What the problem is, is...

by liberal japonicus

I've not been able to look at analyses of what went wrong. I read a paragraph or two, or at most a half page, and just have to go to something else. Same for videos and podcasts, a sense of nausea and disgust after a few minutes. It seems like there is a desire to find a receptacle for folks' anger, a desire I totally understand. To find a target to scream at. It could be a voting bloc, or a non-voting bloc, it could be people who say 'if X had only done X', it could have been people predicting victories in various forms. There is also, from my cursory reading, that ego driven desire to be correct, which means shooting down other theories. It's exhausting, and I can't imagine what it would be like if there wasn't an ocean between.

But in turning away from the notion of apportioning blame, I find myself wondering about how the Democrats will or even can possibly work with Republicans, given that Republican have done everything possible to set up the conditions to take power. Supreme Court nominations, gerrymandering  districts, disenfranchising voters. And when these things are threatened, they take steps to short-circuit fixes. Frex

But when it came time to put Issue 1 on the ballot, Ohio Republicans grossly misrepresented the intention of the measure, which would have created a citizens redistricting commission to draw new maps for the state legislature and US House after GOP legislative leaders gutted the previous redistricting initiatives. The summary of the ballot initiative adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board, which has a Republican majority, implied the measure would encourage partisan gerrymandering rather than curb it, claiming the initiative would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering” and “manipulate the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio.” 

Given all this, why would someone imagine that Republicans would give Democrats anything? So it seems that trying to identify the voters that Democrats need to convince runs into the problem of first principles: It denies what the Republicans are and imagines they would step back. They won't. It is not in their nature.

All this has me thinking about Mario Savio's speech at the 1964 sit-in at Sproul Hall at UC Berkeley The part that is often quoted is this

And that -- that brings me to the second mode of civil disobedience. There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!

That's what I see is needed, but I have no idea how that works out. Given all the analysis explaining why the Dems failed, none of them explain how the Republicans would step back. Some might suggest that this is just sour grapes, but seeing the massive amount of lies and falsehoods that were offered up, I don't see it worth it to try and solve the problems of Harris' loss just to run into these conditions.

Comments

[wj]

Part of the problem here is that we simply don't know what Trump will actually manage to do. On one hand, the "adults in the room," who provided guardrails in his first term, will be gone. He will instead be surrounded by ideologues. And will have a cabinet staffed by ideologues. The restraints will, mostly, be ignorance of how things work to get anything done. Plus sheer incompetence.

So, in large part, we have to wait and see what actually comes down.

One caveat: at some point Trump very likely gets replaced by Vance.** Who will, I expect, be less driven by vengeance. But also less easily distracted by any new grievance or enthusiasm that happens to catch his eye.

** Whether this is just natural causes, or if Vance (or his backers) takes direct action? Remains to be seen. As does when it happens.

[Donald]

The Republicans aren’t going to step back. The focus should be on peeling away the portions of their working class support that we can reach without throwing other people under the bus.

The link I just posted in the other thread

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/09/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-patrick-ruffini.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Yk4.4gEb.EiqYfw2zo4_k&smid=url-share

This argument — oh Democrats are so virtuous people should vote for the Democrats because it is the right thing to do— sounds exactly like the stereotypical “ pure” third party voter. I always thought the lesser evil argument many people use to persuade the far left was often purely theoretical. Mainstream Democratic voters making that argument to people like me don’t mean it for themselves.

You either mean the whole pragmatism thing or you don’t. If you mean it, you had better get serious about the post mortems and trying to figure out how to win back part of the Trump coalition in a morally acceptable way. To do that you have to set the moralizing to one side for at least part of the time and actually try to analyze the different parts of the Trump coalition.

But speaking of moralizing,, Bill Clinton was sent to Michigan as a surrogate and basically told voters that it was understandable after Oct 7 that Israel was killing Palestinians and not keeping score. He used that phrase. So maybe don’t use people who find it so easy to excuse genocide, as spokespeople when trying to win the Arab American vote. Maybe hold your own damn party to some rock bottom moral standard— don’t rationalize the massacre of children to the very people whose family members are being killed.

[russell]

First, the (R)'s will give nothing whatsoever to the (D)'s. Full stop.

It seems like there are two things being discussed here - (1) how to get at least some of the folks who voted for Trump in this cycle to vote (D) going forward, and (2) how to prevent or at least mitigate the harms that are likely to come from (R) governance, especially under Trump.

Making headway with Trump supporters is going to require somehow breaking through the informational echo chamber that so many folks live in. Briefly, a lot of the things Trump supporters think are true are not true - they are lies. But they do not trust the channels of information that might address that.

I have no idea how to fix that.

Preventing or mitigating harms - basically, resisting what are likely to be policies and actions initiated by a Trump administration - is something available to pretty much anyone, including people holding public offices but also including regular folks.

We have already seen clear statements of non-cooperation with anticipated Trump policies coming from (D) governors, and even Powell at the Fed. Which is encouraging.

But regular folks can find ways to "get in the way" also. The issue there is that "putting your body on the gears" can get pretty real, depending on how far you want to go. Civil disobedience and / or non-cooperation can be costly, in small and large ways. Folks can lose friendships, there can be loss of employment opportunities, there could be legal consequences up to and including jail. At the extremes, folks have taken beatings or even been killed.

So when Savio says "put your body on the gears", that can be more than a metaphor.

We all need to think about what we are willing to pay, or give up, to stand in the way of a Trump (or really any authoritarian) regime. But there is certainly something each of us can do. And should do.

But to really effect substantial, long-term change, I think we somehow need to figure out how to break through the epistemological bubble that modern American conservatives live in.

It might mean cultivating relationships with them - direct, one on one, personal - to build enough trust to let a little light leak in. Speaking for myself, that could be the hardest nut of all to crack - my personal relationships have more or less sorted over the last few years and I don't really know many Trumpers (or similar), and I mostly avoid talking about anything to do with public policy with those that I do know are (or think might be) Trumpers. There are just some questions I don't ask.

And maybe that's part of the problem too.

There's a lot of work to do to turn this sh*t around.

I'm not optimistic, I'm not pessimistic. I'm trying to be realistic. I'm expecting a blizzard of crap, and am trying to figure out how to prepare myself to meet it, psychologically and spiritually, maybe even financially, and in other ways as well. This country has been in some seriously dark places, we may be heading into another one. I don't know. I'm pushing 70 and don't expect all of this to be turned around in my lifetime.

But we all need to do what we can, no matter how large or small.

[wj]

Making headway with Trump supporters is going to require somehow breaking through the informational echo chamber that so many folks live in.

I wonder if it would be useful here to distinguish between Trump supporters and the rather larger group of folks who merely voted forTrump. Reaching the former world entail all the problems you note. But the latter might be a lot easier to reach. Not easy, just easier.

[russell]

A good point, wj. Some of the latter may be more open to conversation when the realities of the Trump policies kick in.

See also "how do tariffs work, anyway?". And the plans to deport undocumented family members of citizens, who are and have long been fully integrated into society in every way other than their legal status.

[russell]

And... over at Digby's, Tom Sullivan has this.

$8k bought 1100 spots on AM radio in red zones.

Infiltrate the red zone and undermine it from within!! And for short money, too.

Won't change the world, but could change a few important corners of it. I'm gonna ponder this.

[bobbyp]

Historically, significant majorities in this country hated immigrants throughout our history. Similarly, we hated on blacks, native americans, socialists, and unions. There was an ebb and flow, but "our" side did not get any real political traction until the Progressive movement during the period 1890-1912. It was spent by 1920's.

The New Deal was an abberation contingent upon a devastating depression that the GOP had no tools to deal with and a Democratic Party racial dictatorship in the South. Many of the new public policies adopted were ad hoc pushed by intellectual nerds...but that's another story.

This broad coalition held due mostly to the shared prosperity of the post WWII era (it was starting to fray in the late 30's), but the civil rights movement entirely severed this political arrangement.

It should come as no surprise that we have reverted to type.

The struggle will continue. It will never end.

Hang in there.

[CharlesWT]

Trump received many one-time votes from disgruntled Democratic voters. In NYC, there was a big shift to voting Republican. Many of those voters may be people unhappy with illegal immigrants getting hotel rooms, debit cards, and roaming about committing crimes.

[russell]

Charles, what f***ing illegal immigrants are roaming about committing crimes?

Do you live in NYC? Have you experienced undocumented people "roaming about committing crimes"? Where is this coming from?

Immigrant communities may well be on the verge of non-stop harrassment and persecution. This kind of perpetuation of stereotypes is not remotely helpful.

[bobbyp]

Charles, what f***ing illegal immigrants are roaming about committing crimes?

The ignorance and denigration of migrants entering our country is reaching bad faith proportions.

Many of those housed by NYC (per prevailing NYC LAW) are fleeing Maduro's madness in Venezuela.

They may well be asylum seekers...which, correct me if I am wrong, LEGAL.

Bullshit right wing propaganda needs to be treated with the utter contempt it deserves.

[novakant]

The ignorance and denigration of migrants entering our country is reaching bad faith proportions.

Been there, done that.

Everyone should watch Ken Burns' brilliant PBS documentary The U.S. and the Holocaust. It is truly eye-opening if your eyes still need to be opened.

[nous]

I hate these endless postmortems mostly because I believe that the Harris campaign did everything that was within their power to do in order to win. There were alternative directions that could have been taken with messaging, but none of those alternatives would have changed the basic circumstances or achieved a different result.

I come at this from the perspective of someone that has been in union leadership through a couple of contract campaigns, and who has been involved on my campus as part of the executive board for about a decade. The lessons I have learned from this mostly have to do with the importance of building communities, of knowing how your institutions work, and knowing how to build and maintain solidarity across factions and agendas.

Elections are like contract campaigns in that everyone represented gets a say in the outcome. They are also alike in that if you want to win any large concessions or change your base conditions, you have to build union power, and that doesn’t happen without a populist backbone issue that will get all hands on board.

Unions can, and often do, fight for progressive values, but to get those things enacted you have to build solidarity and strengthen coalitions. You have to make them a part of the overall campaign, but you have to do so in a way that gets the support of a quorum of your voting members. You can make it a part of your contract campaign, but it cannot be at the center of that campaign because the fight has to be over the backbone. So you do actions around those issues, and you work to build coalitions, but the big actions and the big fight has to be around the populist issue.

Likewise, you have to defend the contract through the grievance process. For this you need to contract on all those wonky details about the contract wording. It’s the closest thing to the lawfare side of national politics. Here it is important to know what fights are worth the fight, and to know what sorts of results can be won through the process. You have to be ready to let go of the issues with no practical solution to be found through the formal avenue, and you have to be willing to fight for the losing issues that speak to the core values of your membership because it’s more important to be seen fighting than it is to win.

Pundits and bloggers treat national elections as if they are all messaging and values, but they are about building coalition power and solidarity, and the willingness to fight. You cannot win a national election while you are fighting internal battles over the platform (equivalent to the contract campaign). Activist groups that choose to push their agenda on their larger membership as a price for their support of the platform are eroding coalition power and weakening the collective. Those fights are important, but they need to be fought in between the big campaigns within the membership as a whole.

So when I talk about pragmatism, it mostly has to do with knowing whether or not a particular important issue is winnable at the level on which you hope to fight. You have to have your coalitions built, and have built solidarity, before you can hope to win at the popular, membership-wide level.

[Tony P.]

wj: I wonder if it would be useful here to distinguish between Trump supporters and the rather larger group of folks who merely voted for Trump.

Too polite a way of describing MAGAts and morons, but let's go with it.

Would The Economy collapsing cause the "larger group of folks who merely voted for Trump" to admit (if only just to themselves) that they made a mistake? Lots of pundits will tell you The Economy was the paramount voting issue for those "folks", so there you go.

I am NOT rooting for The Economy to collapse. For one thing, I doubt it would "reach" those folks. The MAGAt media is perfectly capable of indoctrinating them to believe it was all the Democrats' fault.

I wonder if it would be useful here to distinguish between Bible-thumpers and the rather larger group of folks who merely go to church sometimes. Yes, it might be easier to convince the latter that Jesus is not orange, but go ahead: try to convince them that Jesus was never The Christ.

--TP

[CharlesWT]

Charles, what f***ing illegal immigrants are roaming about committing crimes?

They may well be asylum seekers...which, correct me if I am wrong, LEGAL.

I don't have a problem with legal immigrants.

Immigrants have been in the news for committing crimes and harassing people on the streets. The legal, and maybe the illegal, immigrants are likely committing fewer crimes than citizens. But people will still think, "If they weren't here, the crimes wouldn't have been committed."

People scrapping by can be irritated to see immigrants living in hotels for months that they can't afford for a night and receiving a monthly stipend, too. They're paying some of the highest taxes in the country, and they see it being spent on non-citizens instead of them and their fellow citizens.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Whatever goes wrong with TrumpCo, expect energetic attempts at blame-shifting.

Like how those Dirty Fucking Hippies somehow forced Fortune 500 companies to offshore good blue collar jobs in rustbelt USA.

Or how inner city blahs somehow got their hands on $5T to lose at the financial casino causing the 2008 financial crisis.

Those who were *actually* responsible for the problem have a strong incentive (and resources) to blame shift.

Just scrag 'em. Humanity will be better for it.

[russell]

Immigrants have been in the news for committing crimes and harassing people on the streets.

What news?

This seems kind of at the "many people are saying..." level of reporting.

And "if they weren't here", there is a sh*tload of work that isn't very pleasant and that doesn't pay very well that wouldn't get done. Because people like you and me probably don't want to do them. And a lot of taxes that wouldn't get paid, because a lot of immigrants - legal and undocumented - pay them.

In NYC, some migrants are housed in hotels. At least some of those hotels, maybe all of them, had previously shut down during the COVID years. The folks who get to stay in the hotel are usually families, single adults are directed elsewhere. A lot of them stay in tents.

Migrants can stay in shelters for 60 days, after which they can re-apply or else move on.

The city has more or less run out of space, so a lot of migrants are staying... somewhere.

And that's the luxurious life of migrants in NYC.

People are gonna come here, because conditions where they are coming from suck. We don't really have a great process for dealing with them. Some of them are problematic, most by far are not, they just want to live someplace where they can make a good life for themselves. The problematic ones generally don't get to stay.

And most of the people we're talking about - folks who are staying in shelters of one kind or another - are folks who are waiting for their status to be finalized. Asylum seekers, and similar. Not "illegal immigrants".

It's definitely disruptive to the communities where they arrive. Some of those communities handle it better than others. But nothing is gained by propagating the "migrants are roaming around committing crimes" bullshit.

Your pets are safe. :)

[liberal japonicus]

It's definitely disruptive to the communities where they arrive. Some of those communities handle it better than others. But nothing is gained by propagating the "migrants are roaming around committing crimes" bullshit.

But how will Charles fulfill his quota of 'inflamatory stories that aren't true'?

[nous]

CharlesWT's stories are true, they just aren't representative. The right wants us to believe that those stories are representative because that gives them power and an excuse to put people in the state of exception.

I remember during the GWoT hearing all the hawks repeating "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," and concentrating on all of the threat assessment stuff and talking about threat multipliers.

We have that same conversation going on in the military today, except they are looking at climate change as a threat multiplier rather than religious extremism.

But...the other useful framework that follows from that is that climate change is a vulnerability multiplier. Making populations less vulnerable can also reduce threat if the causes of violence arise out of desperation.

So how about "We aid them there so that we don't have to aid them here," and let the people who would prefer to stay where they are have a better chance of doing so?

First, though, you have to interrupt the amygdala hijack.

All these explainer pieces just recenter the conversation on the perceived threats and describe why the people who are feeling threatened feel that way. None of them intervene and show why and how those fears are misdirected.

[CharlesWT]

What news?

While there's been no immigrant crime wave, immigrants do commit crimes according to this right-wing publication.

"What do officials in New York blame Tren de Aragua for? Have the gang’s activities affected the crime statistics the police compile and release?

The Police Department has said that the gang is behind a string of thefts in retail stores and that it has especially targeted high-end merchandise in department stores. The police have also connected Tren de Aragua to ride-by robberies that officials say gang members pull off on scooters, snatching cellphones and expensive watches from people on the street.

Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, has said there has been an increase in scooter-related robbery patterns since more migrants began arriving in the city two years ago. The police reported 415 incidents at the beginning of June. As of Sept. 10, that number has doubled, according to Joseph Kenny, the Police Department’s chief of detectives."
A Venezuelan Gang Reaches New York: Law enforcement officials are working to curb the growth of Tren de Aragua, a gang that began in a Venezuelan prison and has been linked to crimes in other countries and several states in the U.S.

Trump's still OCD on immigrants. If he tries to do what he says he wants to, it will be bad for everyone not just the immigrants.

Illegal immigrants involved in crime should be deported. Most of the rest should be left alone. Illegal immigrants who have been here for a while and stay out of trouble should have opportunities to become legal residents or citizens.

[nous]

Tren de Aragua is the latest bogeyman being used to stir up fear of immigrants, but what they actually represent in terms of threat is not any different from what any other gang might represent.

I heard all of the bullshit that the RW media was barking about with the viral "violent takeover" in Aurora, CO. Aurora is a marginal, not particularly affluent community in the Denver metro area, and has been for as long as I can remember. It's always had gangs, and probably always will so long as the marginal and poor part remains true.

I looked at the crime stats and violent crime was far worse when I lived in Aurora in the 90s than it is at the moment, and all the 90s gangs were completely homegrown. Most of where I lived and worked was Crip territory, and people got murdered in the apartment complex across the street from mine, and it was in a more affluent section of the city than the one little apartment complex that the current RW media obsessed over during the election.

Not a new story, just a timely one that fits a current narrative so long as you focus on the immigrant thing and ignore the gang thing. Deport the non-citizen gang and you will have domestic gangs filling that same niche.

[russell]

CharlesWT's stories are true

What part of those stories are true?

Some illegal immigrants commit crimes? Some members of every demographic you can name commit crimes.

We arrest and prosecute them, and if they are found guilty, we punish them.

In the case of illegal immigrants, punishing them probably means being deported. In some cases, that will mean being deported back to a country they have no memory of, and whose language they don't even speak.

And that sucks, but folks should not commit crimes.

Illegal immigrants involved in crime should be deported. Most of the rest should be left alone. Illegal immigrants who have been here for a while and stay out of trouble should have opportunities to become legal residents or citizens.

With the caveat that, for "involved in crime", I would say "commit crimes".

But other than that, we're actually on the same page.

I understand that "news reports say" and "some people think". News reports need to be based on reality, and some people should think harder.

A lot of people are trying to come here. In general, which is to say in the overwhelming number of cases, they just want to come here and make a better life for themselves.

We can't absorb all of them. We can absorb a lot of them, and it's to our advantage to do so.

And whether we can or can't, we have a duty of care to folks who come here to treat them decently while they're here.

And now I will stop yelling at Charles. Over and out.

[liberal japonicus]

Not that nous and russell need me to point this out (but it might be helpful for Charles), but truth requires context.

So when a legally registered Haitian immigrant who was driving without a license (he had a Mexican license, but did not have the paperwork to get a US license) veered across a highway divider and hit a school bus, which rolled over and killed one of the children, Vance tweeted the child was "murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here." I leave it to the reader to figure out where the truth ends and the lies start.

[wj]

Would The Economy collapsing cause the "larger group of folks who merely voted for Trump" to admit (if only just to themselves) that they made a mistake? Lots of pundits will tell you The Economy was the paramount voting issue for those "folks", so there you go.

I am NOT rooting for The Economy to collapse either. For one thing, I doubt it would "reach" those folks. The MAGAt media is perfectly capable of indoctrinating them to believe it was all the Democrats' fault.

I'm not rooting for the economy to crash. But the realities are that 1) stocks are seriously overvalued (looking at the price/earnings ratio). We are overdue for a correction -- which will have the middle class' IRAs lose a very noticeable value. Hard to blame that on immigrants.

2) Rounding up any significant number of immigrants, even just illegal immigrants, is going to hit business hard. And leave an absence of things like vegetables and meat in the stores. Not to mention the menus of those restaurants which manage to remain open. (And no, child labor isn't going to be enough to pick up the slack. Even for the jobs they are physically capable of doing.).

We could import replacements, of course. Except for the detail that a) Trump wants to put tariffs on everything, and b) the exchange rate for the dollar is unlikely to remain as high as it is.

Nobody sensible is rooting for an economic collapse. But that doesn't mean we won't get on. Blaming it on Democrats will doubtless be tried and work for a while. But the lack of a recovery will make that excuse fail eventually. Compare the arrival of The Great Depression. Trump (more likely Vance) is going to go the way of Hoover.

[Hartmut]

So how about "We aid them there so that we don't have to aid them here," and let the people who would prefer to stay where they are have a better chance of doing so?

The answer to that would likely be: "Why should we aid them at all either there or here?" Even the rebuilding of Europe after WW2 with US help had and has its critics since those rebuilt states became economic rivals (in trade there are by definition no partners) instead of captured customers.

[Hartmut]

wj, I think the answer will be the return of the chain gang. (For-profit) prisons are and will be a growth market and renting the inmates out as slave labor will further increase those profits. And if those slave workers die on the job, this can be dismissed as 'They were criminals, so they did not deserve better.'

[wj]

A chain gang is viable for unskilled labor. Say picking up trash along the road.

But farm work doesn't really qualify. Maybe once upon a time, but today consumers have a certain level of expectation about what the vegetables they buy will look like. Similarly for work in slaughter houses (is that still what they are called?). Cutting up carcasses isn't unskilled. And trying to do it with chain gang labor is pretty much guaranteed to produce unacceptable results.

And then there is housing construction (and maintenance, e.g. replacing roofs). The crews that do this are overwhelmingly recent immigrants, legal or illegal. Again, chain gangs simply aren't a viable way to get the quality work required.

Not to say that it won't be tried. just that it seems unlikely to be particularly successful.

[russell]

There are about 1.2 million incarcerated people in the US. About 800,00 of them work as prison labor.

It's not voluntary.

[Hartmut]

They will try '(dis)incentives' like (lack of) food and water and of course violence of all sorts. That's de facto already done in some US prisons. Even now abuses are mostly tacitly ignored by authorities. The Millers and Bannons will endorse and not just tacitly. Not to forget the dirty deals for-profit prisons already have with parts of the judiciary to acquire involontary customers. Now it's 'We need about X teenagers by next month to keep our institution in Y filled', why not 'We need some skilled bricklayers ASAP and with the citrus fruit harvest imminent, we have use for workers with a modicum of experience there too, let's say 200 in the next 2 months." in the future?
And consumer expectations can be managed, at least for the commoners. The rich will still be able to pay for the high quality stuff. And remember: quality control by the state is on the chopping block in any case. Caveat (pauper) emptor!
Sorry, I am extremly cycnical about what these guys are willing to do and about what their base (MAGAts and morons) is willing/able to put up with.
Hm, there were already several (unsuccessful) attempts under GOPster presidents to bring back leaded fuel (few noticed) and the real political consequences of lead poisoning Flint (Mi.) were rather limited (despite people noticing). And by now we know that childhood (and in particular fetal) lead exposition leads to favorable results from the con POV. So, this maligned metal can hope for a comeback too (not even counting the increased aerial lead content by way of increased gun violence).

[wj]

About 800,00 of them work as prison labor.

It's not voluntary.

It's also low to no skill labor. Housekeeping work inside the prison. Some unskilled chaingang labor outside prison in the deep South. But skilled labor? Stuff that needs training to do right? No.

It's not a matter of whether it's voluntary. It's about whether they will get the job done at an acceptable level.

[CharlesWT]

Firefighting in California might be considered a bit skilled.

[Hartmut]

The Deep South will again be the pioneer, I presume.
Agriculture will be the prime sector and they already pushed laws through that bans the local level from requiring even a minimum of humane treatment (the infamous 15 minutes break at least every five hours for shadow and rehydration that Texas(?) considered as too heavy a burden on the employers to allow districts to require let alone enforce).
As for shoddy work - if it's cheap enough, it will still be at least competitive. Enough economic morons around, otherwise the US would not be in the current situation.
A major question is of course whether to move the prisons to the mills or the other way around. Given that the internment camps will have to be planned soon and it would be inefficient to make them single-use, they better take that into consideration as far as locations are concerned.
Not that these guys have shown much competence in the past to believe that they will think that far ahead.
[/black cynicism]

[nous]

wj - We already have widespread adoption of penal agriculture programs in the US:

https://prisonagriculture.com/

https://foodtank.com/news/2023/12/harvesting-hope-how-the-prison-agriculture-lab-exposes-exploitation-in-prison-agriculture/

You should also check out the Oscar winning documentary 13th, or watch it again if you have viewed it and have forgotten many of the details.

US prisons are already plantations and sweatshops. That's part of the draw of the private, for-profit prison industry.

I'm still mad that the constitutional amendment banning forced labor in prison did not pass in CA. Even here in one of the more progressive states there is an indifference towards carceral slavery.

[Hartmut]

Firefighting in California might be considered a bit skilled.

I'll spare everyone the string of cynical thoughts that this conjurs up in the current context*.
And btw California has to be punished for its insolence towards the God Emperor.

*no fault of CharlesWT in this case, just my own.

[russell]

It's also low to no skill labor.

As nous notes above, prison labor in agriculture is pretty common. Also carpentry, furniture making, plumbing, welding, auto repair - most trades.

And yes, it is a profit center for the prison industry, in particular the for-profit prison industry. Who are already planning for the influx of immigration related detainees.

Slavery and involuntary servitude is explicitly allowed for people convicted of a crime, per the 13th A. I don't know what the back story is on that, but it's a pretty f***ed up legacy.

I appreciate that learning employable skills is a positive thing. The renting them out, paying them nothing, and not being required to maintain basic standards of workplace safety parts, less so.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Of course, TFG's tariffs on Chinese good, produced with slave labor, will make US goods, produced with slave labor, competitive.

C'mon Giant Meteor.

[Donald]

I wonder if the Republicans in Congress will actually pass Trump’s giant tariffs. I wouldn’t expect them to do anything principled, but if they think it will drive up inflation and wreck the economy then they won’t do too well in the 2026 elections ( I am assuming we will still have those.)

I have no idea, but there have to be at least some who would worry about that.

[Hartmut]

They'll start with uncontroversial stuff - like more tax cuts for the rich, gutting the IRS enforcement arm, deregulation of finances, firearms and food safety, "Drill, Baby, Drill", you know the drill. Then some meddling with the judicial system (replacing competent people with hacks, maybe prosecuting the former for doing their job).
When these essentials have been taken care of and the country has settled in a bit, the trickier elements of the grand plan can be put on the table.
As for the tariffs, there have of course to be loopholes that the well-connected can use but their exact nature will not be easy to determine due to conflicting grifts.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

There is plenty that TFG can do with tariffs on prez authority, it only takes saying stuff like "anti-dumping" and "national security" with a big dollop of blatant lying. Just like he did last time.

The ultimate problem is that Congress is incredibly lazy, so glad to delegate tons of stuff to the Prez; which is fine when the Prez is sane and honest. Not so much now.

[Donald]

Congress may be about to pass a bill that would give the Treasury Department the power to designate a group a supporter of terrorism without needing to supply any evidence.

https://theintercept.com/2024/11/10/trump-nonprofit-tax-exempt-political-enemies/

The ACLU letter.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/civil-society-letter-to-congress-opposing-hr-9495

This wouldn’t be limited to groups working overseas. Certainly I would trust the Trump Administration to use such sweeping powers with great discretion. Personally I wouldn’t trust any government at all like that, but hey, if anyone could be trusted to use these powers wisely, it’s going to be Trump,

[wj]

I'm still mad that the constitutional amendment banning forced labor in prison did not pass in CA. Even here in one of the more progressive states there is an indifference towards carceral slavery.

Due, at least in part, to it being badly drawn. That allowed opponents to say that it would ban requiring convicts to keep their cells minimally clean, make their own beds,etc.

Maybe next try the wording will be a bit tighter.

[wj]

I wouldn’t expect them to do anything principled, but if they think it will drive up inflation and wreck the economy then they won’t do too well in the 2026 elections ( I am assuming we will still have those.)

Donald, I never thought I'd find myself accusing you, of all people, of optimism. But I doubt they have a clue about even such basic economics. Or would believe that they personally could suffer any consequences as a result. Stupid, of course, but then they are.

[nous]

Due, at least in part, to it being badly drawn. That allowed opponents to say that it would ban requiring convicts to keep their cells minimally clean, make their own beds,etc.

Given how handily the increased sentencing prop passed, I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of votes against were just people who don't care what happens to incarcerated people, and the wording, "involuntary servitude" rather than "slavery," just gave them an excuse to lean into the urge to punish without criticism.

A similar measure failed in the assembly in 2022.

[liberal japonicus]

Loomis at LGM has a pretty amazing factoid here

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/11/trumps-special-power

from a tweet by Dave Wasserman, which is that Rosen received fewer votes in Nevada than Harris, but still won the senate race because at least 70k Trump voters didn't bother voting for the Republican challenger.

Maybe Nevada is strange, but it's frightening to me to think that people turned out just to vote for Trump and no one else.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Maybe Nevada is strange, but it's frightening to me to think that people turned out just to vote for Trump and no one else."

Schwartzenegger in CA.
Celebrity über alles.

Reality TV napalma est.

[Donald]

Wj--

Yeah, it was uncharacteristic for me. I don't know how many of the Congressional Republicans are true MAGA believers (i.e., idiots) and how many are merely sellouts, but the latter group would know that tariffs on such a massive Trumpian scale are likely to be damaging even to their own electoral prospects.

[wj]

The question will be, do they decide that opposing the MAGAts would be worse than helping cause an economic implosion.

[russell]

So - in general my knee-jerk reaction to Trump supporters is to think "what f***ing @sshole". Have a Trump bumper sticker? I assume you are a dick. Have a Trump sign on your lawn? Same / same.

It's not a particularly charitable reaction, and in many cases I'm not sure I'm wrong.

Nonetheless, they aren't going anywhere, and I'm not going anywhere. So I'm feeling the need to moderate that. Because folks like me responding to Trumpers like they are all a bunch of massive dicks just seems to make them dig in and double down on dickishness.

So I was interested to see this. And this.

There are definitely some Nazis - literally - in the Trump orbit. Trump himself might well be one of them.

But it seems like some folks are just pissed off and have more or less given up on the idea that government is gonna do anything useful, for them or anyone else. I think some of those folks can be talked down off the ledge. But folks like me have to learn to listen to them. Or, you know, try.

I draw the line at the folks who relish the idea of causing pain to other people. Kein mitleid fur die haters! And there are no shortage of them. But maybe there are enough folks who voted for Trump who aren't in that camp that the situation can be redeemed. Eventually. And with some work.

And in the meantime, I'm looking for opportunities to do constructive, helpful things. Small or large, whatever. I wish I could say it's from some sense of generosity or altruism on my part, but mostly it's just to keep myself from feeling like I have no agency in our brave new world of Trumpism.

Most of my liberal friends are basically losing their shit over this election. I feel it, and understand it, but I just can't let myself surrender to that.

Trump has half the country. Half the voters, anyway. But only half.

I dig me some AOC, the woman has all the right instincts (from my POV) and the political gift to make them count. I'm glad she's on the scene.

[GftNC]

I've been away for a few days following the election at a wedding in Ireland of someone I've known and loved since she was three hours old. Amazingly, we all managed to lock our grief and misery away in a vault pretty much inaccessible to us for the duration of the whole magical thing. I never opened a phone or a computer until last night, back in London. No ObWi, no Guardian, no Times, no NYT, no WaPo.

I just put that on the Morning After thread, with a few (very few) remarks on the comments. I'm just now trying to catch up with this thread, while feeling much the same as lj says he does here in his really excellent opening post. (Now, onward with the comments.)

[GftNC]

Most of my liberal friends are basically losing their shit over this election. I feel it, and understand it, but I just can't let myself surrender to that.

I hope I, and many others, soon have the discipline, grit and the grace to arrive at this point too.

[hairshirthedonist]

Maybe Nevada is strange, but it's frightening to me to think that people turned out just to vote for Trump and no one else.

The good side of this is that he, The Husk, will be gone forever at some point and people like that probably won't vote at all.