"And I try to encourage all my friends who are not Trump supporters, I tell them, don't complain. It is a majority, it's not lottery..."

"... that brought Trump to the presidency. He won the popular vote by a very significant margin. Both houses, Senate and Congress, and the Supreme Court is to some degree shaped by him. So it's significant. It doesn't come because he's a lucky man. No, there's a clear world view, a clear cultural war that he wants to wage. And it's evident. He really says what he means. It's not that there's anything hidden. And I say to everyone, if you do not agree, take America — the heartland of America — take it seriously. That's where the heart beats.... And many of my friends who are working in Los Angeles, I say, don't you come from Kansas? Yes, I come from Kansas. And I say, when were you in Kansas last time? Ah, that was 20 years ago. No, you should be every year. When did you meet your high school buddies? Oh, no contact with them at all. You have to get in touch with them, ask them how they are doing, ask them about their visions, ask them about their grievances, keep them engaged. They are your buddies, your high school friends. Do something. Don't complain. I don't like the complaints...."

Says the wise film director, Werner Herzog, on the Freakonomics podcast.

"I think you’ve got to begin by asking yourself, Do you believe that this war is necessary or not?"

"And I think you’ve got to begin by asking yourself, first, Do you believe it’s acceptable for the Iranian regime to have nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them? If you believe that, then the next question you have to ask yourself is: Could we have achieved that goal of eliminating the threat that Iran poses by some other means?... ... I start from the proposition that Iran cannot afford to have nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver those weapons to American cities...."

Said David Boies, interviewed in "Why David Boies Thinks We Should Support Trump’s Iran War/The prominent lawyer says that Democrats should get behind the President, and make sure that he finishes the job" (The New Yorker).

"One of the things about democracies is that the person that you support doesn’t always get elected, but the person who gets elected is nevertheless your President. And, while I think that part of democracy is opposing things that you disapprove of, part of democracy is supporting our elected officials, regardless of whether they are the same party, regardless of whether you agree with them generally, when they are making decisions that you support. I think that we’ve got to find common ground. We have got to get back to the point where we can support people that we oppose.... I didn’t pick Donald Trump as my President, but he is my President."

That interview followed Boies's column in the WSJ, "Partisanship on Iran Is Dangerous for America/Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on the merits."

"When a spectator shouted that banning clapping was 'undemocratic,' the mayor countered that 'clapping for some and not all is not democratic'..."

"... and that 'we have to allow for people to feel safe to say what they feel.' The mayor’s attempt at enforcing her idea of civility only prompted more shouting, after which she said: 'I’m not going to argue. If I hear any more clapping or disruption from the crowd, I will have to unfortunately have you all removed.' 'Do it now! Do it to me!' David Reed, 77, a Takoma Park resident, yelled, according to the city’s video recording of the meeting. More applause followed. 'You’re not the dictator of the council!' Paul Huebner, 75, a retired project manager, shouted. 'This is outrageous!'... The kerfuffle prompted a robust discussion among the lawmakers about civility and First Amendment rights that spilled into subsequent meetings and online discussions over the next two weeks...."

From "A mayor ordered no clapping at a city meeting. Applause did not follow. The Takoma Park, Maryland, mayor’s order that people not clap during a public meeting led to insults and even a poll" (WaPo).

It's funny that the mayor used the word "democratic" to refer to responding to every person and every idea equally. It strikes me as the very opposite of democracy. In democracy, people choose, we express favoritism, and the person that gets the most support obtains power to impose it on others.

Is the California open primary going to produce 2 Republican candidates for Governor?

 

Link.

Some headlines from the last few weeks: "Democrats' fear rising that too many candidates in governor's race could lead to a Republican victory," "Another poll shows two Republicans leading governor’s race. Should CA Dems fret?," "The Nation’s Most Democratic State Might Elect a Trump-Friendly Governor," "California’s Governor Race Is a Democratic Nightmare, But There’s One Easy Fix," "Are too many Democrats running for governor in California? Republicans see an opportunity," "Crowded California governor’s race creates opening for Republicans," and, my favorite, "Commonsense reform: preventing an 'only in California' cluster f*ck."

"[Governor Greg] Abbott could not remove [the quorum-avoidant Democratic] lawmakers on his own and would need the courts to go along with his plan..."

"... according to University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. While Abbott and other Republicans could argue that the Democrats had abandoned their duties, those lawmakers would have a chance to make the case that they were representing their constituents by denying the majority the quorum it needs to operate, he added.... 'Even if you go to a court, you’re going to have to make a showing that I think it’s going be tough to make.' Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at New York University School of Law who has observed Texas redistricting battles for more than 30 years, said the governor’s authority to order legislators to be arrested or to remove them from office, 'is at best, unclear.'"

From "Texas House Republicans vote to issue civil arrest warrants for fleeing Democrats/The Texas state House reconvened Monday without dozens of Democrats who left the state to try to stop the GOP from moving ahead with enacting a new congressional map that would give them five more safe seats" (WaPo)(free-access link).

57 of the Texas Democrats have absconded to Chicago, Boston, or Albany. It takes 51 to deny the Republicans a quorum. When is interfering with democracy characterizable as a form of democracy? Whenever the constituents you were elected to represent oppose what they majority elected to the legislature is trying to do?

ADDED: “Schwarzenegger ready to fight Newsom on redistricting/The Republican who helped pass California’s independent line-drawing commission wants to defend his legacy” (Politico).

"And um recently I made the decision that I just for now I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken...."

"I believe and I always believed that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that um they're not as strong as they need to be. And I just don't want to for now I don't want to go back in the system. I want to I want to travel the country. I want to listen to people. I want to talk with people. And I don't want it to be transactional where I'm asking for their vote...."

Said Kamala Harris, to Stephen Colbert (scroll to 6:02). 

Colbert said it is "harrowing" to hear her say that. When she responded: "Well, but it's also evident, isn't it?... It is harrowing..." Colbert broke in to rescue her. It sounds as though she's saying that she doesn't "want to be part of the fight anymore."

She takes the hint: "No. Oh, absolutely not. I am always going to be part of the fight. That is not going to change. I am absolutely going to be part of the fight."

And then she plunges into a Biden-worthy garble:

"So this goes back to 2017 when President Trump was in Paris and watched France's Bastille Day military parade. There were tanks..."

"... there were troops, and they're marching down Champs d'Elysee. There were war planes, there were fighter jets. And he watched this with President Emmanuel Macron of France, and he loved it. So he came back and announced to the Pentagon that he wanted his own military parade. And the response he got from the Pentagon during his first term was: We don't do this, Sir. Jim Mattis, who was then his defense secretary, said he'd rather swallow acid. In a meeting in the Pentagon, Paul Selva, who was the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Mr. Trump that Mr. President, he said, dictatorships do that. Democracies do not..... [D]ictators need to frighten their population... with this show of ostentatious military might. And they want to frighten their adversaries too and make them think that they're very strong. I don't really get the France part because France is a democracy...."

I'm listening to the new episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, an interview with Helene Cooper about tomorrow's military parade. Audio and transcript at Podscribe, here. (I do listen to the audio and tweak the transcript. Otherwise, instead of of "Champs d'Elysee," you'd be seeing "Sean.")

I loved the line "I don't really get the France part because France is a democracy."

And by the way, Cooper goes on to describe the many military parades we've had in the United States over the years.

Maybe reexamine the premise:

"I think there was a feeling — like, a lot of members of the Democratic Party that were seeing this or saw moments um of him seeming out of it — um that going public was not going to change [Biden's] mind."

"It was only going to help Donald Trump, um, and I think that's how a lot of them rationalized it. Now whether or not history will judge them, you know, as being right for doing that, um, you know, we will see, but this is also part of the reason why the White House was shielding him from as many people as possible including Cabinet secretaries because sometimes, you know, you see him once maybe it's just a bad day you can just say, like, you know, maybe I just had one bad meeting. You're not really sure..."

Said Alex Thompson, co-author of "Original Sin," on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday.

The interviewer, Shannon Bream, quotes from the book (on page 85): "[A longtime Biden aide said] 'He just had to win, and then he could disappear for four years — he'd only have to show proof of life every once in a while. His aides could pick up the slack." She asks: "Who would have been running the White House in a second Biden term?"

Thompson responds: "Well, this person went on to say that when you're voting for a President you're voting for the aides, uh, around him. But these aides were not even Senate-confirmed aides. These are White House aides. These were unelected people. And one of the things that really I think comes out in our reporting here is that if you believe — and I think a lot of these people do sincerely believe — that Donald Trump was and is an existential threat to democracy you can rationalize anything including sometimes doing undemocratic things, which, I think, is what this person is talking about."

It's like fighting fire with fire — fighting the destruction of the democracy with the destruction of democracy. You had to destroy the village to save it. Noted. 

"I was deputy campaign manager on Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign. I’ve come up through a party that clings to TV ads and news releases..."

"... holding onto a media environment that stopped existing a decade ago. A party that thought Barack Obama’s cultural cool would last forever, and that young voters were table stakes. A party fundamentally mismatched with the task at hand. While we prattle on, concerning ourselves with those who already agree with us, the right has built an information machine aimed squarely at opt-out voters — people sick of traditional politics. Right-wing partisans, much like opt-out voters, don’t trust the mainstream media or Hollywood. They seek out alternatives. This helps generate demand. This demand is met with supply: a network of influencers, personalities, podcasters and TikTokers who both inflame their bases and push messages into nonpolitical subcultures.... They present right-wing cultural narratives on every issue set — and push messages into nonpolitical subcultures.... Meanwhile, the center-left’s attention and viewership is generally pointed squarely at the traditional press. Opt-in voters are more likely to trust mainstream institutions, after all. This leaves us relying on a news media industry that is neither a partisan ally nor reaches the voters we need. Our online ecosystem can’t sustainably thrive.... It leaves Democrats unable to influence the culture that really matters today...."

Writes Rob Flaherty, in "If You’re a Voter Reading This, This Essay Is Not About You" (NYT).

You got so much help you never learned to do for yourself. So sad!

ADDED: It's weird how the phrase "and push messages into nonpolitical subcultures" appears twice. I don't think it was intentional repetition, so I take it to mean that Flaherty is both careless in his writing and genuinely afraid of the phenomenon of messages pushed into minds. The nefarious "influencers, personalities, podcasters and TikTokers" are out there generating "narratives" — "on every issue set" — and pushing that material into vulnerable people. There's no sense that speakers have attracted listeners who will actually think and form preferences. That is, there's no sense that the "opt-out voters" are human beings worthy of democracy. They're victims who wander the dark streets of the internet and are raped by right-wing misinformation.

Why were the anti-Trump protests yesterday called "Hands Off"?

That was my first question, and it led to a series of questions:

• Generally, I would think, it is the role of the President to take charge, to handle all problems, and to get things done. A "hands-on" President sounds like an effective, active President, so it sounds as though it is an objection to the elected President being President. That reads as anti-democratic to me.

• If these protesters were libertarian, the slogan "hands off" would make more sense. These would be people wanting government to do as little as possible. But even then, much of what Trump is doing is cutting back government, making it smaller, more like the libertarian ideas. The tariffs are an exception to that, but you get my point. His hands are ON many government programs for the purpose of ending them or cutting them back. The protesters want to preserve big government.

• I think the tariffs are a means to an end of eliminating the tariffs against us. If that's what's really going on then the tariffs are not an exception and could be characterized as getting government out of free trade.

• Trump has been making big moves that have won cooperation from his antagonists. I'm thinking of the universities and law firms that backed down when confronted with financial loss.

• He has good reason to think that huge moves are needed or people will just resist and drag it out and wait it out. He needs shock and awe. The response "hands off" seems weak. Who will "hands off" convince? How did that slogan emerge?

All of that is for the annals of Things I Asked Grok. If you want to see how Grok answered, here's the link. Those are all prompts, by the way, so don't assume I believe all those assertions. It's a bit like teaching law school: You frame ideas to engage your interlocutor. You don't profess belief. You open things up for a better look.

One thing I saw is that the "Hands Off" slogan came from the abortion-rights discourse. But Hands Off My Body is a libertarian concept. 

"[Al] Gore said he believed the courts would prevent Trump from implementing some of his most extreme moves."

"I don’t think he’s going to be able to get away with that,' he said. 'I think we’re more resilient as a constitutional, representative democracy than a lot of people of fear.'"

From "Why Al Gore Is Shifting His Climate Activism Abroad/Given the Trump administration’s recent moves relating to climate, the former vice president is looking to the developing world for the next generation of climate activism" (NYT).

When Biden was President, "democracy" meant gracefully accepting the result of the election and working on winning the next election. But with Trump as President, "democracy" means stopping the duly elected President from doing what voters heard him promise he'd do.

I'm just asking for a stable definition of "democracy" to go along with the demand for our devotion to it. I agree with Gore that the courts have role to play. But it's a counter-majoritarian role. And we can argue about the scope of their role and whether they are doing too much or too little. We'll see how they do.

"Under what theory of the constitution does a single marxist judge in San Francisco have the same executive power as the Commander-in-Chief elected by the whole nation to lead the executive branch?"

Tweet Stephen Miller, quoted by David French in "Trump Is Coming for Every Pillar of the State" (NYT). 

French continues:

As Miller put it in a press briefing last month, “The whole will of democracy is imbued into the elected president.” He is the only elected official who represents the whole of the American people, and he embodies the people’s general will....  

Trump and his team are furious at the federal judiciary, but they’re to blame for their own legal struggles. Trump has issued a host of poorly drafted executive orders. Trump’s administration has snatched people off the streets without adequate due process. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency is unilaterally wrecking agencies that were established by Congress, usurping Congress’s primacy in America’s constitutional structure.

It is not the judiciary’s fault that Trump has chosen to attack the constitutional order, and it is hardly the case that he’s losing only to liberal judges....

"If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump."

Said JD Vance, quoted by Jonathan Turley, in "Vance rightly excoriates Europe: What values are we defending?" (NY Post).

Turley: "The outrage of the Europeans was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia. Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech 'a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.' It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy. Indeed, it could be outright fascism...."

Jon Stewart mocks anti-Trumpers for overdoing their accusations of fascism.

"The constant drumbeat of encroaching fascism will erode the credibility we will need if — hopefully if and not when — it hits. But the truth is that for now, his most objectionable actions have taken place almost entirely within our designed Democratic system.... Look, I really hope that Democrats figure out a way to contain this guy.... How would you use this power?... Tell people what you would do with the power that Trump is wielding and then convince us to give that power to you...  Enough with the 'He's Hitler'...  What would you fucking do?"

Exactly. I love Stewart's reset for the new Trump era. 

"Pluralism... is about recognizing that, in a democracy, power comes from forging alliances and building coalitions, and making room in those coalitions not only for the woke, but the waking."

Said Barack Obama, quoted in "In First Post-Election Speech, Obama Calls for ‘Forging Alliances and Building Coalitions’/'Purity tests are not a recipe for long-term success,' the former president said in the speech in Chicago" (NYT).

For Mr. Obama’s friends, he said, talk of bridging differences in a bitterly divided country seemed like an academic exercise.

“It felt far-fetched, even naïve, especially since, as far as they were concerned, the election proved that democracy’s down pretty far on people’s priority lists,” he said. But, he said, “it’s easy to give democracy lip service when it delivers the outcomes we want,” adding, “it’s when we don’t get what we want that our commitment to democracy is tested.”...

There's a special meaning to "democracy" in Obama's world, it seems — something like: It's democracy when we win. It seems to me that the election proved that we have a democracy and the people delivered their opinion. Obama seems to be saying that democracy is a background value, not the process of going through an election, and when that value is properly in place, people vote against Donald Trump.

Speaking of words, I wonder if "the waking" will catch on. It sounds like the title of a zombie movie.

ADDED: The meaning of "the waking" is like that special meaning of democracy. It's not a process that might go anywhere. It's a process toward a particular outcome. Those who are not progressing toward the prescribed outcome all outside of the process of democracy or waking. The "pluralism" is illusory.

ALSO: "Woke" and "waking" use the metaphor of sleep. When you are asleep, you have no consciousness or the illusion of dreams, which could be highly individualistic and include all sorts of unreal, unlikely, and impossible things. If you wake up, you have only one place to go: reality. 

I watched Elon Musk's appearance at Saturday's Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, but I couldn't remember what he said about what I want to know.

What I'd remembered was a lot of repetitious get-out-the-vote talk that anyone could say. What I wanted to know was why Elon Musk in particular supports Trump. Of course, I remember the grown-man-jumping-around-like-a-child business and the "dark MAGA" hat. But why is he for Trump? That might have some special persuasive power.

So I rewatched. Here's video of his appearance and a rough transcript. I've edited the transcript to fit it to the audio and to cut it down to the parts that might answer my question. 

First:

[T]he true test of someone's character is how they behave under fire....

So, one answer is that Musk was impressed by the way Trump behaved during and immediately after the assassination attempt.

Next:

The other side wants to take away your freedom of speech, they want to take away your right to bear arms... they want to take away your right to vote effectively.... California... just just passed a law banning voter ID....

"Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to endorse former president Donald Trump..."

"... according to a new court filing in Pennsylvania. The filing surfaced ahead of a planned speech in which Kennedy said he would make an announce about the direction of his campaign. Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in a speech Thursday in Chicago. Trump is campaigning Friday in Nevada and Arizona. He is scheduled to be joined by a 'special guest' in Arizona."

From "RFK Jr. to endorse Trump, court filing says" (WaPo).

I'm very interested in hearing RFK Jr. explain — with precision — how one goes from where he's been to supporting Trump. 

ADDED: Here's his full speech, which I thought was excellent:

 

From the transcript:

The DNC dragged us into court state after state.... It deployed DNC-aligned judges to throw me and other candidates off the ballot and to throw president Trump in jail. It ran a sham primary that was rigged to prevent any serious challenge to President Biden, then, when a predictably bungled debate  performance precipitated the palace coup against President Biden, the same shadowy DNC operatives appointed his successor also without an election. They installed a candidate who was so unpopular with voters that she dropped out in 2020 without winning a single delegate. 

My uncle and my father both relished debate. They prided themselves on their capacity to go toe-to-toe with any opponent in the battle over ideas. They would be astonished to learn of a Democratic party presidential nominee who, like Vice President Harris, has not appeared in a single interview or an unscripted encounter with voters for 35 days. This is profoundly undemocratic. How are people to choose when they don't know who they are choosing? And how can this look to the rest of the world? 

My father and my uncle were always conscious of America's image abroad because of our nation's role as the template for democracy, the role model for Democratic processes, and the leader of the Free World. Instead of showing us her substance and character, the DNC and its media organs engineered a surge of popularity for Vice President Harris based upon... well, nothing. No policies, no interviews, no debates. Only smoke and mirrors and balloons in a highly produced Chicago circus....

How did the Democratic party choose a candidate that has never done an interview or debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answer. They did it by weaponizing the government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy. They did it by suing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters. What most alarms me isn't how the Democratic party conducts its internal affairs or runs its candidates. What alarms me is the resort to censorship and media control and the weaponization of the federal agencies when a US president colludes with or outright coerces media companies to censor political speech. It's an attack on our most sacred right of free expression and that's the very right upon which all of our other constitutional rights rest....

"It can be dizzying, for an outsider, to see the Democratic Party and its allied institutions walk in lockstep — promoting a fiction that Biden 'passed the torch' voluntarily..."

"... suspending scrutiny of Harris’s policy positions, reveling in emotions and 'vibes.' But Tocqueville emphasized how democracy is not always amenable to a diversity of opinions: Instead, the majority’s pressure 'acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest, but all controversy.'..."

Writes Jason Willick, quoting Tocqueville, in "How Alexis de Tocqueville explains Democratic Party conformity/Why Democrats could so easily pivot from defending Biden’s abilities to celebrating Harris’s takeover" (WaPo).

Higher thoughts.

I'm reading "White Dudes for Harris Was a ‘Rainbow of Beige’ That Raised $4 Million" (New York Magazine):

“I gotta laugh because I accepted the invitation not for being white, but because I’m a dude you know?” said actor Jeff Bridges, who pushed back on a philosophical point on the messaging from the campaign that Democrats must “fight” for democracy. “It’s not so much a fight, but a surrender to higher thoughts of how we want the future to turn out,” Bridges said. “That’s just my opinion, man.”

"That’s just my opinion, man" suggests he's joking. I get the reference.....

... but which way is he joking? Is it that the movie character of "The Dude" is averse to fighting and takes a slacker route to the same destination? You don't have to fight. Only surrender. That seems like a satire of the Democrats' message. Is he toying with them? Just fooling around? Or is he saying that white men really ought to surrender. Stand down and think of "higher thoughts." The future belongs to... somebody else. 

Are The Washington Post and The New York Times treating the rise of Kamala Harris quite differently?

Kamala Harris is at the top of the Washington Post home page:

The Washington Post headline expresses bold pride in her takeover of the Democratic Party, ousting the unnamed man (Biden) who had won the primaries and who is still (remember?!) President of the United States. And the next headline down casts doubt on the election in Venezuela. Why not admiration for Maduro, how he "took control"? Because he did it via election?

Over at The New York Times, the top headline is "Venezuela's Autocrat Is Declared Winner of Tainted Election." Then, there is a series of headlines — inflation in Japan, the attack in Israel from Lebanon, Biden's plan for the Supreme Court — before we get to something about Kamala Harris, and it's not cheering for her:

 

She's underneath Biden, who's holding up an I'm-still-here finger, and she's walking downward, and, we're told, her "Honeymoon Phase" is "wind[ing] down." She's isolated and her head is bowed: How will she "Maintain Momentum"?