhite) voters.

After the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Republican politicians rushed to close nearly 1,700 polling places to make it harder to vote in states previously sub­ject to judicial review (750 in Texas, 320 in Arizona, 214 in Georgia, 126 in Louisiana, 96 in Mississippi, 72 in Alabama, and 29 in North Carolina). During the 2020 election, Republicans filed some 300 lawsuits in 44 states trying to stop the counting of mail-in ballots, as these made it easier for “those” people to vote. Blatant efforts in the 2020 election to suppress voting led critics to label Republicans in Con­gress the Jim Crow caucus.

Because of these and other scabrous acts—all designed to retain power in a foredoomed effort to stem the tide working against a shrinking white demographic—I remain what they call in Texas a “yellow-dog Demo­crat”: I’d vote for a yel­low dog before I’d vote for a Re­pub­li­can. To me, the elections are bi­nary. No Green Party pro­test vote is worth what the 2016 elec­tions foisted off on our country.

Granted, Joe Biden wasn’t my first pick in a crowded field when the 2020 election season got underway, maybe not even in my top five. Yet his selection might have been a foregone conclusion, given the desire of a wide swath of the elec­tor­ate to return to a more placid governance, what passes for nor­mal­ity—and the feeling that he might best garner the needed support. Even so, his win over the mod­ern equiva­lent of a super-sized P. T. Barnum didn’t end up the wholesale tsunami many predicted. But for Trump’s doltish mismanagement of the Covid crisis (fearing as he did its impact on the economy), Biden might well have lost. 

In my mind this may be due at least in part to the Dem­ocratic party’s hamhandish response (or lack therof) to Republican branding—saying, for instance, that to “defund the police” meant not to redefine policing and actually lighten the load on cops but to disband them en­tirely and loose chaos on our cities. Shades of the Sixties and Richard Nixon’s crusade for law and order (derided by cartoonist Walt Kelly in “Pogo” as “lawn order”). 

And some pundits aver that the “socialist” brand, bogus as it may be, has been affixed to the party through constant Republican iteration—constantly drawing comparisons to poor Ven­e­zuela, a country we’ve strived overtly as well as co­vertly to beat into economic destitution. (One wag has sug­gested that “socialism” is used to describe everything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport.) It should be noted that now­a­days, the label “communism” to tar pro­gres­sive notions has fallen out of fashion in the Republican play­book, given the ascension to power in Russia of Putin and his pet plutocrats (and, as mentioned in a recent post, the fact that there are more Chinese billionaires than any other nationality). It’s all about the benjamins, as in he who has the gold makes the rules.

And in truth, the power and the gold have resided in the grasp of the Republican party. Even with the election of Democrat Joe Biden, we’ve had, in essence, one-party rule for decades—witness, for one, the Republican dominance on the Supreme Court. Including Amy Barrett, the party has picked six of the last ten justices although it has lost the pop­ular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections. With Trump’s third appointment to the court, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell running roughshod over the process, Republican presidents have picked sixteen out of the last twenty justices. Justice Barrett was the first Su­preme Court justice to be confirmed without bipartisan sup­port since 1869.

Even more indicative of this single-party trend in politics, however, is the fact that Republican presidential candidates gained office twice in the last four elections despite losing the popular vote—in 2000 and in 2016—courtesy of the Electoral College. And in 2020, only the margins in a cou­ple “swing” states prevented it from happening again, in an election where Biden claimed the highest percentage of any challenger since FDR in 1932. Biden won the popular vote by seven million, and Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by three million—yet they won the electoral vote by the same margin.

The Electoral College, an anomaly in “democracies” world­wide, favors land over people. An elector in Wyoming represents around 150,000 voters; a California elector, some 500,000 residents, making their votes over three times more powerful. Voters in Montana rate 31 times the electoral bang for their buck in presidential votes than their counterparts in New York. Those in Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico get zilch.

This wasn’t always the case. As states increased in population, the number of electors did as well. But, as historian Heather Cox Richardson writes: 

The 1920 census showed that the weight of the nation’s demographics was moving to cities, which were controlled by Democrats, so the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives refused to reapportion representation after that census. Reapportioning the House would have cost many of them their seats. Rather than permitting the number of representatives to grow along with population, Congress then capped the size of the House at 435. Since then, the average size of a congressional district has tripled. This gives smaller states a huge advantage in the Electoral College, in which each state gets a number of votes equal to the number of its senators and representatives.

These injuries to our system have saddled us with an Electoral College that permits a minority to tyrannize over the majority. That systemic advantage is unsustainable in a democracy. One or the other will have to give.

The winner-take-all approach most states take in allo­cat­ing electoral votes also has the effect of negating the tally for losing candidates therein. More equitable at least would be awarding each candidate an amount proportionate to the number of votes received—given the nigh-impossible alternative of a constitutional amendment changing the system.

This flies in the face of popular opinion: U.S. adults be­lieve, fifty-eight to forty per­cent, that the Constitution should be amended so the presidential candidate who ­receives the most votes na­tio­nwide wins. In one of many history courses I’ve taken in college (my favorite subject), a pro­fessor opined that this was a feature, not a defect, built in by the found­ing fathers. He insisted that their intent is apparent in the chang­ing of those ringing phrases in the Declaration of Independence—“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—to the magisterial version in the Constitution—“life, liberty, and property.”

This affront to the notion of one-man, one-vote democracy as practiced elsewhere in the world doesn’t represent the extent of the problem. The U.S. Senate, our own House of Lords, reflects this same disparity, giving each state two senators regardless of its size. Once again, land triumphs over people. A voter in Wyoming has seventy times the rep­re­sentation in the Senate as one in California, while once again, citizens in Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C., go without. (As journalist Ari Berman points out, Wyoming, population 578,000, is 92 percent white and has 2 senators. DC, with 705,000 people, is 46% Black and has 0 senators.) In 2013, the New York Times pointed out that the six senators from California, Texas, and New York represented the same number of people as the sixty-two senators from the smallest 31 states. Following the 2020 election, the Senate was split evenly, but the 50 Democrats represented some 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republicans represented.

And when a Mitch McConnell wields Senate leadership like a cudgel to maintain power—as seen in denying Ba­rack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court as well as those of more than a hundred federal judges—it only reinforces the perception of one-party rule.

Which seems all too in step with the notion of “original­ism” as relentlessly espoused by conservative members of the Supreme Court following the lead of the late Antonin Scalia. Bill Moyers has noted that this represents the Founding Fathers’ intent at the outset to limit democratic (small “d”) input:

The Senate, with equal votes for every state, large and small, would ensure that citizens of large, populous states had far less influence over legislation and judicial appointments than those in smaller ones. Alexander Hamilton wanted its members to serve lifetime terms, for “nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.” Though he opposed giving each state equal votes, James Madison thought the upper house should serve “as a check on the democracy,” a way to impede the influence of those who “labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.”

Demographics mitigate against those who might “secretly sigh” for more equity—America’s nonwhite popula­tion, which tends now to live in large or medium-sized states. Less than fifteen percent of citizens (predominantly white) now live in rural counties. And as Republicans gained ascen­dancy in statewide races, redrawing district boun­daries during reapportionment, representation in the House of Representatives became skewed. As the progressive Center for American Progress pointed out, for each of the three elections between 2012 and 2016, fifty-nine seats would have changed hands if the percentage of seats won by a party matched the percentage of votes cast for its candidates: Republicans won nineteen additional seats each election because of districts biased in their favor.

As contrary as this development might seem to our avowed prin­ciples—you know, the much ballyhooed “American exceptionalism” and all that razzmatazz—it extends fur­ther if you consider one of the major grievances (and, indeed, rallying cry) of the revolutionary period: “no taxation without representation.” So who pays the freight nowadays? Where does tax money come from and where does it go?

According to a post-election Brookings Institution study, counties won by Joe Biden make up 70 percent of all U.S. eco­nomic output (gross domestic product, or GDP), while Trump’s counties just 29 percent. Left-leaning economists say blue states essentially subsidize red states, which over­whelm­ingly accept more federal funds compared to what they contribute. According to the Rockefeller Institute, only 8 out of our 50 states send more to the federal government than they receive in return. The top 6 are traditional blue states—New York ($22 billion), New Jersey ($12 billion), Massachusetts ($9 billion), Connecticut ($8 billion), Colorado ($2 billion), and Minnesota ($725 million). The other two are the traditional red states of Utah ($511 million) and Nebraska ($315 million). The bottom ten of “takers,” those who receive more than they give—Virginia, Maryland, Ken­tucky, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ari­zona, Tennessee, Michigan, and Florida—are predominantly red states. But I don’t suppose “originalists” care to hear this kind of argument.

What does warrant discussion ultimately, though, is the ut­ter perversion of honor and the rule of law during Trump’s rogue administration. He has blown up every hallowed tradition associated with the office, wielding power as would the don of a crime fam­ily. During his reign, he’s sought only to enrich and ennoble him­self—besides picking at the scabs of racism, nationalism, the sores of the forgotten in our society, to distract by fomenting confusion, division, and an­­ger—cementing his imperial control over party minions with an itchy twitter finger holding them in thrall, his only interest what’s in it for him.


Unpacking the Courts

The repugs blather about court packing? It’s already a done deal, before the ascension of Amy “Goody Two Shoes” Barrett. We live under one-party rule, and they’re doing everything they can to maintain power in face of a shrinking minority base. Since Dick Nixon, 16 of the 20 judges who’ve become Supremes have been put there by republicans—witness the end of voting rights, the flood of dark money, and more yet to come. If you watch one video today, make it this one.

Trump’s Debts Listed: a Billion Dollars

Forbes breaks down what exactly Donald Trump owes:


Now available as a bumpersticker and a t-shirt:

Shameless Commerce Division

Somehow I always thought retirement would include days relaxing in a hammock and fruity drinks. Who knew it’d be so busy—the daily search-and-destroy missions to kill trolls on this site, work editing/typesetting/designing books for friends and family, progress on a manuscript. Last week I took a break and whupped up a page to peddle SDS paraphernalia, in an effort to keep the beans from getting too thin. I know many here are also on a limited income, but if you have a few shekels to toss in to show your support, it would be appreciated.


Season of the Witch


Tom Waits




Fusion GPS Testimony


I’ve stored this here at the bottom of the page so people can refer to it at leisure and not have to scroll through the Facebook page to find it. Along about page 62 the talk turns to Don the Con. Skipping ahead to pg. 138 to talk about the Russian connection and it starts to get interesting:

Q. So after Mr. Steele had found out the information that he put in the very first of these memos, the one dated June 20, 2016, he approached you about taking this information to specifically the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. That’s my recollection.
Q. So to the best of your recollection, that request or idea came directly from Mr. Steele, not anyone else?
A. That’s right. (p. 161)

. . .

Q. You said you had asked for some time to think it over. What in particular did he articulate to you was of significant national security concern to indicate that it should be taken to the FBI?
A. His concern, which is something that counterintelligence people deal with a lot, is whether or not there was blackmail going on, whether a political candidate was being blackmailed or had been compromised. And the whole problem of compromise of western businessmen and politicians by the Russians is an essential part of — it’s like disinformation, it’s something they worry about a lot and deal with a lot and are trained to respond to. So, you know, a trained intelligence officer can spot disinformation that you or I might not recognize, certainly that was Chris’s skill, and he honed in on this issue of blackmail as being a significant national security issue.

Later on:

You know, my understanding was that they would have gotten into who his sources were, how he knew certain things, and, you know, other details based on their own intelligence. Essentially what he told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that — that they — my understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization. (p. 175)

Chris Steele disengages from the FBI after Comey reopens Hillary investigation:

Q. Now, with regard to — just to finish up on the interactions with FBI, do you know were there any additional interactions between Mr. Steele and the FBI?
A. There was some sort of interaction, I think it was probably telephonic that occurred after Director Comey sent his letter to Congress reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. That episode, you know, obviously created some concern that the FBI was intervening in a political campaign in contravention of long-standing Justice Department regulation. So it made a lot of people, including us, concerned about what the heck was going on at the FBI. So, you know, we began getting questions from the press about, you know, whether they were also investigating Trump and, you know, we encouraged them to ask the FBI that question. You know, I think — I’m not sure we’ve covered this fully, but, you know, we just encouraged them to ask the FBI that question. On October 31st the New York Times posed a story saying that the FBI is investigating Trump and found no connections to Russia and, you know, it was a real Halloween special. Sometime thereafter the FBI — I understand Chris severed his relationship with the FBI out of concern that he didn’t know what was happening inside the FBI and there was a concern that the FBI was being manipulated for political ends by the Trump people and that we didn’t really understand what was going on. So he stopped dealing with them. (p. 178)

After the election (p. 219):

So after the election obviously we were as surprised as everyone else and Chris and I were mutually concerned about whether the United States had just elected someone who was compromised by a hostile foreign power, more in my case whether the election had been tainted by an intervention by the Russian intelligence services, and we were, you know, unsure what to do. Initially we didn’t do anything other than to discuss our concerns, but we were gravely concerned.
At some point a few weeks after the election Chris called me and said that he had received an inquiry from David Kramer, who was a long-time advisor to Senator McCain, and that according to — Kramer told Chris that he had run into Sir Andrew Wood at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and that Kramer was accompanying Senator McCain to this conference and that the three of them had had an unscheduled or unplanned encounter where the issue of this research was discussed and the essence of it, I guess, was conveyed to Senator McCain and to David Kramer from Andrew Wood. I don’t remember whether Andrew Wood’s name was specifically given to me by Christopher Steele at that time. It was later given to me. It later became an accepted fact that Chris had mentioned him to me. I believe he probably mentioned it.
But anyway, he did say someone that he worked with in the past who was a former UK government official with experience in Russia had had this conversation with David Kramer and John McCain and that Senator McCain had followed up on it as to what more there was to know about these allegations, this information.
So Chris asked me do you know David Kramer, and I said yes, I’ve known David Kramer for a long time. David Kramer is part of a small group of people that I’m sort of loosely affiliated with. We’ve all worked on Russia and are very concerned about kleptocracy and human rights and the police state that Russia has become, in particular the efforts of the Russians to corrupt and mess with our political system. So we shared this concern going back to when I was at the Wall Street Journal and that’s how I met David. He was working at the State Department as assistant secretary for human rights, and I was reporting on human rights and corruption in Russia. So I told Chris he’s legit. David is someone I’ve known for a long time and he knows a lot about these issues and he’s very concerned about Putin and the Kremlin and the rise of the new Russia and criminality and kleptocracy.
So he said, well, can we trust him? And I said yes, I think we can trust him. He says he wants information to give to Senator McCain so that Senator McCain can ask questions about it at the FBI, with the leadership of the FBI. That was essentially — all we sort of wanted was for the government to do its job and we were concerned about whether the information that we provided previously had ever, you know, risen to the leadership level of the FBI. We simply just didn’t know. It was our belief that Director Comey if he was aware — if he was made aware of this information would treat it seriously.

Fusion GPS