Let's Do Some Politics

 I was told yesterday by the fellow running the group session, that the Epstein news is all white noise to him. He is mid-thirties, not just college educated, but may have a Master's. What are we to make when such a person turns off the wider world?

KH and I have been discussing JD Vance; I think he is more dangerous than Trump, and that he will turn on Trump as soon as Peter Thiel orders it. Therefore, Who Is JD Vance? (No, Seriously. Who Is He?) (The New Republic) interests me.

It wasn’t the most grotesque statement Vance has made—there are plenty of contenders for that—but it exposed his twisted priorities. Here was the vice president defending the administration’s vile immigration policies in a way that fundamentally degrades the experiences and traditions of his own family, of people he is bound by vows—vows that should be sacred to a Christian—to love and protect. It sums up Vance’s journey into public life and politics: There is nobody he won’t betray, and no principle he won’t cast aside, in his quest to accrue more fame and power.

***

Vance has championed a hard right turn on many other fronts as well, promoting pro-natalism while dismantling the safety net that protects children and families, and trying to sell lies about the administration’s disastrous handling of the economy. He does all of this as an ally to those who have helped his rise, from Christian nationalists to tech billionaires. But Americans aren’t fond of Vance: Roughly half the country disapproves of him. Maybe that’s because they see him as a cynical shapeshifter, changing identities based on whatever he thinks will resonate most—so he can accrue yet more power. That’s how he won over Trump, and it paid off handsomely. But if Vance decides to run for president—as he is almost certain to do, given that he’s already landing high-profile endorsements—there will be no more coattails to ride. Who will he pretend to be then?

Is it confirmation bias if there is evidence to support the opinion? 

And somewhat in line with the "pro-Christian" Vance is our Nigerian campaign to save Christians: Nigeria Clarifies What Really Happened With Trump’s Airstrikes (The New Republic)

 The issue with right-wing claims of Christian genocide in Nigeria is that terror groups and militias are killing everyone, Christians and Muslims alike. The Nigerian government, which says it provided intelligence to the Trump administration before the strikes, clarified what they were really about.

“Nigeria reiterates that all counter-terrorism efforts are guided by the primacy of protecting civilian lives, safeguarding national unity, and upholding the rights and dignity of all citizens, irrespective of faith or ethnicity,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in a statement. “Terrorist violence in any form whether directed at Christians, Muslims, or other communities remains an affront to Nigeria’s values and to international peace and security.”

Nigeria has spent months attempting to clarify this point, as the right has spent months attempting to justify violent U.S. intervention to protect Christians—with Trump threatening to enter Nigeria “gun-a- blazing” just last month.

What are facts to the frightened herd?

Incandescent anger (Aeon Weekly)

Tucker Carlson, a prominent Right-wing television host and former Fox News anchor, has no shortage of enemies. On his shows, he has condemned gender-neutral pronouns, immigrants, the removal of Confederate statues, mainstream media, the FBI and CIA, globalism, paper straws, big tech, foreign aid, school curricula, feminism, gingerbread people, modern art – and the list goes on. Each item is presented as an existential threat or a sign of cultural decay. Even when conservatives controlled the White House and the US Senate, he presented those like him as under siege. Victories never brought relief, only more enemies, more outrage, more reasons to stay aggrieved.

***

This dynamic isn’t unique to the United States. Leaders like Narendra Modi in India, Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil have built movements that thrive on perpetual grievance. Even after consolidating power, they continue to cast their nations as under siege – from immigrants, intellectuals, journalists or cultural elites. The rhetoric remains combative, the mood aggrieved.

Figures like Carlson and Trump don’t pivot from grievance to resolution. Victory doesn’t bring peace, grace or reconciliation. Instead, they remain locked in opposition. Their energy, their meaning, even their identity, seem to depend on having an endless list of enemies to fight.

So there’s an interesting dynamic: certain individuals and movements seem geared toward perpetual opposition. When one grievance is corrected, another is found. When one enemy is defeated, another is sought. What explains this perpetual need for enemies?

Okay, does claiming a Christian genocide in Nigeria whip up more grievances, anger, thoughtless action?  

sch