VIDEOS

Horrifying video shows Philadelphia cops assaulted a family in a car — then tried to use it as propaganda

The conduct of Philadelphia police officers and the nation's largest law enforcement association this week amounted to what one journalist called "an extraordinary mix of police violence and disinformation," after it was revealed Friday that officers beat a young mother who had accidentally driven into a protest and then snatched her toddler from the car and later used his image in pro-police propaganda.

Along with several posts urging voters to support President Donald Trump, the Fraternal Order of Police on Thursday night posted a photo of a toddler who the union falsely claimed had been found by Philadelphia police "wandering around barefoot" amid the "lawlessness" of the fourth night of demonstrations over the killing of Walter Wallace, Jr.

But the union soon deleted the post after being confronted by the Philadelphia Inquirer and lawyers for the two-year-old boy's mother, Rickia Young, said the officers forcibly removed the toddler from his mother's vehicle after smashing the car's windows and violently arresting Young after she accidentally drove into an area where protesters were being confronted by lines of riot police.

The reality of what the photo shows, tweeted HuffPost reporter Ryan J. Reilly, offers "a tremendously valuable lesson in why you always need to treat initial police narratives with intense skepticism.


According to attorneys Riley H. Ross III and Kevin Mincey, Young attempted to turn around immediately after she turned down a street where police were clashing with protesters Thursday night, while her son and teenage nephew were in the car with her.

While she was trying to make a three-point turn as directed by officers, the police suddenly surrounded her SUV, smashing Young's windows while the toddler sat in the back seat. The police violently dragged Young out of the car, beat her with batons, and then threw her to the ground.

A nearby resident, Aapril Rice caught the police violence on video:

While Young was left with a bloodied head and badly bruised left side from the police attack and was detained and separated from her son for hours, a female police officer was photographed holding the toddler in what was later used for what Ross called "propaganda."

"Using this kid in a way to say, 'This kid was in danger and the police were only there to save him,' when the police actually caused the danger," Ross told the Washington Post. "That little boy is terrified because of what the police did."

The child was also hurt during the attack and was taken to Children's Hospital to be treated for a head injury after being reunited with his mother. According to the Post, the family still has not been able to locate the SUV or their belongings, including the toddler's hearing aids, which were inside.

Observers on social media expressed shock at the story, with filmmaker Peter Ramsey tweeting that accounts like that of Young and her child are evidence of a police force that is "begging to be defunded."



"This is state sanctioned terror," tweeted Vox journalist Kainaz Amaria.

news & politics

Trump is on a final crime spree of negligent homicide

Germany and France just imposed nationwide lockdowns in response to a new wave of Covid-19 cases and deaths. Donald Trump mocked them and refused to follow suit, even though the U.S. has more deaths per 100,000 people and record daily cases continuing to surge in 44 states. Trump exposing Americans to death from Covid-19 is not only a reason to vote him out of office; it also fits the definition of criminal negligent homicide.

That crime occurs when a person who is aware of the risk causes the death of another by a careless or reckless act, or by failure to perform a duty. The crime does not require an intent to cause death. It is punishable by imprisonment for six months to ten years, depending on the state.

Trump was well aware of the risk of death from his brazen actions, omissions, and failure to fulfill his acknowledged duty to keep Americans safe. The upward trajectory of Covid cases and deaths, now at 8.93 million and 228,000 respectively, has been a siren alerting everyone to the risk that many people would die. Even 70% of Republicans were alarmed. Indeed, Trump admitted on February 7 that he knew Covid was a deadly threat.

Today it's estimated that another 250,000 to 300,00 Americans will die from the virus in the coming months. Not even President Trump, with his penchant for dismissing inconvenient facts and fake news and conspiracy theories, can claim he was or is unaware of Covid's risk of death.

In fact, he was aware of our vulnerability to deadly pandemics even before he took office. President Obama presented a simulation of a global pandemic to Trump's transition team and warned that the U.S. could face shortages of ventilators, anti-viral drugs, and other medical essentials. Trump was told we would need to mount a unified national pandemic response. Trump was also told that unless he invested more in biodefense now, we'd pay much more in "human and economic costs" later.

Trump ignored those warnings and never prepared for a pandemic. He fired Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert, who advocated strengthening our pandemic defenses, and didn't replace him until February, 2020. Trump's National Security Council adviser disbanded the entire U.S. pandemic response team.

As a result, we were not prepared for the onslaught of Covid-19 and suffered more deaths that we otherwise would have. This year, the U.S. experienced such acute shortages of protective equipment that Trump had to ask to ask other countries for supplies, even while he boasted, "We have millions of masks being done. We have respirators. We have ventilators."

Trump underplayed the virus's risk and encouraged Americans to abandon caution while he knew it was deadly, causing additional casualties. He predicted the death rate "within a couple of days is going will be close to zero," and that the virus would "disappear like a miracle." He falsely claimed we were "very close to a vaccine," and falsely assured the public that COVID-19 was "totally under control."

Trump's Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator Deborah Birx hobbled the CDC's collection of hospital data by handing it over to a private company, despite the objections and advice of her staff. The company's reporting understated the number of reported cases – a result Trump cherished because it obfuscated the damage he's wreaked upon America.

Trump discouraged wearing masks and social distancing, both by personal example and through his aides. His inexperienced science adviser Scott W. Atlas claimed that masks were ineffective and that children could not contaminate others. Many Americans believed him and chose not to wear masks or social distance, which may have added as many as 130,000 deaths.

Unlike previous Presidents, Trump failed to fulfill his duty to lead the fight against a pandemic. President Obama coordinated a 10,000-person international team to stop Ebola in West Africa and prepared U.S. states­­­- for a possible outbreak. As a result only two people contracted Ebola while on American soil and neither died. Obama also led distribution of respirators, protective masks, gowns and gloves to U.S. states to combat the H1N1 virus in 2009.

Trump has disgracefully abandoned the global leadership role the U.S. played over seven decades in fighting infectious diseases, including Ebola, tuberculosis, malaria, yellow fever, AIDS, avian influenza and Zika.

He also failed to meet his responsibility under the Defense Production Act, which authorizes the President to force production and distribution of materials needed in a crisis. Instead, he admonished governors that the federal government is "not a shipping clerk" and that states should procure their own supplies, even while governors pleaded for national leadership.

Trump may not be the only elected official who should worry about being charged with negligent homicide. All 24 Democratic governors and 19 of 26 Republican governors issued stay-at-home orders, but seven GOP-controlled states never did, despite rising covid numbers. State officials responsible for putting their citizens at risk aren't immune from the risk of being held criminally responsible. Negligent homicide is a state, not a federal, crime, so Trump could not interfere with prosecutions or pardon state officials convicted of it. They should ask themselves if currying Trump's favor is worth the risk.

*Neil Baron is an attorney who has represented many institutions involved in the international markets and advised various parts of the federal government on economic issues.

election '20

Court order segregating Minnesota ballots that arrive late could signal more trouble on Election Day

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision to separate late-arriving ballots casts doubt on whether or not late-arriving ballots will even be counted and signals the revival of Minnesota's Election Day deadline unraveling the seven-day extension that the state agreed to uphold in a separate state court case.

For the 2020 election, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon initially agreed to a deal with two voter groups in state court. Under that deal, they were ballots were supposed to be accepted up to seven days after the November 3 election date as long as they were postmarked prior to that date. Republicans, subsequently, challenged that rule, according to KARE9.

"However well-intentioned and appropriate from a policy perspective in the context of a pandemic during a presidential election, it is not the province of a state executive official to re-write the state's election code, at least as it pertains to selection of presidential electors," the order reads.

The publication goes on to break down the meaning of the latest abrupt change:

"This would mean if you have a mail-in ballot, you must drop it off at your designated location or you can vote in-person through early voting or vote in-person on Election Day. If you are returning a mail-in ballot in-person on Election Day it must be dropped off no later than 3 p.m."

Simon also released a statement admitting the order is a "tremendous and unnecessary disruption to Minnesota's election." Now, he is hoping to make sure voters are aware of the changes, which could greatly impact the outcome of the state's election results.

In the wake of the latest order, Democratic leaders are urging voters refrain from mailing in ballots at this late date because there is no guarantee they will arrive on time with just four days until the election.

On Thursday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) took to Twitter with a warning for the residents in her state. She tweeted, "Because of LAST MINUTE ruling, Minnesota DO NOT put ballots in mail any more.

Klobuchar added, "In the middle of a pandemic, the Republican Party is doing everything to make it hard for you to vote. Stand up for YOUR rights: Vote in-person or take mail-in ballot directly to ballot box."

It is now recommended that Minnesota voters mail-in ballots in-person by 8:00p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. All ballots received after that time will be separated.

economy

Economists warn against deceptive White House spin on new GDP figures: 'Don't be fooled'

With the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis set to release third-quarter economic growth estimates Thursday that are expected to show a historic surge in GDP following the worst contraction on record in the previous quarter, experts and Democratic lawmakers are sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump's election-minded efforts to portray the deceptive numbers as proof that the economy is roaring back under his leadership.

Even though the numbers have not yet officially been released, the Trump reelection campaign is already running Facebook ads touting the "fastest GDP growth in history" and celebrating the "Great American Comeback" that the figures supposedly show.

"The economic calamity threatening American households is largely self-inflicted, and will get even more dire unless Congress takes bipartisan action soon."
—Rep. Don Beyer

But several economists and analysts have warned in recent days that the new BEA statistics will likely paint a highly misleading picture of the economy, which remains mired in deep recession as the coronavirus continues to spread and Congress fails to approve additional relief spending, leaving tens of millions of jobless and hungry Americans without desperately needed assistance.

The BEA is expected to peg third-quarter GDP growth at over 30% at an annualized rate—a figure that would be staggering if it didn't come on the heels of the worst GDP drop in U.S. history in the second quarter.

"Some basic math and data can help pierce through the mirage," economist and Brookings Institute fellow Jay Shambaugh wrote in a blog post Monday. "One reason 30 percent growth doesn't mean the economy is healed stems from how percentage changes work when going down and then up. If you own a stock priced at $100 and it drops 30 percent, it is now worth $70. If it gains back 30 percent, it is then worth $91 (the gain is just $21 because 30 percent of 70 is 21)."

"In the same manner," Shambaugh continued, "the large drop in output in the second quarter followed by similar sized increases in the third quarter will still leave a large hole."


Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted Tuesday that "the economy would have to grow at a 53.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter to make up the ground lost in the first and second quarters."

Given that the BEA figures are likely to be among the last major economic indicators released ahead of the November 3 election, the Trump campaign has rushed to seize upon the numbers and the president is all but certain to hail them upon their release Thursday morning.

"Trump will claim credit. Don't be fooled," tweeted economist Robert Reich. "It follows one of sharpest drops in history. And the growth hasn't lasted. Latest indicators show big loss of momentum."

In a brief report (pdf) released Wednesday ahead of the new BEA statistics, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee said Thursday's numbers "will not fully reflect the worsening public health crisis."

"Instead, on the surface, it will appear to suggest a dramatic economic turnaround," the committee says. "However, even record-breaking third quarter real GDP growth of 30%-35% will leave the U.S. economy substantially smaller than when the year began."


The Trump campaign's touting of the GDP figures as evidence of a booming economic recovery also ignores the deteriorating material circumstances of countless Americans as millions remain unemployed and struggle to afford food, rent, and other basic expenses.

Shortly after confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court late Monday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) adjourned the Senate for recess until November 9, effectively killing the chances of a coronavirus relief package ahead of Election Day.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement Wednesday that "Republicans' failure to reauthorize unemployment supports is a catastrophic mistake that threatens to engulf the personal finances of millions of families."

"The economic calamity threatening American households is largely self-inflicted, and will get even more dire unless Congress takes bipartisan action soon," Beyer added. "We are no longer talking about stimulus, we are talking about life-preservers for millions people who have been terribly hurt and face worse personal tragedy."


culture

'Follow Trump off a cliff’: Psychological analysis reveals 14 key traits of people who support the president

As he himself said even before he won the presidential election in 2016, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." Unfortunately for the American people, this wild-sounding claim appears to be truer than not, at least for the majority of his supporters, and that is something that should disturb us. It should also motivate us to explore the science underlying such peculiar human behavior, so we can learn from it, and potentially inoculate against it.

In all fairness, we should recognize that lying is sadly not uncommon for politicians on both sides of the political aisle, but the frequency and magnitude of the current president's lies should have us all wondering why they haven't destroyed his political career, and instead perhaps strengthened it. Similarly, we should be asking why his inflammatory rhetoric and numerous scandals haven't sunk him. We are talking about a man who was caught on tape saying, "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy." Politically surviving that video is not normal, or anything close to it, and we can be sure that such a revelation would have been the end of Barack Obama or George Bush had it surfaced weeks before the election.

While dozens of psychologists have analyzed Trump, to explain the man's political invincibility, it is more important to understand the minds of his staunch supporters. While there have been various popular articles that have illuminated a multitude of reasons for his unwavering support, there appears to be no comprehensive analysis that contains all of them. Since there seems to be a real demand for this information, I have tried to provide that analysis below.

Some of the explanations come from a 2017 review paper published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology by the psychologist and UC Santa Cruz professor Thomas Pettigrew. Others have been put forth as far back as 2016 by myself, a cognitive neuroscience and psychology researcher, in various articles and blog posts for publications like Psychology Today. A number of these were inspired by insights from psychologists like Sheldon Solomon, who laid the groundwork for the influential Terror Management Theory, and David Dunning, who did the same for the Dunning-Kruger effect

This list will begin with the more benign reasons for Trump's intransigent support, and as the list goes on, the explanations become increasingly worrisome, and toward the end, border on the pathological. It should be strongly emphasized that not all Trump supporters are racist, mentally vulnerable, or fundamentally bad people. It can be detrimental to society when those with degrees and platforms try to demonize their political opponents or paint them as mentally ill when they are not. That being said, it is just as harmful to pretend that there are not clear psychological and neural factors that underlie much of Trump supporters' unbridled allegiance.

The psychological phenomena described below mostly pertain to those supporters who would follow Trump off a cliff. These are the people who will stand by his side no matter what scandals come to light, or what sort of evidence for immoral and illegal behavior surfaces.

1. Practicality Trumps Morality

For some wealthy people, it's simply a financial matter. Trump offers tax cuts for the rich and wants to do away with government regulation that gets in the way of businessmen making money, even when that regulation exists for the purpose of protecting the environment. Others, like blue-collared workers, like the fact that the president is trying to bring jobs back to America from places like China. Some people who genuinely are not racist (those who are will be discussed later) simply want stronger immigration laws because they know that a country with open borders is not sustainable. These people have put their practical concerns above their moral ones. To them, it does not matter if he's a vagina-grabber, or if his campaign team colluded with Russia to help him defeat his political opponent. It is unknown whether these people are eternally bound to Trump in the way others are, but we may soon find out if the Mueller investigation is allowed to come to completion.

2. The Brain's Attention System Is More Strongly Engaged by Trump

According to a study that monitored brain activity while participants watched 40 minutes of political ads and debate clips from the presidential candidates, Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged. While Hillary Clinton could only hold attention for so long, Trump kept both attention and emotional arousal high throughout the viewing session. This pattern of activity was seen even when Trump made remarks that individuals didn't necessarily agree with. His showmanship and simple language clearly resonate with some at a visceral level

3. America's Obsession with Entertainment and Celebrities

Essentially, the loyalty of Trump supporters may in part be explained by America's addiction with entertainment and reality TV. To some, it doesn't matter what Trump actually says because he's so amusing to watch. With the Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained

4. "Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn."

Some intelligent people who know better are supporting Trump simply to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the political system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and Democrats like Hillary Clinton that their support for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington. These people do not have their priorities straight, and perhaps have other issues, like an innate desire to troll others, or a deranged obsession with schadenfreude.

5. The Fear-Factor: Conservatives Are More Sensitive to Threat

Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A 2008 study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing images.

These brain responses are automatic, and not influenced by logic or reason. As long as Trump continues his fear mongering by constantly portraying Muslims and Hispanic immigrants as imminent dangers, many conservative brains will involuntarily light up like light bulbs being controlled by a switch. Fear keeps his followers energized and focused on safety. And when you think you've found your protector, you become less concerned with offensive and divisive remarks.

6. The Power of Mortality Reminders and Perceived Existential Threat

A well-supported theory from social psychology, known as Terror Management Theory, explains why Trump's fear mongering is doubly effective. The theory is based on the fact that humans have a unique awareness of their own mortality. The inevitability of one's death creates existential terror and anxiety that is always residing below the surface. In order to manage this terror, humans adopt cultural worldviews — like religions, political ideologies, and national identities — that act as a buffer by instilling life with meaning and value.

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. Hundreds of studies have confirmed this hypothesis, and some have specifically shown that triggering thoughts of death tends to shift people towards the right.

Not only do death reminders increase nationalism, they influence actual voting habits in favor of more conservative presidential candidates. And more disturbingly, in a study with American students, scientists found that making mortality salient increased support for extreme military interventions by American forces that could kill thousands of civilians overseas. Interestingly, the effect was present only in conservatives, which can likely be attributed to their heightened fear response.

By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump creates a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric. Liberals and Independents who have been puzzled over why Trump hasn't lost supporters after such highly offensive comments need look no further than Terror Management Theory.

    7. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Humans Often Overestimate Their Political Expertise

    Some support Donald Trump do so out of ignorance — basically they are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it's ever been, they simply take his word for it.

    The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn't just that they are misinformed; it's that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed, which creates a double burden.

    Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, "The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment." These people cannot be reached because they mistakenly believe they are the ones who should be reaching others.

    8. Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement

    Relative deprivation refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled. It is the discontent felt when one compares their position in life to others who they feel are equal or inferior but have unfairly had more success than them.

    Common explanations for Trump's popularity among non-bigoted voters involve economics. There is no doubt that some Trump supporters are simply angry that American jobs are being lost to Mexico and China, which is certainly understandable, although these loyalists often ignore the fact that some of these careers are actually being lost due to the accelerating pace of automation.

    These Trump supporters are experiencing relative deprivation, and are common among the swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This kind of deprivation is specifically referred to as "relative," as opposed to "absolute," because the feeling is often based on a skewed perception of what one is entitled to.

    9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

    Intergroup contact refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one's own, which has been experimentally shown to reduce prejudice. As such, it's important to note that there is growing evidence that Trump's white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans. For example, a 2016 study found that "…the racial and ethnic isolation of Whites at the zip-code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support." This correlation persisted while controlling for dozens of other variables. In agreement with this finding, the same researchers found that support for Trump increased with the voters' physical distance from the Mexican border. These racial biases might be more implicit than explicit, the latter which is addressed in #14.

    10. Trump's Conspiracy Theories Target the Mentally Vulnerable

    While the conspiracy theory crowd — who predominantly support Donald Trump and crackpot allies like Alex Jones and the shadowy QAnon — may appear to just be an odd quirk of modern society, the truth is that many of them suffer from psychological illnesses that involve paranoia and delusions, such as schizophrenia, or are at least vulnerable to them, like those with schizotypy personalities.

    The link between schizotypy and belief in conspiracy theories is well-established, and a recent study published in the journal Psychiatry Research has demonstrated that it is still very prevalent in the population. The researchers found that those who were more likely to believe in outlandish conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the U.S. government created the AIDs epidemic, consistently scored high on measures of "odd beliefs and magical thinking." One feature of magical thinking is a tendency to make connections between things that are actually unrelated in reality.

    Donald Trump and his media allies target these people directly. All one has to do is visit alt-right websites and discussion boards to see the evidence for such manipulation.

    11. Trump Taps into the Nation's Collective Narcissism

    Collective narcissism is an unrealistic shared belief in the greatness of one's national group. It often occurs when a group who believes it represents the 'true identity' of a nation — the 'ingroup,' in this case White Americans — perceives itself as being disadvantaged compared to outgroups who are getting ahead of them 'unrightfully.' This psychological phenomenon is related to relative deprivation (#6).

    A study published last year in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found a direct link between national collective narcissism and support for Donald Trump. This correlation was discovered by researchers at the University of Warsaw, who surveyed over 400 Americans with a series of questionnaires about political and social beliefs. Where individual narcissism causes aggressiveness toward other individuals, collective narcissism involves negative attitudes and aggression toward 'outsider' groups (outgroups), who are perceived as threats.

    Donald Trump exacerbates collective narcissism with his anti-immigrant, anti-elitist, and strongly nationalistic rhetoric. By referring to his supporters, an overwhelmingly white group, as being "true patriots" or "real Americans," he promotes a brand of populism that is the epitome of "identity politics," a term that is usually associated with the political left. Left-wing identity politics, as misguided as they may sometimes be, are generally aimed at achieving equality, while the right-wing brand is based on a belief that one nationality and race is superior or entitled to success and wealth for no other reason than identity.

    12. The Desire to Want to Dominate Others

    Social dominance orientation (SDO) — which is distinct but related to authoritarian personality syndrome (#13) — refers to people who have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups have dominance over the low-status ones. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.

    In Trump's speeches, he appeals to those with SDO by repeatedly making a clear distinction between groups that have a generally higher status in society (White), and those groups that are typically thought of as belonging to a lower status (immigrants and minorities). A 2016 survey study of 406 American adults published last year in the journal Personality and Individual Differences found that those who scored high on both SDO and authoritarianism were those who intended to vote for Trump in the election.

    13. Authoritarian Personality Syndrome

    Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others. Authoritarian personality syndrome — a well-studied and globally-prevalent condition — is a state of mind that is characterized by belief in total and complete obedience to one's authority. Those with the syndrome often display aggression toward outgroup members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. The syndrome is often triggered by fear, making it easy for leaders who exaggerate threat or fear monger to gain their allegiance.

    Although authoritarian personality is found among liberals, it is more common among the right-wing around the world. President Trump's speeches, which are laced with absolutist terms like "losers" and "complete disasters," are naturally appealing to those with the syndrome.

    While research showed that Republican voters in the U.S. scored higher than Democrats on measures of authoritarianism before Trump emerged on the political scene, a 2016 Politico survey found that high authoritarians greatly favored then-candidate Trump, which led to a correct prediction that he would win the election, despite the polls saying otherwise

    14. Racism and Bigotry

    It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump's supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that many do not. It is a well-known fact that the Republican party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon's "southern strategy," used tactics that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with "dog whistles" — code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else.

    While the dog whistles of the past were subtler, Trump's signaling is sometimes shockingly direct. There's no denying that he routinely appeals to racist and bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims "dangerous" and Mexican immigrants "rapists" and "murderers," often in a blanketed fashion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a recent study has shown that support for Trump is correlated with a standard scale of modern racism.

    Bobby Azarian is a neuroscientist affiliated with George Mason University and a freelance journalist. His research has been published in journals such as Cognition & Emotion and Human Brain Mapping, and he has written for The New York Times, The Atlantic, Psychology Today, and Scientific American. Follow him on Twitter @BobbyAzarian.

    science

    ‘It’s science, stupid’: A school subject emerges as a hot-button political issue

    At the top of Dr. Hiral Tipirneni’s to-do list if she wins her congressional race: work with other elected officials to encourage mask mandates and to beef up COVID-19 testing and contact tracing. Those choices are backed up by science, said Tipirneni, an emergency room physician running for Arizona’s 6th Congressional District.On the campaign trail, she has called on her opponent, Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), to denounce President Donald Trump’s gathering of thousands for a rally in Arizona and his comments about slowing down COVID-19 testing.“I believe in data; I believe in facts,” Tipir...

    belief

    Faith and spirituality run deep in Black Lives Matter

    Black Lives Matters (BLM) has been portrayed by its detractors as many things: Marxist, radical, anti-American. Added to this growing list of charges is that it is either irreligious or doing religion wrong.

    In late July, for instance, conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan tweeted that BLM was “incompatible" with Christianity.

    He isn't alone in that belief. Despite receiving the backing of diverse faith leaders and groups, BLM has been attacked by sections of the religious right. One evangelical institution felt compelled to issue a statement warning Christians about the movement's “Godless agenda." Other evangelicals have gone further, accusing BLM founders of being “witches" and “operating in the demonic realm."

    Joining conservative Christians are some self-proclaimed liberals and atheists who have also denounced BLM as a social movement that functions like a “cult" or “pseudo" religion.

    As scholars of religion, we believe such views fail to acknowledge – let alone engage with – the rich spiritual and religious pluralism of Black Lives Matter. For the past few years, we have been observing the way the movement and affiliated organizations express faith and spirituality.

    Since 2015 we have interviewed BLM leaders and organizers as well as Buddhist leaders inspired by the movement. What we found was that BLM was not only a movement seeking radical political reform, but a spiritual movement seeking to heal and empower while inspiring other religious allies seeking inclusivity.

    A love letter

    Black Lives Matter was born from a love letter.

    On July 13, 2013 – the day of the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who had killed an unarmed black teenage named Trayvon Martin – soon-to-be BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, posted “A Love Letter to Black People" on Facebook. She declared:

    “We don't deserve to be killed with impunity. We need to love ourselves and fight for a world where black lives matter. Black people, I love you. I love us. We matter. Our lives matter."

    Since its inception, BLM organizers have expressed their founding spirit of love through an emphasis on spiritual healing, principles, and practices in their racial justice work.

    BLM leaders, such as co-founder Patrisse Cullors, are deeply committed to incorporating spiritual leadership. Cullors grew up as a Jehovah's Witness, and later became ordained in Ifà, a west African Yoruba religion. Drawing on Native American, Buddhist and mindfulness traditions, her syncretic spiritual practice is fundamental to her work. As Cullors explained to us, “The fight to save your life is a spiritual fight."

    Theologian Tricia Hersey, known as the “Nap Bishop," a nod to her Divinity degree and her work advocating for rest as a form of resistance, founded the BLM affiliated organization, The Nap Ministry in 2016.

    In an interview with Cullors, Hersey said she considers human bodies as “sites of liberation" that connect Black Americans to the “creator, ancestors, and universe." She describes rest as a spiritual practice for community healing and resistance and naps as “healing portals." Hersey connects this belief to her upbringing in the Black Pentecostal Church of God in Christ, where, she explained, “I was able to see the body being a vehicle for spirit."

    The movement is committed to spiritual principles, such as “healing justice" – which uses a range of holistic approaches to address trauma and oppression by centering emotional and spiritual well-being – and “transformative justice" which assists with creating processes to repair harm without violence.

    Black Lives Matter protesters pray near the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

    Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    Transformative justice, central to the beliefs of many in the BLM movement, is a philosophic approach to peacemaking. With roots in the Quaker tradition, it approaches harms committed as an opportunity for education. Crime is taken to be a community problem to be solved through mutual understanding, as often seen in work to decriminalize sex work and drug addiction.

    BLM affiliated organizer Cara Page, who coined the term “healing justice," did so in response to watching decades of activists commit themselves completely to social justice causes to the detriment of their physical and mental health. She advocates that “movements themselves have to be healing, or there's no point to them."

    'Without healing, no justice'

    BLM-affiliated organizations utilize spiritual tools such as meditation, reiki, acupuncture, plant medicine, chanting, and prayer, along with other African and Indigenous spiritualities to connect and care for those directly impacted by state violence and white supremacy.

    For instance, Dignity and Power Now or DPN, an organization founded by Cullors in Los Angeles in 2012, hosts almost weekly wellness clinics on Sundays, often referred to as “church" by attendees.

    On July 26, 2020, they held a virtual event called Calm-Unity, to remind people that “without healing there is no justice." Classes included yoga, meditation, African dance, Chinese medicine, and altar making.

    In interviews, movement leaders described honoring their body, mind and soul as an act of resilience. They see themselves as inheritors of the spiritual duty to fight for racial justice, following in the footsteps of freedom fighters like abolitionist Harriet Tubman.

    BLM leaders often invoke the names of abolitionist ancestors in a ceremony used at the beginning of protests. In fact, protests often contain many spiritual purification, protection and healing practices including the burning of sage, the practice of wearing white and the creation of sacred sites and altars at locations of mourning.

    'More religion, not less'

    BLM's rich spiritual expressions have also inspired and transformed many American faith leaders. Black evangelical leader Barbara Salter McNeil credits BLM activists in Ferguson as changing the Christian church by showing racism must be tackled structurally and not just as individual sin.

    U.S. Buddhist leaders presented a statement on racial justice to the White House in which they shared they were “inspired by the courage and leadership" of Black Lives Matter. Jewish, Muslim and many other religious organizations, have incorporated BLM principles to make their communities more inclusive and justice oriented.

    As University of Arizona scholar Erika Gault observes, “The Black church is not the only religious well from which Black movements have historically drawn," and with Black Lives Matter, “We are actually seeing more religion, not less."

    Religious pluralism

    Attempts to erase the rich religious landscape of Black Lives Matter by both conservative and liberal voices continues a long history of denouncing Black spirituality as inauthentic and threatening.

    [Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]

    The history of white supremacy, often enacted within institutional Christianity, has often vilified and criminalized Indigenous and African beliefs, promoted the idea that Black people are divinely destined to servitude, and subjected communities to forced conversions.

    As Cullors said to us in response to current attacks against BLM as demonic, “For centuries, the way we are allowed to commune with the divine has been policed; in the movement for Black lives, we believe that all connections to the creator are sacred and essential."The Conversation

    Hebah H. Farrag, Assistant Director of Research, Center for Religion and Civic Culture, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and Ann Gleig, Associate Professor of Religion, University of Central Florida

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    human rights

    Melania Trump claims her husband 'sees potential' in gay people

    In a bizarre moment, the first lady announced that President Donald Trump is all for gay people.

    Speaking to a crowd in Atglen, Pennsylvania, Melania Trump described the president as someone "who sees potential in everyone he meets, no matter their gender, race, religion or sexual orientation."

    She didn't use the typical term LGBTQ or even mention transgender people. But mentioning LGBTQ voters likely isn't a good idea in the Trump administration because of the laundry list of things they've done to hurt the community.

    "Donald loves helping people and he loves seeing those around him and his country succeed," Mrs. Trump added, claiming he has a "very big heart and a great sense of humor."

    The Human Rights Campaign has a long list of ways that Trump has hurt LGBTQ America. Trump opposed the Equality Act, none of Trump's judges are LGBTQ and in fact those he has appointed don't support LGBTQ rights. Trump even joked that Vice President Mike Pence wants to kill LGBTQ people when he said, "Don't ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!"

    Trump supports discrimination for LGBTQ people at work, he banned transgender people from serving in the military, he rolled back former President Barack Obama's rules about protecting people from discrimination, and even gave an exemption so that companies could fire LGBTQ people claiming "a religious exemption."

    Anyone with HIV/AIDS is now no longer able to serve in the military, and Trump cut $1.35 billion from the budget to fight HIV/AIDS around the world. They removed healthcare protections that ensured LGBTQ people could never be discriminated against on healthcare policies. The Department of Health and Human services even created a division to help defend doctors who refuse to treat LGBTQ patients.

    That list doesn't even include the battle that conservatives have because they decided they can't go to the bathroom in the same room as a transgender person. There are many, many more.

    Just last week, Trump's daughter Tiffany spoke out at an LGBTQ Trump rally in Florida with her mother, Trump's second wife, Marla Maples.

    "Back in the Broadway days — I mean, let's just — I mean, some of her best friends when she was on Broadway — unfortunately, one of her best friends passed away from AIDS," Tiffany said.

    See a clip of Melania's speech below:

    more news

    Democrats' Senate map is expanding in some very unexpected places

    If you're seeking evidence that the Senate map is expanding, not contracting, for Democrats, look no further than Cook Political Report's ratings change in the Mississippi Senate race from "solid" to "likely" Republican. Republicans will most likely hold that seat on election night, but the idea that things are loosening even a tad in a state like Mississippi is somewhat astonishing.

    The movement in such an unlikely state also suggests Democrats are very much in the running to bring home some of the lower-tier Senate races. One of Democrats' best chances for a pickup in a state that initially fell below the radar appears to be Montana, where Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock is in striking distance of unseating GOP Sen. Steve Daines.

    A new poll released Wednesday by Montana State University put Bullock up 1 point, 48%-47%, with 5% undecided. And although Donald Trump is still running 7 points ahead of Joe Biden, 52%-45%, the other statewide races for governor the state's at-large congressional seat are neck and neck. In the gubernatorial race, Democratic Lt. Gov. Mike Cooney and GOP Rep. Greg Gianforte are tied at 45%, while Republican at-large candidate Matt Rosendale holds a one-point lead over Democrat Kathleen Williams, 47%-46%. In other words, Montana looks to be very competitive and Democrats could pick up some important seats there.

    In Kansas, Democrat Barbara Bollier won the endorsement of the Kansas City Star, which compared Bollier's GOP opponent Rep. Roger Marshall to the highly unpopular Republican, Kris Kobach. "Don't be fooled," wrote the Star, "Marshall is every bit as conservative as Kobach. Bollier is far better prepared to meet this moment." Kansas.com also endorsed her as "an independent thinker," writing, "It's no surprise that more than 80 current and former Republican leaders have endorsed her campaign." An internal poll conducted by GBAO found Bollier leading by 1 point, 46%-45%, with Libertarian Jason Buckley drawing 4% and 4% undecided. Yet apparently, Marshall feels so good about the state of play that he decided to skip the final debate altogether. In a pretty stunning move, Marshall suggested he got "set up" after the Topeka TV Station KSNT tried to contact him repeatedly and even sent a certified letter inviting him to participate in the debate.

    In South Carolina, Cook Political has the race between Democrat Jaime Harrison and GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham in tossup territory. Since Harrison's eye-popping $57 million fundraising haul in the third quarter, he has also picked up the endorsement of the South Carolina's oldest newspaper, The State. The Economist's forecast model is also "unclear which candidate will win," putting the race in the same category as other tight races that have been viewed as slightly more ripe for Democratic pickups, such as the two Georgia Senate races along with the one in Iowa.

    Some Democratic Senate candidates are obviously much better poised to deliver wins on election night, but if there's one thing that unites nearly all these races—from the "very likely" flips to the "unclear"—it's that they are trending in Democrats' direction, according to forecasts and recent polling.

    That's a good sign and suggests Democrats might walk away with an unexpected victory or two in some of the scrappier races that weren't originally viewed as being in the offing for Democrats.

    Trump's own officials are terrified about what he'll do the day after the election: NYT

    Journalist Ron Suskind has talked with multiple current and former Trump administration officials who say they're deeply concerned about what President Donald Trump will do the day after the election next week.

    In multiple interviews, these officials sketched out a scenario in which Trump would encourage his supporters to disrupt voting in cities in key swing states.

    "Disruption would most likely begin on Election Day morning somewhere on the East Coast, where polls open first," Suskind writes. "Miami and Philadelphia (already convulsed this week after another police shooting), in big swing states, would be likely locations. It could be anything, maybe violent, maybe not, started by anyone, or something planned and executed by any number of organizations, almost all of them on the right fringe, many adoring of Mr. Trump."

    The big danger, these officials tell Suskind, is that early news of unrest at polling places will spark further instances across the country.

    "News of even a few incidents could summon a violent segment of Mr. Trump's supporters into action, giving foreign actors even more to amplify and distribute, spreading what is, after all, news of mayhem to the wider concentric circles of Mr. Trump's loyalists," he writes.

    Officials then say Trump will claim some kind of "victory" on November 4th even if the vote tallies show him behind.

    "If the streets then fill with outraged people, he can easily summon, or prompt, or encourage troublemakers among his loyalists to turn a peaceful crowd into a sea of mayhem," Suskind writes. "They might improvise on their own in sparking violence, presuming it pleases their leader."

    One FBI official tells Suskind that the agency has been gaming out how it will handle weeks of unrest that could come after the election.

    "We've been talking to our state and local counterparts and gearing up for the expectation that it's going to be a significant law-enforcement challenge for probably weeks or months," this official said. "It feels pretty terrifying."

    Read the whole story here.

    At least 6 Trump cabinet secretaries are accused or under investigation for violating federal law

    An Additional Eight or More Administration Officials Also Accused or Under Investigation

    At least six Trump Cabinet secretaries are under investigation for violating federal law or are accused of violating federal law, as are an additional eight or more administration officials.

    The Cabinet secretaries include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Bill Barr, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, and Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf.

    In recent days White House officials have been assisting President Donald Trump's re-election efforts so intensely that at least one has been officially named a campaign advisor – in addition to being paid by the taxpayers for their day job inside the executive branch.

    It's causing a great deal of outrage in some quarters.

    An NCRM investigation finds more than a dozen White House officials are either under investigation or according to a government ethics watchdog or others, should be under investigation for appearing to be in violation of the federal law known as the Hatch Act.

    Take White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who is now traveling with the president and appearing on Fox News as a Trump 2020 campaign "senior advisor."

    CNN White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins pointed out the startling "title" addition on Tuesday:

    McEnany appears to have done it again today:

    The New York Times's Maggie Haberman on Thursday described this as "further blurring the lines between government and political activity."

    In one appearance earlier this week, in which she was announced as both a campaign senior adviser and the White House press secretary, Ms. McEnany talked up the president's political rallies.

    “At each of our rallies yesterday, I was with the president, we made three stops on Lancaster and all across the state," she said in the interview. “And in each of those stops we played a video for the public. Joe Biden said roll the tape, President Trump. When did I say ban fracking? Well, we rolled it."

    McEnany is far from the only one "blurring" the lines.

    Senior advisor to the president Stephen Miller, the Trump White House white nationalist who is the architect of its child separation policy, held a Trump campaign call with reporters on Wednesday. It was a disaster, with Miller spewing lies about Joe Biden, leading one reporter to describe his attacks this way: "Stephen Miller basically describing to reporters the plot of the Purge if Joe Biden wins the election."

    Today, top Trump White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow will hold another Trump campaign call with reporters.

    And then there's White House senior advisor and First Daughter, Ivanka Trump:

    Some other Trump Cabinet Secretaries, including Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, are raising eyebrows for travel that appears to be campaign-adjacent.

    So is any or all of this illegal?

    Here's what CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has to say:

    (CREW previously called for McEnany to be investigated for apparent Hatch Act violations. They also called for investigations into Pence chief of staff Marc Short and Trump National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien.)

    There's of course also White House trade advisor Peter Navarro:

    It's not just McEnany, Miller, Navarro, Ivanka, and Kudlow.

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is under investigation for several "potential" Hatch Act violations.

    The nation's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Bill Barr, is accused by CREW of violating the Hatch Act:

    Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt caused some to accuse him of a Hartch Act violastion over this video:

    Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is under investigation:

    Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue is accused of a Hatch Act violation by a sitting U.S. Congressman:

    Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf is also under investigation:

    And then there's the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Mark Morgan, in another apparent Hatch Act violation:

    These are all recent potential violations or investigations.

    CREW back in July also said White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows should be investigated for Hatch Act violstions:

    Stephen Miller details the horrifying second-term agenda for Trump's immigration policy

    President Donald Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller has revealed the Trump administration's plan to impose stricter immigration policies if the president is re-elected for a second term.

    During an interview with NBC News, Miller outlined the plans Trump has to aggressively overhaul immigration as he stressed that he was speaking from the context of the Trump campaign and not from the perspective of a White House employee.

    He made it clear that one of the Trump administration's top priorities centers around "building on and expanding the framework that we've created with the travel ban, in terms of raising the standard for screening and vetting for admission to the United States."

    "That's going to be a major priority," Miller said. "It's going to require a whole government effort. It's going to require building a very elaborate and very complex screening mechanism."

    The expansion would likely make it far more difficult for applicants to qualify for VISAs. The enhanced protocols and increases in the complexity of screening measures may include "enhanced screening methods, changes to the interview process, more information sharing among government agencies and vetting the "ideological sympathies or leanings" of those applying for visas," according to Newsweek.

    He also said the administration would want to further crack down on "sanctuary cities" — those jurisdictions which have decided not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities to various degrees. Often, local governments determine that having deportation as a persistent threat in dealing with the authorities can make communities reluctant to report crimes or otherwise engage with important municipal services. But Trump and his allies despise these policies and want to punish the communities that adopt them.

    Miller, an outed white nationalist, even went a step further as he insisted the president's ultimate goal would be to expand his immigration policy, globally.

    "The president would like to expand that to include the rest of the world," Miller revealed. "And so if you create safe third partners in other continents and other countries and regions, then you have the ability to share the burden of asylum-seekers on a global basis."

    Although some of the changes Miller discussed would require legislation changes, Miller is confident the Trump administration would be able to take the necessary actions to bring the policy into law.

    "In many cases, fixing these problems and restoring some semblance of sanity to our immigration programs does involve regulatory reform," he said. "Congress has delegated a lot of authority. [...] And that underscores the depth of the choice facing the American people."

    'Signs of a coming conflict are everywhere': Why a 2nd Civil War would be quite different from the 1st

    In 2020, the United States has been rocked by everything from a deadly pandemic and a brutal recession to civil unrest in a long list of cities to fears that violent conflicts will occur either on Election Day or after the election. Journalist Matthew Gault, in an article published by Vice this week, wonders if the political divisions in the United States run so deep that the country is headed for another civil war.

    Describing the unrest that has occurred this year, Gault writes, "People are marching in the streets, aligned with two ideologically distinct factions. Many of them, overwhelmingly from one side, are armed, and violence and death has resulted when these two sides have clashed. The signs of a coming conflict are everywhere."

    Certainly, the U.S. has had plenty of unrest in the past, from riots and assassinations during the 1960s to the Los Angeles riots in 1992. But Gault views 2020 as especially disturbing.

    "Political polarization is up, gun and ammunition sales have spiked, killers such as Kyle Rittenhouse are being lauded by their political allies, and protests are widespread in American cities," Gault explains. "Police kill unarmed people in the street, the government is polarized and corrupt, and our institutions are failing. Armed militias patrol U.S. streets."

    Gault goes on to note that as if everything else that has occurred in 2020 weren't enough, Philadelphia erupted in violence the week before the presidential election following the fatal shooting of Walter Wallace, Jr. — a 27-year-old African-American man — by police.

    "In the aftermath of the shooting, protestors have smashed windows and spray painted the police substation," Gault notes. "Police say 30 officers have been hurt, and one who was hit by a pickup truck has been hospitalized for a broken leg."

    Gault adds, "We have a sect of the president's supporters who have vowed to show up at polling places armed. If you have a terrible and ominous feeling about all this, you're not alone. Some on the far right are talking about another civil war."

    What would another civil war in the United States look like? The last one occurred during the 1860s, when Americans were still using horses to commute to work — and a great deal has changed technologically since then.

    Gault explains, "According to several experts I spoke with, a new civil conflict will look nothing like the first American Civil War. It's not likely that clear sides will be drawn up with massive armies of Americans marching towards each other as drones strike from above. An insurgency is more likely — a period of sustained and distributed conflict where non-state actors carry out violence to achieve a political goal."

    One of the people Gault interviewed was David Kilcullen of Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Kilcullen is worried about the United States' future, telling Gault, "The worst atrocities come from fear, not hate. Because people think they're good, and they can justify incredible atrocious violence to themselves on the basis that it is defensive….. You need a belief that some other group is encroaching on your territory."

    Gault also interviewed journalist Robert Evans, known for his reporting on conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine. Evans told Gault, "We are in a state of civil war whenever, in more than one geographical location in the United States, it becomes commonplace for multiple non-state armed groups to fight each other with deadly force. When that is an occurrence that is common in more than one location in the country, that's a civil war."

    According to Evans, "To most people, the idea of a second American Civil War feels more like science fiction than a possible future…. I have seen systems collapse. Everything I've seen and everything I've read over the past two years has convinced me that the United States is closer to that kind of terror than anyone is willing to admit."

    Adam Isacson of WOLA — a group that promotes human rights in Latin America — told Gault that a civil war in the U.S. might resemble the one that occurred in Colombia, where the conflict didn't occur throughout the entire country. Isacson recalled that when he was in Bogotá in the early 2000s, Colombia didn't seem like a country that was in a state of civil war.

    Isacson told Gault, "You realize that even in this horrible period for Colombia, for most of the country, this conflict was just something you saw on television. It doesn't really impact their everyday lives…. Collapse is not evenly distributed…. I'd say there's a real danger that (the U.S.) is going to see sustained political violence."

    Justice Kavanaugh's 'sloppy' opinion is an embarrassing mess riddled with errors

    Late Monday night, the Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking a lower court's decision to force Wisconsin election officials to extend the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, as long as they were post-marked by Election Day. This decision to limit ballot access was unsurprising given the conservative majority on the court, but as I noted, Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion disturbed many readers because of the views it seemed to express about voting and elections.

    But there's a related aspect of Kavanaugh's opinion that has attracted significant attention in addition to its ideological bent. It was, many commentators noted, extraordinarily sloppy for a Supreme Court ruling. The opinion was riddled with errors, embarrassingly so, and some of which even relate to the substance of his argument.

    For instance, Kavanaugh wrote:

    To be sure, in light of the pandemic, some state legislatures have exercised their Article I, §4, authority over elections and have changed their election rules for the November 2020 election. Of particular relevance here, a few States such as Mississippi no longer require that absentee ballots be received before election day. See, e.g., Miss. Code Ann. §23–15–637 (2020). Other States such as Vermont, by contrast, have decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules, including to the election-day deadline for receipt of absentee ballots. [emphasis added]

    But as Vermont's own secretary of state confirmed, the state had changed its election rules this year. It sent every voter a ballot by the first of October:

    That doesn't really change the substance of Kavanaugh's ruling, but it does throw doubt on his understanding of the current environment and shed light on his lackluster fact-checking.

    Another mistake from Kavanaugh, though, really is important to his argument. He wrote of the reasons that states have for limiting the deadline for absentee ballot returns to Election Day itself:

    States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. Moreover, particularly in a Presidential election, counting all the votes quickly can help the State promptly resolve any disputes, address any need for recounts, and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner. See 3 U. S. C. §5. The States are aware of the risks described by Professor Pildes: "[L]ate-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result. If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode."

    But Kavanaugh's quote here from Professor Richard Pildes in The University of Chicago Law Review Online is extremely misleading. Pildes argued in the article cited for the opposite outcome. He urged that states extend deadlines for receiving ballots past Election Day:

    States that require absentees to be received by election night or shortly after should move this date back. Even if this fall the same percentage of absentee ballots as in normal elections would be rejected for coming in too late, the same point noted above holds true: a 3 percent rejection rate risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of the election if 70 percent of the vote is cast by absentee ballot. And this problem would be compounded, of course, if mailing back ballots five days before the election is normally sufficient to get them back in time, but not this year. The overall burden on the U.S. Postal Service makes that five-day figure less realistic this time around. Moreover, if a significant number of votes come in after a receipt deadline that has not been changed and that is much tighter than in other states, ex post litigation challenging that deadline is easy to imagine. This is exactly what we do not want to face for a risk that can be mitigated in advance.

    Now, Pildes' argument here isn't on exactly the same topic as the question before the court. But it's disingenuous for Kavanaugh to present him as if his argument supported the Supreme Court's decision. Pildes did agree that a long vote count could undermine trust in the election, but he also said that cutting off the deadline by Election Day also "risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of the election." It was dishonest and alarming for Kavanaugh not to acknowledge that the risks cut both ways, especially since the president that appointed him has been trying to discredit mail-in ballots.

    Pildes added:

    In Wisconsin's election, the federal court pushed the date back six days. But that was for a presidential primary. In the general election, participation rates will be much higher. In choosing an updated receipt deadline that anticipates a dramatic rise in mailed-in ballots, policymakers face a trade-off. The longer the permitted time, the more ballots will be valid. But the longer that time, the longer it will take for the final result to be known. If we thought voters would be patient, that would not pose any risk. But in our climate of existential politics—with partisans all too prepared to believe or charge that elections are being manipulated, and a social-media environment poised to heap fuel onto the fire—the longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.

    Election administrators in different states must weigh in on whether, in their circumstances, a six-day deadline post-election is appropriate, as the federal district court held for Wisconsin. The National Vote at Home Institute, one of the leading advocacy organizations for absentee and mail-in voting, suggests the deadline should be three business days after the election, which seems unduly short under our new circumstances. But state legislatures and election officials need to start facing this issue soon.

    Others picked up on another error in the section of Kavanaugh's opinion cited above. He warned about a situation in which "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election" [emphasis added]. But this is completely wrong. Additional ballots don't flip the "results" of an election because there are no results until all the legitimate votes are counted. Kavanaugh surely knows this, because he worked on the Republican side in Bush v. Gore, which was an extensive argument about the counting of ballots after Election Day in Florida. There was no result until the election was certified. States don't typically "definitively announce the results of the election on election night," either, as Kavanaugh claimed. The media, of course, makes projections about what the final vote will be prior to certification, but that's not the same — as we learned in 2000 when the media incorrectly projected the Florida results. It's rhetoric like Kavanaugh's that truly serves to undermine the legitimacy of this process, rather than extensions of deadlines.

    Kavanaugh's argument also incorrectly claimed that the the desire to obtain a quick election result was the Wisconsin legislator's reason for not extending the mail-in ballot deadline. But as Talking Points Memo reporter Tierney Sneed pointed out, this is clearly not so. Otherwise, Wisconsin would have permitted mail-in ballots that were received prior to Election day to be counted ahead of time, making the final count much more efficient. It has not done so, which likely means the ballot counting will extend past Election Night.

    Despite Kavanaugh's claim, it's more plausible that the Republican-dominated Wisconsin legislature doesn't want to receive late mail-in ballots because they think those votes will advantage Democrats.

    Election law expert Rick Hasen pointed to another error in Kavanaugh's opinion in a piece for the Washington Post, pointing to an incorrect citation of precedent:

    Kavanaugh cited a case that came to the Supreme Court during the disputed 2000 presidential election before Bush v. Gore — Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board — as standing for the proposition that state legislatures have this power — negating the power of state courts to expand voting rights under state constitutional provisions that protect the right to vote. As law professor Justin Levitt pointed out, though, Kavanaugh was wrong: The Supreme Court in the Palm Beach case unanimously raised but did not resolve that question. Kavanaugh further embraced this theory as advanced again by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore itself, but that was an opinion joined only by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

    At another point in the opinion, Kavanaugh tried a clever argument to suggest that no matter the deadline that is set, some voters will miss it:

    But moving a deadline would not prevent ballots from arriving after the newly minted deadline any more than moving first base would mean no more close plays. And more to the point, the fact that some ballots will be late in any system with deadlines does not make Wisconsin's widely used deadline facially unconstitutional.

    This is true, but Kavanaugh seems to misunderstand the difference between a deadline for sending a ballot and the deadline for receiving it. Extending the deadline for receiving the ballot give more grace to voters for a consideration that is out of their hands: how quickly the postal service can deliver ballots. That's how many such deadlines work; for example, you only need to send your taxes into the government by April 15 — it doesn't need to receive them by that date. Kavanaugh's failure to notice the difference in this analogy is telling.

    It's notable that, in all the tumult controversy that surrounded Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, many people told us that — whatever his personal faults — he was an excellent and upstanding jurist. This latest opinion gives us reason to question that conclusion.

    Hasen, in particular, seemed disturbed by this turn of events.

    "Why was Justice Kavanaugh so sloppy with the facts and law here (and presumably in the earlier Wisconsin election per curiam)?" he asked on Twitter. "He is usually a careful writer. It just undermines his points. A huge, unforced error."

    The errors and sloppiness reflect another sad fact about the court: There's little we can do to encourage good behavior among Supreme Court justices. Short of impeachment or expansion of the court — either of which would be heavy lifts, though they're possible — there are few ways to limit their power. That means Kavanaugh can write sloppy and erroneous opinions on the bench with little fear it will cost him.

    Obama’s criticism of Trump is really getting to Republicans — especially Mitch McConnell: report

    Former President Barack Obama, for the most part, has been keeping a low profile during Donald Trump’s presidency. However, Obama campaigned for some Democratic candidates during the 2018 midterms, and he has recently been speaking out about the 2020 presidential election and the coronavirus pandemic — much to the chagrin of President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans.

    Keep reading... Show less

    Inside the minds of the people who actually think Trump handled the pandemic well

    Countless critics of President Donald Trump, from liberals and progressives to Never Trump conservatives, have been arguing that Trump deserves to be voted out of office on Tuesday, Nov. 3, because of his wretched response to the coronavirus pandemic. The crisis has killed more than 227,900 people in the United States and over 1.1 million people worldwide, according to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

    But journalist Olga Khazan, this week in an article for The Atlantic, offers some reasons why many White males in Trump's hardcore MAGA base actually admire his coronavirus response. And as absurd as their reasoning is, Khazan's piece is still an interesting read.

    "Some 82% of Republicans approve of Trump's coronavirus response — a higher percentage than before the president was diagnosed with the virus," Khazan explains. "This is despite the fact that more than 220,000 Americans have died and virtually every public health expert, including those who have worked for Republican administrations, says the president has performed abysmally."

    One of the interviewees for Khazan's article is a McKinney, Texas resident and Trump supporter named Kurtis. Many Trump critics, Khazan observes, believe that leaving coronavirus to states and municipalities to cope with has been a disaster. But Kurtis told Khazan, "He left it up to each state to make their own decision on how they wanted to proceed" — and according to Kurtis, that was a victory for states' rights.

    Kurtis, discussing Trump's recent hospitalization for coronavirus, told Khazan, "Trump's willing to accept that risk to win for the American people. And Joe Biden is sitting in his basement."

    Khazan notes that according to Katherine Cramer, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Trump supporters believe that Trump is trusting Americans to make their own decisions during the pandemic. And sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild told Khazan, in essence, that as Trump supporters see it, Trump's coronavirus response underscores his belief in the rugged individualism of White males.

    "Many White men feel that their gender and race have been vilified, says the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild," Khazan writes. "Their economic prospects are bad, and American culture tells them that their gender is too. So, they've turned to Trump as a type of folk hero — one who can restore their sense of former glory. Exposing themselves and others to the coronavirus is part of that heroism."

    During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama argued that many conservative working class white men who were struggling financially sought validation in their "guns" and "religion." The right-wing media was furious, claiming that Obama was insulting or mocking conservatives. But the centrist Obama wasn't trying to be insulting; to non-wingnuts, he sounded empathetic. And some of the interviewees for Khazan's article — like Obama 12 years ago — argued that white males who aren't in great shape financially seek validation through Trump's right-wing politics.

    Hochschild told Khazan that in rural Kentucky, for example, financially disadvantaged White men "are starved for a sense of heroism. They don't feel good about themselves. They feel like they haven't done as well as their fathers, that they're on a downward slop." And Trump, according to Hochschild, plays to that.

    Khazan explains, "Men who attend Trump's rallies sometimes tell journalists that they're willing to risk their lives to show up for Trump. 'If I die, I die. We got to get this country moving,' these men tell reporters. Or: 'If I catch COVID, that's the consequences of my actions. So, I'm willing to take that risk and have a good time today.'"

    Was April 7, 2020 the day that sealed America's fate?

    On April 18, Bob Woodward recorded Jared Kushner saying that Trump had taken control away from the doctors and was going to open the country back up. So what might have provoked that? What was happening right around that time?

    Trump's official national emergency declaration came on March 11, and most of the country shut down or at least went partway toward that outcome. The economy crashed and millions of Americans were laid off, but saving lives was, after all, the number one consideration.

    Trump put medical doctors on TV daily, the media was freaking out about refrigerated trucks carrying bodies away from New York hospitals, and doctors and nurses were our new national heroes.

    And then came April 7, 2020, when the New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline: "Black Americans Face Alarming Rates of Coronavirus Infection in Some States."

    Across the American media landscape, similar headlines appeared at other outlets, and the story was heavily reported on cable news and the network news that night. White American conservatives responded with a collective, "What the hell?!?"

    Rush Limbaugh declared soon after that "with the coronavirus, I have been waiting for the racial component. ... The coronavirus now hits African Americans harder—harder than illegal aliens, harder than women. It hits African Americans harder than anybody, disproportionate representation."

    It didn't take a medical savant, of course, to figure out that would be the case. African Americans die at disproportionately higher rates from everything, from heart disease to strokes to cancer to childbirth.

    It's a symptom of a racially rigged economy and a health care system that only responds to money, which America has conspired to keep from African Americans for more than 400 years. Of course they're going to die more frequently from coronavirus.

    But the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously publishing front-page articles about that disparity with regard to COVID-19, both on April 7, echoed across the right-wing media landscape like a Fourth of July fireworks display.

    Tucker Carlson, the only primetime Fox News host who'd previously expressed serious concerns about the death toll, changed his tune the same day, as documented by Media Matters for America.

    Now, he said, "we can begin to consider how to improve the lives of the rest, the countless Americans who have been grievously hurt by this, by our response to this. How do we get 17 million of our most vulnerable citizens back to work? That's our task."

    White people were out of work, and Black people were most of the casualties, outside of the extremely elderly. And those white people need their jobs back!

    Brit Hume joined Carlson's show and, using his gravitas as a "real news guy," intoned, "The disease turned out not to be quite as dangerous as we thought."

    Left unsaid was the issue of whom it was not "quite as dangerous" to, but Limbaugh listeners and Fox viewers can hear dog-whistles.

    More than 12,000 Americans had died from coronavirus by April 7, but once we knew that most of the non-elderly victims were Black, things were suddenly very, very different. Now it was time to quit talking about people dying and start talking about white people getting back to work!

    It took less than a week for Trump to get the memo, presumably through Fox and Stephen Miller. On April 12, he retweeted a call to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci and declared, in another tweet, that he had the sole authority to open the United States back up, and that he'd be announcing a specific plan to do just that "shortly."

    On April 13, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a policy paper titled "Implementing a National Return to Work Plan."

    Unspoken but big on the agenda of corporate America was the desire to get the states to rescind their stay-home-from-work orders so that companies could cut their unemployment tax losses.

    On April 14, Freedomworks, the billionaire-founded and -funded group that animated the Tea Party against Obamacare a decade earlier, published an op-ed on their website calling for an "economic recovery" program including an end to the capital gains tax and a new law to "shield" businesses from lawsuits.

    Three days after that, Freedomworks and the House Freedom Caucus issued a joint statement declaring that "it's time to re-open the economy."

    Freedomworks published their "#ReopenAmerica Rally Planning Guide" (pdf) encouraging conservatives to show up "[i]n-person" at their state capitols and governors' mansions, and, for signage, to "Keep it short: 'I'm essential,' 'Let me work,' 'Let Me Feed My Family'" and to "Keep them homemade."
    One of the first #OpenTheCountry rallies to get widespread national attention was April 18 in New Hampshire. Over the next several weeks, rallies had metastasized across the nation, from Oregon to Arizona, Delaware, North Carolina, Virginia, Illinois and elsewhere.

    One that drew particularly high levels of media attention, complete with swastikas, Confederate flags and assault rifles, was directed against the governor of Michigan, rising Democratic star Gretchen Whitmer.

    When Rachel Maddow began reporting on meatpacking plants that had become epicenters of mass infection, the conservative Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out that the virus flare wasn't coming from the white "regular folks" of the surrounding community.

    The conservative meme was now well established: the risk to white people was small, so let's get back to work.

    It came to Trump's attention that the biggest outbreaks were happening in prisons and meatpacking plants, places with few white people (and the few whites in them were largely poor and thus seen as disposable).

    Trump's response to this was to issue an executive order using the Defense Production Act (which he had hesitated to use to order the production of testing or PPE equipment) on April 28 to order the largely Hispanic and Black workforce back into the slaughterhouses and meat processing plants.

    While April 18 was the day Woodward recorded Jared Kushner bragging about how they were going to start ignoring the doctors, April 7 was the date that sealed the fate of America.

    Mitch McConnell gets torn to shreds as 'evil' and 'cruel' in local paper column

    Even if November 3 brings a major blue wave, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to recent polls, is likely to be reelected. McConnell is seeking a seventh term, but veteran progressive activist Ralph Nader, in an op-ed for the Louisville Courier, argues that the last thing the Kentucky senator deserves is to be reelected.

    "I have studied and interacted with many members of Congress," Nader writes. "McConnell is the most brazen evil, cruel and powerful legislator in the last 50 years. His lack of empathy for the vulnerable and disadvantaged is stunning."

    McConnell's record, Nader stresses, has been characterized by a total lack of compassion for those less fortunate than him. And he hasn't grown any more compassionate under Donald Trump's presidency.

    "McConnell, comfortably embraced by the Congress' socialized medicine, loses no sleep saying yes to a corporate-profit-glutted, wasteful corporatized health care industry whose denials, co-payments and exemptions are costing thousands of uninsured and insured American lives a year. He fought but failed to end Obamacare, pleased to consign another 22 million people to the dreaded, uninsured hell," Nader writes, adding that he has vigorously fought against relief for Americans who are hurting financially because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    According to Nader, "McConnell's back-of-the-hand to coal mine workers' safety, survivors' pensions and continuing black lung payments, mainly harms Kentucky, but his other aggressions against people in favor of big business affect the entire country. He bragged at an event in Owensboro that he and he alone decides what issues this Senate votes on."

    McConnell was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984. This year, his latest Democratic challenger, Amy McGrath, was hoping to unseat him. But McConnell appears heading for reelection.

    "McConnell has the gall to campaign on 'Kentucky Values,'" Nader writes. "Voters in Kentucky, with a little homework, or a factual memory of this senatorial oligarch, shouldn't have difficulty in rejecting those claims. McConnell has gotten away with ferociously shredding Kentucky values for 36 years. He smugly expects six more years."

    A White House spokesman let slip a damning admission of callous disregard for Trump's own voters

    We're less than a week away from election night and the Trump administration is set on spreading the novel coronavirus to anyone it can get its hands on. Nationwide the U.S. is seeing a surge in COVID-19 cases following visits from Donald Trump's campaign. As rallies for Trump continue daily, some states are reporting more than 50% increases in COVID-19 cases.

    Despite this, the White House claimed Tuesday that Trump has ended COVID-19 and does not plan to take any action on stopping the spread. Interesting how rising hospitalizations and the country facing its highest number of per average cases a day is equivalent to ending the coronavirus for the Trump administration. The reality is Trump isn't ending the coronavirus pandemic, he's spreading it.

    The only break Trump has taken in visiting states to campaign is when he himself was diagnosed with COVID-19. Mike Pence, however, took a different approach: instead of quarantining responsibly as one of the nation's leaders, he continued to campaign despite having been in close contact with individuals who tested positive for COVID-19.

    When asked about Pence's visit to a state with increasing cases and full capacity hospitals, a member of the Trump administration told CNN Wednesday that an increase in cases and lack of hospital space will not deter the Trump campaign or Pence from visiting.

    CNN's Alisyn Camerota: "Hospitals in Wisconsin are near capacity. Does that give you any pause about going there and holding a big rally?"
    Trump 2020 Press Sec. Hogan Gidley: "No, it doesn't … the VP has the best doctors in the world around him. ...The fact is we are seeing some good news about coronavirus."
    It's mind-boggling that the Trump administration is calling increases in cases across the country "good news." Additionally, answering CNN's question with only acknowledgment of Pence and his safety as opposed to the American people who will be present at this rally is disturbing. It shows the clear lack of concern the Trump administration has for not only the American people but even its supporters. The lack of masks, social distancing, and the potential of spread at these categorized as "high risk" rallies is extreme. Ignoring the safety of Wisconsin residents and thinking only of Pence, who has access to "the best doctors," is profound.

    As of Oct. 27, at least 5,331 new cases of COVID-19 were reported in Wisconsin. The state's average has increased by 46% in the last two weeks resulting in an average of 4,221 new cases per day. As of this report, there have been at least 217,447 cases and 1,896 deaths in Wisconsin since the beginning of the pandemic, according to The New York Times database.

    CNN's Wednesday interview follows an interview with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Sunday during which he said the White House is "not going to control the pandemic." That statement is probably the only truthful thing the Trump administration has told. The rising number of cases nationwide is proof that the Trump administration has done nothing to and will do nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19.

    The U.S. has seen an increase of 39% in its average from two weeks ago in cases per day. More than 8.8 million Americans have been infected with coronavirus since the start of the pandemic in March. With an average of 73,094 new COVID-19 cases per day the U.S. is failing to protect its citizens from this virus. The deadly coronavirus pandemic is far from over and if elected again Trump will only increase this death toll and infection numbers.

    'The last stand of a demagogue’ — Rowdy MAGA rallies are Trump’s ‘last best hope of clinging to the presidency’: journalist

    The week before the 2020 election — with the number of coronavirus infectious surging in many states — President Donald Trump has drawn a great deal of criticism from medical experts for holding a series of large MAGA rallies in which social distancing was nowhere to be found and protective face masks were few and far between. Terms like "superspreader events" and "Petri dish rallies" have been used by more than a few Trump critics. But MAGA rallies, as journalist David Smith explains in an article published in The Guardian on October 30, are a crucial part of Trump's reelection strategy. And Smith argues that the rallies are Trump's "last best hope of clinging to the presidency."

    "Opinion polls suggest that Trump could be a dead man walking, hurtling towards a psychologically crushing defeat like one-term President Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan in 1980," Smith observes. "Yet on the trail, he continues to project the image of a happy warrior cruising to reelection — regaling big crowds with selective poll numbers, bogus conspiracy theories and his own brand of humor. And his base remains loyal to the end with cheers, merriment and chants of 'Four more years!,' 'Lock him up!' and 'Build that wall!'"

    Smith adds, "If Trump does lose next week — and the polls have been wrong before; so, that remains a big 'if' — he will go down with all guns blazing."

    Trump, Smith argues, enjoys MAGA rallies more than he enjoys governing.

    According to Smith, "Trump has always been in his element campaigning rather than governing. He continued to hold rallies even after winning the 2016 election, throwing out populist red meat and feeding off the energy of fervent crowds. Whereas Washington is difficult and messy, these public events offer simple affirmation. Free from the constraints of the White House, its protocols and its officials, he uses the rallies to indulge in free association riffs and play to the gallery."

    Charlie Gerow, a GOP strategist in Pennsylvania, told The Guardian, "The rallies are not the be-all, end-all by any stretch. But they are an important show of strength to rally the base and increase the intensity of those people. Folks who attend a rally go home, talk to friends, talk to neighbors, talk to their family about what happened…. Trump has thousands of little ambassadors going to their little corners of America, and the Biden campaign doesn't have that."

    But Tara Setmayer, a senior adviser to the anti-Trump conservative group The Lincoln Project, has nothing good to say about Trump's MAGA events. And Smith notes that to Trump critics like Setmayer, Trump's rallies are "not so much a vaudeville act as the last stand of a demagogue."

    Setmayer told The Guardian, "Donald Trump is a salesman. He's been a pitchman con artist his entire life, selling things that are not real, that are not authentic — and convincing people that they are. This is exactly what he's doing with his campaign."

    Trump is closing out the campaign by showing complete contempt for his own supporters

    Sen. Martha McSally, an Arizona Republican, has paid her bootlicking dues. She's repeatedly gone out of her way to show obeisance to Donald Trump, most famously in January when she yelled "liberal hack" repeatedly at a CNN reporter who asked her if the Senate should consider evidence before rushing to acquit Trump during his impeachment trial.

    But despite years of bowing and scraping and, of course, voting to acquit Trump despite his obvious guilt, McSally has earned no loyalty in return from her orange master. She's in a tough race against former astronaut Mark Kelly, a Democrat, and has consistently trailed in the polls. At a recent Arizona rally, Trump didn't bother to hide his disdain for McSally's standard political desire to address her own potential voters.

    "Martha, just come up fast. Fast. Fast. Come on. Quick," Trump barked at her. "You got one minute! One minute, Martha! They don't want to hear this, Martha. Come on. Let's go. Quick, quick, quick. Come on. Let's go." It was clear that, as always, Trump resents every moment when the spotlight's not on him, even in the context of helping a sycophant.

    That moment went viral, since cringeworthy is the emotional fuel of the internet. It also illustrated of one of the most frustrating aspects of Trumpism: Trump treats his own supporters as a pack of morons, but they don't seem to mind and keep on adoring him anyway.

    This was most profoundly demonstrated by a bizarre video from a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, last week, when Trump complained to the crowd about the indignity of even having to visit their city.

    "Martha, just come up fast. Fast. Fast. Come on. Quick," Trump barked at her. "You got one minute! One minute, Martha! They don't want to hear this, Martha. Come on. Let's go. Quick, quick, quick. Come on. Let's go." It was clear that, as always, Trump resents every moment when the spotlight's not on him, even in the context of helping a sycophant.

    That moment went viral, since cringeworthy is the emotional fuel of the internet. It also illustrated of one of the most frustrating aspects of Trumpism: Trump treats his own supporters as a pack of morons, but they don't seem to mind and keep on adoring him anyway.

    This was most profoundly demonstrated by a bizarre video from a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, last week, when Trump complained to the crowd about the indignity of even having to visit their city.

    It's such a weird reaction that CNN host Don Lemon aired a supercut of Trump complaining at various rallies that he didn't even want to be there.

    "I may never have to come back here again if I don't get Iowa," Trump told a crowd in Des Moines.

    This bit, which he repeats ad nauseam, is Trump's apparent closing argument: Since he lowered himself to speak directly to the hoi polloi, the least they can do is vote for him. In order for the joke to work, you have to accept Trump's premise that his supporters are scum and he taints himself by having to speak to them.

    Despite Trump's insistence that he hates holding his rallies, of course, the truth is that he's hopelessly addicted to them and their main purpose to feed his ego. They probably aren't helping his campaign.

    As Susan Milligan at U.S. News and World report pointed out this week, polling suggests that "voters in battleground states do not approve of Trump's largely maskless, packed rallies."

    Trump sees his own supporters as dupes. He revels in their adoration, but can't even pretend to return the feeling. Being a sociopathic bully, he revels in rubbing their noses in the fact that he sees them as idiots.

    A recent incident in Omaha, Nebraska, became an almost too-perfect symbol of this relationship between Trump and his supporters. Buses that were supposed to come pick up supporters after a rally failed to materialize, leaving hundreds of people — many of them elderly — stranded in the cold. They had to walk long distances back to their cars, and multiple people were taken to the hospital after exposure to the freezing temperatures.

    That Trump loathes his own fans isn't a great mystery. As The Atlantic dutifully reported in two articles in September, Trump routinely makes fun of Christian conservatives behind their backs and called fallen soldiers "suckers" and "losers." All we need is a story about him making fun of dumb cops and we've hit the trifecta of Trump mocking the constituent groups that are the most faithfully Republican.

    The irony of this is that the right-wing media has stoked their audience's hatred for liberal voters, Democratic politicians and mainstream journalists for decades by claiming that such people are a "liberal elite" who look down their noses at "ordinary Americans," especially conservatives. Night after night, Fox News solemnly declares that its audience is victimized endlessly by this supposed snobbery, even though there's usually little or no evidence to make the case. This narrative of liberal contempt and conservative victimization permeated Republican talking points during the Amy Coney Barrett hearing, with one GOP politician after another feigning outrage at the imaginary attacks on Barrett for being a devout Catholic and having a big family, without producing a shred of evidence that any such attacks had ever happened.

    While the evidence of liberal contempt for conservatives is thin on the ground, the evidence of Trump's contempt for his own supporters is delivered to us via firehose. He insults his voters right to their faces. He sneers at Republican politicians who support him. He cares so little for his most fervent supporters that he repeatedly imperils their health with his rallies, not to mention the Barrett nomination party at the White House that led to more than two dozen Republicans getting sick with COVID-19.

    Trump gets away with this because Republicans have treating their own people like a bunch of suckers for years, which is why right wing media is awash in conspiracy theories and snake-oil salesmen. They get away with it because their marks always assume, like good marks should, that they're in on the con, and that somebody else is the sucker. So when Trump insults his own voters right to their faces, telling them they live in some Podunk burg he hoped he'd never have to visit again, many in the crowd are thinking, "He's not talking about me, but these other yahoos."

    In truth, those folks are the biggest suckers of all, imagining that they're the exception to Trump universal contempt. He really does see his supporters as a herd of gullible idiots. By swallowing it and voting for him anyway, they're only confirming his worst assumptions.

    BRAND NEW STORIES
    alternet logo

    Tough Times

    Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.