Katty and the Mooch

After listening to the debate I'm now caught up in the commentary on the debate. It's a good exercise because it reminds me that I am just as susceptible as anybody to the temptation to believe what I want to believe and to choose sources of information to listen to that confim those beliefs.

I am an ardent supporter of Kamala Harris, not just, but largely, because I am convinced the reelection of the populist Liar-in-Chief would likely choke the last bit of oxygen out of our idealistic efforts to bring America ever closer to becoming a real functioning democracy.  I worry I'm just another Chicken Little crying "The sky is falling...the sky is falling," but I am persuaded that a Trump victory would provide evidence that Henny Penny, aka Chicken Little, was not an alarmist but a soothsayer.

Of all the commentary I've heard so far, the most insightful, in my opinion is the one I heard just now on Katty Kay and Anthony Scaramucci's podcast, The Rest is Politics.

I hope you can find the time to have a listen. If you don't, let me lay out three points they make, two I agree with and one I don't. The one I don't agree with is made by Katty. She wants Kamala to accept Trump's challenge to do the next debate on Fox with moderators of Trump's choosing. Katty thinks Kamala is a strong enough debater to go against what would be 3 to 1 odds, and it would reveal to the audience that she is an underdog with great chops. I have no idea, of course, whether Katty is right about this. On what feels like a common-sense level, I think it sounds like challenging a guillotine by putting your head under the blade and saying, "Go ahead. Give it your best shot!"

Now for the two points I agree with: One is that Kamala needs to take a crash course in economics, and particularly the American economic situation, and then demonstrate her knowledge in frequent and regular appearances before crowds on the campaign trail.

The other is Scaramucci's point that Trump is playing by the playbook of one of the most sinister characters in American political history: Roy Cohn.  Cohn was the lawyer supporting the work of Joseph McCarthy.  He figures large in the red scare and the lavender scare of the 1950s, essentially witch-hunts against communists and homosexuals, real or rumored. Cohn later became Trump Senior's lawyer and Fred Trump passed him on to his son. Roy Cohn's advice to Trump, his playbook, was:

1. Never apologize, never admit you were wrong;
2. Never admit defeat; continue to insist you won, even when you haven't;
3. Follow your instincts.

It's evident to all the world that Trump has internalized Cohn's playbook and followed it his entire political career.

This playbook fits, hand-in-glove, with the current populist movement that denies truth and insists things are whatever you claim they are, a fascist practice of putting power over truth and the will of an individual strongman over the rule of law.

What is missing in this podcast discussion is a serious discussion of how to negotiate one's way in a world of such overpowering deception. Does one continue to bang on with counter-argument when one makes the claim that argument is ineffective?  Does one counter with lies and hope the gullible can be persuaded to believe your lies and not the other guy's?

I'm still waiting to hear serious discussion on this topic.

If you've got suggestions on how to deal with liars please send them my way.

In the past I have listened over and over again to friends and others who say, "Why bother to engage; the MAGA folk are not going to listen to rational argument."  My own response is to assume that that's not true, or at least act as if it's not true and plough ahead with facts and corrections anyway, recognizing that in the absence of certainty, it's always better to err on the side of honesty and integrity.

But is that the best possible approach?  I really don't know.