(MOSTLY) POLITICAL POTPOURRI
Some (mostly) unrelated thoughts as Election Day draws closer.
› The assumption that abortion works for Democrats post-Dobbs is only partially correct, and partially in a way that reflects how both parties are out of step with public opinion on the issue.
It is true that the majority of voters do not want a nationwide ban on abortion enacted by Congress (as some congressional Republicans have proposed) or bans on abortion in their states that make no exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother (as Republicans in certain states have proposed).
But it is also true that the majority wants at least some restrictions on the practice and is unwilling to go nearly as far as apparently most Democrats: abortion at any point in pregnancy for any reason at taxpayer expense.
If the GOP overplayed its hand in many ways following Dobbs, Democrats are now in danger of overplaying theirs, because both parties are catering to the extremes rather than the moderate majority.
› There is nothing wrong with questioning John Fetterman’s poststroke health in Pennsylvania’s Senate race. “Ableism” is an absurd accusation in his case because it suggests that a seat in the world’s greatest deliberative body should be some kind of affirmative-action hire; that Pennsylvanians should vote for him to prove they aren’t prejudiced against the disabled.
We should all be sympathetic to Fetterman’s circumstance, but if a person can’t talk clearly or process information effectively, they have no business running for public office. And people (and media) shouldn’t be intimidated from asking whether candidates are mentally and physically healthy enough to perform the duties that go with the job.
› One of the most shady but increasingly pervasive terms in media reporting is “experts say” (an “appeal to authority”), with the most important qualification of those experts usually a willingness to say whatever the reporter writing the story wants them to say.
Those with any genuine expertise would be among the first to point out that such expertise is highly fallible and that experts seldom speak with one voice, such that there will always be plenty of conflicting expert opinions available.
The “experts say” reporting tactic amounts to little more than lazy reporting and cherry-picking in service of ideologically congenial narratives.
› Some have compared Joe Biden’s accusing Republicans of being “semi-fascists” and “threats to the republic” to McCarthyism, but the parallel only goes so far. Tail-Gunner Joe claimed to be discovering hundreds of communists in high places; our demagogic President Joe has found 74 million fascists in polling booths voting for the other guy.
The enemies of the state aren’t communist spies (real or imagined) any longer; they’re the other political party.
› We have become accustomed to Joe Biden saying astounding or incomprehensible things, but what is one to think of the president’s claim that “the economy is strong as hell,” just days after another damning inflation report and when polls continue to show that the public believes the economy is doing terribly?
Does Biden actually believe that people will believe his claims? Or does he himself believe them?
Credibility is a president’s most precious asset. So does Biden have any left, and if so, with whom?
It would be nice to know who those folks are, since there’s that old saying about swampland for sale.