CSotD: Errors and Commissions
Skip to comments
Bennett has a reasonable analysis of this week’s flurry of primaries and referenda. Voters made decisions that seemed to have more to do with their mood than with what the experts projected or what PAC dollars were spent to achieve.
Two dramatic rejections of machine politics came in Kansas and Missouri, reliably Republican strongholds, where the GOP mounted two measures to strengthen their grip, one in Missouri to discourage ballot initiatives and one in Kansas to make judges popularly elected instead of appointed on merit by a nonpartisan committee. Both went down flaming, the one on ballot initiatives 80% to 20%, the one on judges by 61% to 39%
In Michigan, meanwhile, when the progressive, Abdul El-Sayed, won the Democratic primary, his former rivals immediately stepped up to congratulate and endorse him.
Bennett’s point seems clear: Voters want something beyond same-old-same-old. Some experts get it, some don’t.
Bramhall offers a bit of hope for the GOP, projecting that Abdul El-Sayed’s Muslim name, progressive policy proposals and endorsements from Bernie Sanders and AOC will rally Michiganders behind the Republican candidate.
But despite being heavily outspent, El-Sayed won a very close primary and assuming he’ll fail in November may be a case of whistling past the graveyard. Bennett is correct that people are angry, and this time around, it’s not the Tea Party raising all the fuss.
We should, of course, expect to see attack material like Bok’s latest, and prophesies of what will happen with health insurance is a good bet because people don’t really understand how it works, as was proven during the debates over the Affordable Care Act.
Nancy Pelosi attempted to suggest that, despite all the parsing over specific points in the proposal, once it was in place, people would see how well it functioned. That suggestion blew up in her face.
Bok’s suggestion that Medicare For All would unleash a bureaucratic nightmare could readily be countered by people who have run into the same tangles with private insurance, but that assumes a calm, rational comparison that is not likely to happen. Health care issues are confusing enough that accusations have more impact than analysis, and we’ll see how it plays out among voters.
Juxtaposition of the Day
Reverting to the Red Scare tactics of the 1920s and 1950s is already a part of the Republican answer to progressive policy proposals, and Walters adds an appeal to homophobia in suggesting the relative shame parents would feel if their kids took up the idealistic policies that echo the style of socialism found in many other countries, but which can be condemned as “communism,” defined by a hammer and sickle so antiquated as a symbol that today it only resides in the tool boxes of conservative cartoonists.
“We’d be ashamed if you were gay, but this is worse” may be an effective argument among individual voters, but how much water it holds as an overall approach will be seen.
Whamond counters the people screaming “Commies!” by pointing out how many of Trump’s policies and actions can be said to conform with either Marxist theory or the reality of the world’s few remaining communist nations. As with the health care debate, it’s a rational, reasonable argument that is most likely to appeal to people who are already suspicious of the broader accusations.
Whether it can change embedded loyalties and well-established values is a different question, and yet another moment to drag out Dean Swift’s caution that “Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.”
Juxtaposition of the Day #2
The whole world is watching, and what they’ve seen is a report on how oil company profits have soared during Trump’s war on Iran, which seems counter-intuitive given the supply issues that have raised prices to crisis level.
Neither of these cartoons are likely to rock American votes, given that Venables is British and First Dog is Australian. Still, they’re not the only commentators making note of the apparent anomaly, and it does raise questions of why we’re paying more for gas while these guys are raking in larger profits.
That’s a worldwide question, but one that will certainly be on the minds of Americans, assuming the issue gains a foothold here.
The rise in gas prices will likely have more impact here as a kitchen-table issue than as a point in a more sophisticated debate.
Gas prices are volatile, and set by replacement rather than original cost. That is, the price at the pump is based on what it will cost to refill the station’s supply, not on what they spent on the gas that you’re pumping now. This makes it somewhat more likely that people, like the ones in Davies’ cartoon, will catch the connection between war news and price fluctuations.
They’re far less likely to catch on to the apparent insider-trading by which well-placed stock swappers are reaping massive profits with well-placed, potentially illegal, trades based on coming White House proclamations.
But people, especially people who commute and who have the transportation issues of young families with kids, can’t miss the fact that gasoline is more than dollar a gallon more expensive today than it was before the war.
The price of eggs figured in the 2024 elections, despite being a non-political combination of avian flu and other factors. Gas prices, however, are clearly the result of the Iran war, and the Iran war is clearly a Republican-backed venture that Democrats have consistently opposed.
And then there’s this:
Trump’s jaw-dropping AI comparison of himself to Patton and MacArthur seems like a deliberate insult to people who actually have put on that uniform. Both hawks and doves are aware that Trump weaseled his way out of serving in his generation’s war.
Slyngstad expands upon the rows of medals on Dear Leader’s pretend uniform, which massively outnumber those worn by Patton and MacArthur.
The accusation of stolen valor, unlike health care policies and gasoline price structures, is easy to understand. What’s hard to figure out is why it was posted by the draft dodger himself, not by an opponent.
Oh well. Rational explanations don’t fit the coming campaign.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments 18
Comments are closed.