Everyone’s fixating on Donald Trump. As is to be expected! But the fixation can be misleading and counterproductive if people think that he is some aberration that’s taken over the Republican Party, or that Republicans will somehow restrain his worst excesses.

Nope. The problem isn’t Trump, it’s the Republican Party. They won’t save us from Trump; they are Trump now.

But first, some reminders about US party politics.

elections-us

What’s that? It’s the winners of presidential elections from 1860 on, when our current party system emerged. I’ve purposely kept it small and unlabeled so you can see the overall picture, which is: the parties alternate in power. If you look at just the last hundred years (1916-2016), it’s quite even: 13 wins each. (If you look at the whole chart, it’s skewed Republican 24-16; the Gilded Age was the golden age for the GOP.)

The bottom half of the chart shows popular vote wins. There are four mismatches, in all of which the Democrats won the popular vote and the Republicans the electoral vote.  Corollary: Republicans will never touch the electoral college.

I emphasize the basics here because I’ve seen too many reactions that seemed to expect that the GOP would never win again. Democrats have the demographic advantage, the better candidates, the moral high ground, and surely no one would go back to the party of Bush. Nope. The other party always wins eventually, and if it wasn’t Trump it would be someone else.

Does this mean you shouldn’t freak out, or that things will be fine?  Of course not; freak out all you want. But I think a lot of people on the left have just assumed that the right doesn’t really matter; the real struggle was against moderate liberals. Uh, nope.  Despite all those demographics, the Republicans are very, very powerful.  More people vote for Democrats than Republicans for the House, but their grip on the House is secure, and they control the vast majority of state governments. And your problem in the next four years isn’t going to be moderate liberals; it’s going to be Republicans all down the line.

I’d also suggest that Democrats shouldn’t over-do the soul-searching.  The overall picture of US politics is that the parties alternate in power; also that they stay close to appealing to 50% of the electorate each. It’s not an accident; it’s how winner-take-all election systems work. There are occasional long runs (the Gilded Age GOP; the New Deal Democrats), but in general, if a party keeps losing elections, it adapts its policies and candidates till it reaches 50% again. If anything, voters’ patience is wearing thinner all the time: they’ve only granted a third term to a party once since 1952.

There’s no huge lesson in why Trump won.  He squeaked out a win in two key states, Pennsylvania and Florida, and blew out Ohio, and that was enough to win the electoral college. Hillary was not unpopular; she won the popular vote by more than 2 million votes.

The surprise was that all the infighting in the GOP this year turned out not to matter. It solidified behind Trump.  And that’s why I say that Trumpism is the GOP. The anti-Trump movement disappeared without a trace on November 8.

If you think Trump is still somehow opposed by Republicans, consider:

  • The Never Trump movement and the high-profile defections had no effect. The cold feet of rivals, the worries that Trump was not conservative enough, the preference of Evangelicals for a candidate more like Cruz— no effect. None of that had any impact where it matters, in votes.
  • Republican voters went for Trump. Maybe they didn’t love him, but they preferred him to Clinton. All of his obvious lies and flaws and outrages did not matter, and there is no reason to hope that they will suddenly start to matter.
  • Paul Ryan is eager to work with Trump— and no wonder!  It’s like Christmas for him.  He’s going to get to do what he’s alway wanted to do: give the rich more money, take programs away from the poor, shred 20 million people’s insurance coverage, deregulate the banks, and maybe even destroy Medicare. All things that would have been  done, mind you, if Romney had been elected in 2012.
  • Have you seen the outrage from Republicans as Trump appoints white nationalists to his inner circle, uses the presidency to advance his business interests, or makes grandiose lies about “illegal voting”?  No, neither have I.
  • Is there any more pathetic sight in 2016 than Mitt Romney meeting with Trump, hat in hand, to be considered for a cabinet post?
  • If you have trouble understanding how Republicans can stomach Trump… consider most Democrats’ reactions to 20 years of GOP excoriation of Hillary Clinton. From our point of view, it’s a nothingburger; it’s just noise and absurdity. Dialing up the outrage will not make Republican voters rethink their acceptance of Trump.

About the only positive to set against all this is that the Republican Senate seems like it won’t eliminate the filibuster. That won’t matter for a lot of Paul Ryan’s program— he will be happy to gut Obamacare with a reconciliation bill; he doesn’t actually intend to pass a replacement bill.  But it might mean that (say) Medicare privatization won’t pass.  Unless McConnell changes his mind next session.

There are undoubtedly ways in which a Trump presidency will be worse than (say) a Cruz presidency. (Name three!)  But basically anything that Trump does, that is what Republicans knowingly voted for, and will eagerly help him do.  And honestly, is Trump’s outrageousness really worse than Rush Limbaugh, the id of the Republican Party for the last few decades?

When people worry about “normalizing” the idea of President Trump— folks, that ship has sailed.  I’ll grant you that people probably wouldn’t be freaking out quite so much over a President Jeb! Bush… but, folks, here’s the number of states Jeb! won in the primaries: zero. Here’s the number of delegates he won: four. Republicans were hellbent on electing either a monster or an idiot this year.  And they’ll keep doing it until they start losing elections.

All this isn’t to say that Trump couldn’t get into huge trouble later with Republicans. Nixon managed it, after all, though it took 6 years. But this is the thing with authoritarians: they have enormous tolerance for whatever their leader does. 90% of what he does will be things they either happily support now, or can be talked into. (Repudiating trade deals, for instance. Free trade is generally orthogonal to ordinary party politics in the US anyway.)  I haven’t heard a good story yet on what things Trump is likely to do which Paul Ryan or other Republicans will resolutely oppose. It’s easier, in fact, to imagine things on Ryan’s wish list which Trump will nix– and even that will probably go fine so long as Ryan gets his huge tax cut.

I know you were all waiting to hear what the king said. Here’s a bit more of the passage. The order of the lines is Devanāgarī, transliteration (with sandhi), pre-sandhi words, glosses, English.
एतच्चिंतयित्वा स राजा पंडितसभां कारितवान् ।

etacciṃtayitvā sa rājā paṃḍita-sabhāṃ kāritavān

etad cintayitvā sas rājā paṇḍita-sabhām kāritavān

this-s.nom.n think-gerundive that-s.nom.m wise-assembly-s.acc make-PassPart-caus-s.nom.m

Having considered these things, the King convened an assembly of wise men.

राजोवाच । भो भोः पंडिताः श्रूयतां ।

rājovāca bhobhoḥ paṃḍitāḥ śrūyatāṃ

rājā uvāca bhobhos paṇḍitās śrūyatām

The King said, “O wise men, let it be heard:
अस्ति कश्चिदेवंभूतो विद्वान्यो

asti kaś-cid-evaṃ-bhūto vidvān yo

asti kas-cid evam-bhūtas vidvān yas

be-PresPart-3s who-s.nom-ever such-s.nom.m sage-s.nom.m who-s.snom.m

Is there any sage among you who—
मम पुत्राणां

mama putrāṇāṃ

mama putrāṇām

I-gen son-p.gen

my sons
नित्यमुन्मार्गगामिनामनधिगतशास्त्राणामिदानीं

nityam-unmārga-gāminām-an-adhigata-śāstrāṇām-idānīṃ

nityam unmārga-gāminām an-adhigata-śāstrāṇām idānīm

constantly wrong.way-go-gerund-p.m not-read-PassPart-book-p.m. now

being always wayward and never reading books—
नीतिशास्त्रोपदेशेन पुनर्जन्म कारयितुं समर्थः ।

nīti-śāstr-opadeśena punar-janma kārayituṃ samarthaḥ?

nīti-śāstra-upadeśena punar-janma kārayitum sam-arthas?

behavior-book-instruction-s.ins again-birth-s.acc effect-infinitive with-capable-s.nom.m

can instruct them in reading and proper behavior, [giving them] a second birth?”

 

This is from the prologue to the Hitopadeśa.  The king, whose name is Sudarśana, has a problem many kings have had: his sons are pretty worthless. He asks the pundits for help. (Yep, pundit is a borrowing from Sanksrit.) As he appears in a book written by a brahmin, the dude who steps up to help, one Viṣarma, believes that the answer is that they sit with a brahmin, i.e. himself, and learn moral tales.

I will report back later on the actual fables. But for now let’s look at one of the words in the text:

नित्यमुन्मार्गगामिनामनधिगतशास्त्राणामिदानीं

nityamunmārgagāmināmanadhigataśāstrāṇāmidānīṃ

First, you may well ask, is that one word?  It’s written as one. And by the rules of sandhi, it’s pronounced as one. But Müller transliterates it as four words:

nityam – constantly
unmārga-gāminām – wrong-ways-going
an-adhigata-śāstrāṇām – non-reading-books
idānīm now

The first three words are a description of the unruly princes, and grammatically this can be considered a really big compound. Idānīm ‘now’ probably got dragged in only because it was too tempting to combine the initial i– with the preceding –m.

Sanskrit is extremely fond of these combined words, and this is by no means on the longer end of the possibilities— you can easily have compounds with 20 or 30 roots.

Now, you can certainly do this in English:

“Can anyone instruct my undirected, non-book-reading sons by reading-conduct-instruction?”

But we usually consider this sort of thing inelegant; it reminds of bureaucratic language: “You must submit the project extension protocol revision form to the acting assistant operations and processes group manager.” We’d be more likely to use subclauses:

“My sons are constantly going the wrong way and never read books; can anyone teach them to value good conduct and literature?”

You only have to inflect the last member of a compound, so possibly the compounds were easier than regular clauses. Or perhaps they were embraced for their difficulty. After all, when the Hitopadeśa was written, the spoken language was already very different. A.L. Basham describes classical Sanskrit as one of the most “ornate and artificial” languages in the world. He also suggests that these compounds may be influenced by Tamil, which also encourages concatenations without explicit connectors or inflections.

 

 

 

If someone has gone through and transliterated it and done a word-for-word gloss. But I have worked through the grammar enough that I can at least follow that.

Let’s work through an example. We start, as Westerners have for more than a century, with the Hitopadeśa, a medieval book of sagely advice told through animal stories. I start with Max Müller’s 1864 edition.  Here’s a sample line.

राजोवाच । भो भोः पंडिताः श्रूयतां ।

râjâ   -jan, N.sg.  The King
uvâcha:  vach, 3.sg.Perf.Par.  said:
bho  Ind.  O
bhos  Ind.  ye
paṇḍitâs  -ta, V.pl.m.  wise,
śrûyatâm  śru, 3 sg. Imp. Pass.   be it heard

Now, Devanāgarī is not hard to read. It’s an abugida, meaning that the basic grapheme is a single consonant with an inherent vowel. E.g. it starts with क = ka. Diacritics modify it to change the vowel: कि ki, कु ku, का , and so on. If you really want a naked k, perhaps at the end of a word, you write क्.

If you actually transliterate Müller’s Devanāgarī, syllable by syllable, you get this:

rā-jo-vā-ca bho bhoḥ paṃ-ḍi-tāḥ śrū-ya-tāṃ

Which, if you look carefully, isn’t what Müller provides.  What happened?

Sandhi happened. All languages have processes of assimilation and relaxation that happen as words are uttered in context. Occasionally these become noticeable to people and they attempt to write them down— e.g. someone is represented as saying “I hafta go” for “I have to go”.  Sometimes the assimilations are lexicalized, which is why we write assimilation and not adsimilation.

Well, in Sanskrit there are a lot of such adaptations, and you have to write them all. So for instance the vowels ā + u combine into o: rājā uvāca > rājovāca. (Müller’s â / ch are older transliterations; we now use ā / c.)  The –s at the end of paṇḍitās changes to ḥ before the following  ś, while the final in the last word changes to ṃ, which in this case indicates nasalization. Before a stop, it’s pronounced as a homorganic stop, which is why paṇ- changed to paṃ-.

There are special diacritics for these last two letters: e.g. kaṃ would be कं, and kaḥ would be कः.

So, Müller is providing the pre-sandhi versions of the words, which makes them easier to look up in a dictionary.

(A complication for the actual book I’m writing: It turns out that Word and Illustrator don’t properly handle Devanāgarī. They can’t do the combinations– e.g. nra should be written न्र, but they turn that into न् र, like barbarians. So I won’t be able to use a lot of Devanāgarī except as, shudder, bitmaps.)

Next we need to translate his glosses to a briefer and more modern convention:

king-s.nom say-perf.part.-3s oh wise-p.voc.m hear-imper.pass.-3s

Müller glosses bho bhos as “O ye”, but this is a bit confusing— bhos is not a pronoun. An online dictionary suggests that it’s an interjection often used in addressing people: oh! hello!  indeed!   And it seems that we’re actually dealing with a reduplicated form here, bhobhos.

Finally we can provide the translation:

The king said: O wise men, let it be heard…

That’s enough for today, but on request I’ll tell you what the king wanted heard. And you should request it, because then I can talk about Sanskrit’s insane mega-compounds.

By the way, classical Sanskrit wasn’t written in Devanāgarī— it was written in the local, contemporary script. All modern Indian scripts, and Southeast Asian ones as well, ultimately derive from Brāhmī, which is what Aśoka knew. If you write your vernacular in Devanāgarī, as of course Hindi speakers do, then you write your Sanskrit in Devanāgarī; but if you speak Tamil you use Tamil script, and so on.

How, you may wonder, does this compare to learning wényán for my China book? The script is way easier, of course. But sandhi is a nightmare, and the grammar is far less accessible. You can boldly translate wényán poems knowing little but the glosses, but I don’t think I’ll be doing my own translations of Sanskrit poetry.

So, that was a surprise.

burns-trump

My first question about the Trump victory was, what exactly happened electorally? If you look at the electoral maps in 2012/2016, they’re remarkably similar.As I write, a few states are still up in the air, but they don’t matter. But it all came down to three states that flipped from blue to red: Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. That’s 67 electoral votes right there. Add them to Romney’s 206 electoral votes, and he wins.  (Note that only Ohio was a blowout; he won the other two by about 1%.)

Also noticeable: turnout is down. 127 million people voted last time; 120 million this time. Trump got less votes than Romney, though not by much. Clinton got way less votes than Obama– 60 million to 67 million. So, you know, that was a problem.

Edit: I got these figures from CNN, and it seems they’re out of date. Latest figures are that 131 million people voted.

It’s scant consolation for Clinton that she won the popular vote. That’s twice in the last five elections, but it doesn’t seem to bother people much.

The other question I had was, why did the polls get the wrong answer for the last six months? Probably it will take some time to answer that one, but I emphasize that Clinton was leading in the polls during that entire period. Nate Silver got some flak for being less bullish on Clinton, but he still estimated she had a 71% chance of winning. And he was spectactularly wrong about Pennsylvania and Florida. I don’t expect polls to be perfect, but something was systematically wrong here.

It’s worth browsing CNN’s exit polls. Trump won among men (53%), whites (58%), white evangelicals (81%), people with incomes over $50k (49%), people over 45 (53%).  He did terribly with nonwhites (21%) and LGBT folks (14%), badly with the college-educated (43%). For all you millennials saying it’s not your fault, note that he won among white men 18 to 29 years old.

Through the exit polls one senses a certain holding-their-nose vibe from Trump supporters. Among voters who were excited about their candidate, either one, he lost (42%). Trump votes correlate with ignoring the debates and with maintaining the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

A very weird detail: 26% of respondents said they made up their mind in the last month– and that group broke for Trump (49-39).  How is that even possible? But then, this is one of those questions that respondents might suppose has a right answer– people may feel that you’re not supposed to admit you decided a year ago.

What does it all mean?  Honestly, not too much. Few people change their worldview because their party lost (or won).  If you think the election means that the US public has drastically changed in four years, I have to repeat: Trump’s victory was a 1% squeaker in two of the three key states, and the Trump vote is about the same size as the Romney vote. It’s a spectacular demonstration of how the electoral college can emphasize, or distort, small differences.

Also, I’d say that the result underlines what I was saying here: our political parties are devices for polarizing the electorate into opposed camps who will faithfully follow their leaders and hate the opponent. Republicans came in line behind their party’s candidate, not necessarily because they loved him, but because they hated the Democrats more. What’s surprising is how well the process worked despite the unprecedented incompetence of Trump’s campaign and his ongoing feuds with half the party.  (No, I don’t think he is some uncannily smooth manipulator who’s shown people a new way to win. He won despite his eccentricities, not because of them.)

What happens next?  Jeez, I don’t know.  It was never clear what Trump really believed in; now we’ll find out. An easy prediction, though: there will be a pretty long honeymoon with Paul Ryan and the rest of Congress.  They have lots of common ground, and motivation to show it, and so they’ll quickly do all the things that any Republican president would have done:  cut taxes for the rich, cut programs for the poor, throw away 20 million people’s health insurance, defund Planned Parenthood, pack the courts with conservatives.

Charlie Stross thinks that Trump is going to get a very rude awakening that the president is not a CEO who can do anything he wants. On some things, yes.  (“Give me the phone number for the Bureau for Building Walls!  There isn’t one?  You’re fired!”)  But again, there will be a long shopping list of things he and Paul Ryan can do together, so the natural course will be to concentrate on those things and downplay the rest. The one US institution that might push back on his nonsense is the army. There will probably be some awkward meetings. But it’s not like he has an actual strategy for ISIS that anyone can either implement or fight over.

(Wait, so does it matter or not that Trump is a fascist?  We don’t know yet. But ironically, perhaps, it may not matter, because the big orange Cheeto won, and took Congress with him. Republicans don’t have to destroy the game when they’ve just won it.)

 

 

I know, everybody’s sick of this election, but it’s not over yet.

Remember when Trump was supposed to do The Pivot, and being a canny politician, he’d smarm his way past us?  Instead he’s basically imploded, and as he’s going down he aims to take down as much of the country and democracy as he can.

trumpo

Trump has always been ridiculous, but sometimes we can forget that ridiculous people can also be deeply frightening. Fascism was ridiculous too, and created dictatorships that led to world war and genocide. Watching Trump, you can perceive the close relationship between narcissism (or prolonged toddlerhood) and authoritarianism. He doesn’t seem particularly ideological, but he cannot bear disagreement. By his nature he doesn’t just want power, he wants absolute power.

  • He’s presently attempting to destroy the norms of elections in a democracy, claiming that any result except his election is “rigged”. When dictatorships fall and there are elections, the key point is the transitions of power: you don’t have a democracy if people do not accept that they can lose elections. With our 200 years of experience we tend to look down on the noobs— only now we have a major party nominee declaring that he won’t accept the election results even before they happen.
  • Along with this he has been encouraging his supporters to intimidate minority voters (which, needless to say, is illegal).
  • The key phrase of the GOP political convention and Trump’s rallies is “Lock her up.” That is, when he’s not suggesting that gun nuts assassinate Hillary, he’s suggesting that the political opposition simply be made illegal.
  • He’s promised to use the power of the presidency to shut down news organizations he doesn’t like. Or entertainment programs that dare to criticize him.
  • He openly admires Vladimir Putin, asked Putin to conduct cyberterrorism against his opposition, and hopes to meet him before his inauguration. One of his campaign managers, Paul Manafort, worked for Putin’s stooge in Ukraine and actually inserted language in the GOP platform to lessen support for a free Ukraine.
  • All along he has encouraged violence toward reporters and opponents at his rallies.
  • His whole rise to fame is of course tied to demonizing ethnic minorities— Hispanics, blacks, and above all Muslims.
  • He has the enthusiastic support of overt white supremacists.

I should add: if Trump loses, his calls for a coup will probably be ignored. (He called for one last time the GOP lost, too.) He doesn’t have the energy or skill to seize power by force— he can’t even run a political campaign. But if he wins, he doesn’t have to be personally competent to enact a fascist agenda. Hitler wasn’t particularly competent either. When you’re leader, people will enact your agenda for you. Hand the reins of power to this man, and bad things will happen.

And those are only the reasons he’s a fascist; there are other equally compelling reasons why he should be entirely disqualified to be president:

  •  He boasts of being a sexual predator. His own words are that he can “do anything”, including direct sexual assault, because he’s a “star”. And of course there is now a list of women coming forward to say that he behaves just as he said he does.
  • His means of engaging with any opponent is toddler-level mockery and brazen lies. Someone so easy to rile up is also someone easy to manipulate. (Consider that his approach to Ted Cruz, a popular figure on his own side, was to insult his wife and to bizarrely insinuate that his father was involved with JFK’s assassination.
  • As the only interaction he can handle is fawning servility, he cannot be told bad news, and he can barely maintain allies. He’s spent a good fraction of his candidacy feuding with his own party and media.
  • He’s spectacularly uninformed about policy in any area (even areas he should know about as a businessman, like taxes).
  • He’s just as spectacularly lazy— he barely prepared for the debates, he doesn’t bother to run an effective campaign, his proposals are never detailed, he doesn’t attempt to educate himself on any of the issues he would be facing as president.
  • He has abandoned support for the US’s bedrock foreign policy achievement— NATO and our alliances with Japan and Korea.
  • As a businessman, he relies on corrupt practices like simply not paying contractors, or shenanigans with a fake charity. He had to be sued to force him to rent to black customers.
  • Trump’s rise to political prominence was due to his racist embrace of birtherism— which even he has now admitted is a lie.

Now, he’s gone so far that an unprecedented number of Republicans have repudiated him, from George Bush to Mitt Romney to Robert Gates to George Will to Glenn Beck. The conventional wisdom would be that you shouldn’t alienate your own party, and, well, the conventional wisdom is not wrong about this; by all accounts Trump is losing.

But the vast majority of Republicans still support Trump.  Paul Ryan, Mitch McDonnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, Rudolph Giuliani, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Scott Walker, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Orrin Hatch— they’re all on the Trump train. The fascist comments, the sexual predation, the lies and insults, the war on Muslims, the isolationism, it’s all perfectly fine with them. After all Trump has promised to address the most important problem they see in the world, which is that rich people don’t have enough money. He’ll shower them with it.

Now, in some ways this is just what a first-past-the-post election system does. It divides and polarizes the electorate into teams that will support The Candidate no matter what they do. (Is it better when a party questions and hobbles its own leader every chance they get?  Ask John Boehner and Paul Ryan.) It’s very very hard for people in such a system to admit that their own party has produced a monster. A columnist like George Will can tear up his party membership card; an elected official rarely does so: they’ll lose their own supporters and the other side won’t trust them anyway.

Still, democracy is endangered when people no longer want it. Though this is a lesson taught by many an emerging country, it’s most familiar from Weimar Germany. It was relatively easy to abandon democracy, because only a minority actually supported it. The fascists and communists openly rejected it. The conservatives and socialists distrusted it and didn’t bother to support it. That left only a small minority of centrist politicians, trying to run a system that a majority of the population didn’t actually like. And of course whatever they did, or whatever happened to the country— reparations, the Depression— only delegitimized them, and democracy, even further.

So, even if Trump loses, it’s not encouraging that 40% of the population was willing to go along with a fascist and vote for him. Republicans evidently don’t value democracy very highly. Even someone like John McCain, who opposes Trump, made news this week by saying that the Senate should not accept any Supreme Court nominee from Hillary Clinton. And McCain is supposed to be a “moderate”. To simply not allow the government to work is now mainstream Republican doctrine.

Trump raises an interesting question— was he the worst of the candidates? Is he some kind of inexplicable disaster that’s befallen the Republican Party? I’ve said all along that he isn’t, and I’ll hold to that. As I noted in the spring, the typical attack on Trump from his rivals was from the right— that he wasn’t conservative enough, not tough enough on immigrants or the poor, a secret supporter of abortion and gun control and Obamacare. The real firebrands in the GOP preferred Ted Cruz, who is only better than Trump in the hair department.

Pretty much every objectionable trait of Donald Trump is something the Republican Party has encouraged for twenty years or more.

  • The business of “rigging the election” is part of a long attempt to rewrite laws to disenfranchise the poor and minorities, based on a nonexistent threat of “voter fraud”. The previous manifestation of this campaign was slander about ACORN.
  • Complaints about the “mainstream media” have been a staple of conservative outrage since the 1980s. What’s a wonder is that they still bother with it even though they now have their own powerful media.
  • Hostility to women and feminism is as old as the anti-ERA movement, the nomination of Clarence Thomas, the Tea Party candidates who told us that rape never results in pregnancy, and attempts to defund Planned Parenthood.
  • Trump hardly invented birtherism; for years GOP politicians refused to shut down the crazies on the issue. What’s new about Trump isn’t the racism; it’s the overtness of it. You were supposed to piously support diversity speaking to the New York Times, while dog-whistling to the base that you were against it.
  • Hostility to immigration isn’t new either; the last attempt at immigration reform was shut down by the wingnuts with no help from Trump.
  • The whole apparatus of functioning American democracy— horse-trading on the budget, court confirmations, restricted filibustering, bipartisan legislation— has been systematically dismantled by the GOP starting with Newt Gingrich. Rather than try to make government work, the goal has been to make democracy impossible.
  • Dark mutterings about coups and rebellions are also not new; we have had armed militias, people taking federal land by force, domestic right-wing terrorism, elected GOP officials musing about the armed forces taking power.
  • Even Trump’s ignorance and lies are simply the standard from talk radio and Sarah Palin.

The party establishment, such as it is, has been perfectly happy to keep the base riled up with hatred and a disdain for compromise: it delivered votes and the majority of state governments. Mitt Romney made a big deal of opposing Trump this year, but happily accepted his endorsement in 2012, and ran a campaign just as hostile to minorities and women. It’s hard not to feel a pang of sympathy for Paul Ryan, whose distaste for Trump is obvious— but it’s also obvious that Ryan’s disdain is mostly over Trump’s vulgarity. You’re not supposed to be blatant in your hatred of the majority of the population.

I should also say something about the faux-profound concern of some pundits that Trump happened because of economic anxiety. Ha, no, economic anxiety is not what makes people call Obama a foreigner, rough up journalists, attack Mexican judges, grope women, and admire Putin. Trump’s supporters are better off than the national average, and better off than the average for Democrats.

The “economic anxiety” story has to confront the fact that Trump does very badly among precisely the people who have most reason to be anxious: minorities, young people, and women. The best the pundits can do is talk about the anxiety of “white men” and glide over the facts that a) Trump’s white men are not actually badly off, and b) white men are a minority of the working class. The only age group that supports Trump is those 65 and over— that is, those who aren’t even part of the work force.

There’s a basic fact about American politics that you always have to keep in mind: the Republican Party is the Money Party. It’s been that way since the Civil War and it’s not changing soon.  Its bedrock policies are the policies rich people like: low taxes, a weak safety net, few regulations, a strong foreign policy. Trump, Ryan, and the rest of them are absolutely agreed on these things.

The thing is, openly advocating for Money doesn’t go over well with the electorate— even in such a pro-capitalist country as the US. The Republicans thus have to either distract the voters, or lie to them. The usual distraction is cultural: harness the energy of Christian conservatives, or racists, to get out the vote. Then when you get power, you don’t actually do what they want.

Or you just lie; you tell the voters that government is bad and they don’t really need health insurance, Social Security, unemployment compensation, unions, food regulations, etc.

In 1980, the Republicans won the game: they were able to start dismantling liberalism, tearing apart the New Deal, destroying unions, sending the good jobs overseas, and sending all the economic gains to the rich rather than to the whole population. So it’s a bit provoking when conservative pundits offer this story that the Democrats abandoned the working class.

It’s true that Trump has appealed to economic anxiety— among other things. But his very framing of the issue shows that he doesn’t understand the issues or have any notion on how to solve them. He talks as if the problem is foreigners— either Mexicans coming to this country to steal jobs, or Chinese somehow taking advantage of us by selling us cheap things. He isn’t running for President of Mexico or China, so he can’t actually do anything about either problem, nor would building walls (whether made of bricks or tariffs) actually re-create manufacturing jobs.

 

The good factory jobs left because American manufacturers wanted them to.  Union workers were expensive; Chinese ones were not.  (Mexicans are not an issue— if anything it’s the other way around; cheap US imports have made it hard for the Mexican economy to improve.)   You, the consumer, abetted the process with your tendency to prefer affordable cars, TV sets, and other goodies. (Also, US manufacturing never disappeared; it’s actually larger than ever. But automation means it employs far fewer workers.)

Could or should all this have been handled differently?  Probably; but impeding productivity is rarely the best economic policy. Should we have prohibited industrial robots, or be content to pay more for everything?  That’s just paying the price in another way. In any case, repudiating trade agreements now will not solve the problem. A better solution would be more liberalism: better wages to share the gains of productivity; education and generous unemployment benefits (or a universal basic income, if you like that) to move displaced workers into better jobs; unions to keep employers from exploiting distressed people.

When we last left Empyrion, I was about to go into spaaaaace.   Well, I’ve gone into spaaaace. I am all over space.  Here, look:

20161005075252_1

The big rocky thing is the planet where I crash-landed, Akua.  The gray thing ahead that looks like an office park is my CV (Capital Vessel).  CVs can have a warp drive (it’s the ring on the left) which lets them travel to other planets.  Other than that they act as bases in spaaaace.

There are about half a dozen worlds to explore in this system (and by final release they hope to have additional systems), but it turns out I spend most of my time creating bases. Right now I have three on Akua, one on the moon, and one on Omicron, plus the CV.  After the above screenshot was taken, I learned that there were many more options for base building: variant block shapes, colors, texturing, decorative items like consoles.  So each base is better than the one before.  One nice thing about the game is that it’s quite generous about mining and food-making: a little will last you quite a while.  Backpacks have 40 slots, which is a good number: it makes you think about what you’re carrying without really impeding you.  (And when you work on a mine, you’re only using one slot.)

There are also NPC enemies, with bases of their own, and till recently they were kicking my ass whenever I went near. A friend gave me some key advice: sniper rifles.  I went to the two planets where the really good ores live, so I could make the high-level sniper rifle.  (These are like the boss planets, but they were easier than the NPC bases.)  I crafted a hundred bullets or so, plus rockets for my rocket launcher.

The problem is, on foot the bases’ turrets get me in a few shots– and they can shoot up the terrain.  Plus respawning is bad when you are attacking a base: you respawn near your body, which has a backpack with all your gear in it, but it may be in the turrets’ line of sight.  So I died a few times just trying to get near.

Finally I got the right method: move up to the crest of the hill, where it still provides cover.  Peek over and shoot down the drones; do this till they stop coming.  Then peek over again and shoot at the turrets.  You have time to get 3-5 shots in before the turrets fire at you.  It took me a bit, but finally the turrets were gone.

I flew my ship over and awkwardly docked it over what looked like a courtyard in the base.  Oops, the base was also swarming with alien soldiers.  I used the ship’s weapons to thin them out, then got out and tried to fire down into the courtyard at them.  Fortunately they were not very good at pathfinding– they tended to stay where they were until I turned a corner, and I could waste them with my pistol.

Only they also had huge bat-like animals with them, and one rushed me, bit me, and gave me a poisoned wound.  Oops.  It seemed like a good idea to extricate myself, go back to the ship, and find something that heals poison.

Now I could go back and clear out the base.  I had limited ammo, but the aliens (what were the chances?) used the same ammunition types I did.  Also the same medpacks and canned vegetables.

The base itself weakens when you shoot things, and I fell into a hole I’d made.  Oops… I can’t quite jump as high as a block, so it looked like I was trapped.  You can’t use the base-building tools on a base you don’t control.  But you can still shoot it up!  So I destroyed one cube after another, making my way to an elevator.  But I couldn’t jump up into the elevator.  So I shot my way horizontally out of the base till I hit dirt, then used the drill to escape.

I hadn’t cleared out the base yet, so I went back in and did that, clearing out aliens, bat-monsters, and turrets, and helping myself to their loot.  They also have teleport portals which you have to destroy so they stop respawning.

I could still hear alien roars, but didn’t see anyone, so I worked on taking over the base.  You have to find and destroy the “core” (a special cube), then replace it with one of your own.  It wasn’t obvious where the core was, but I finally realized they’d used an old level designer’s trick: put it right by the most valuable loot box.  Which you have to destroy (after looting it) to find the core behind it.  (Hidden as a spoiler; mouse over to read.)

I thought I needed a Base Starter, but no, I needed a core.  So that meant one more trip to my other base.  But once I installed the core, the base was mine.  Time to redecorate!

20161014042026_1

Yeah, I paint everything pink in video games.

This is my biggest base yet… the aliens really overbuild.  I rebuilt the side towers, added the sightseeing deck on top, and made a nice big landing pad for my ship.

Oh, and that alien bellowing?  One single alien had fallen into a pit just as I had.  It apparently didn’t occur to him to tunnel his way out.

So, in brief: there always seems to be one more thing to try.  I spent tonight sprucing up the captured base, and preparing to capture a similar base on Omicron.  A Mefi friend created a sweet spaceship in the shape of a Batwing, and talked about making a Batcave, so I’m tempted to do some larger-scale, more creative building.  And there’s multiplayer to check out.

The other planets have different animals and plants, plus various types of aliens; still, you can see what resources they have and I’m not sure they’re different enough.  It would be nice if there was more on the other planets to use than just the two fancy ore types.  But I’m not really worried about this; the game has been well worth it so far and I’m not done yet.

 

For anyone who thinks to check here… yes, the ZBB is having problems, I know, and I’ve submitted a ticket with Dreamhost.

(Basically you can look at most threads, but not all, and you can’t post at all.  I can’t log in as admin so I can’t even put an alert over there.)

More bulletins when I know more (also on Twitter).

Edit: Looks like it’s fixed.  Dreamhost, with moderate usefulness, told me I should optimize the database and maybe repair tables.  They suggested phpMyAdmin, which didn’t work. But their page also suggested using SSH, and that worked.

The problem may have been intermittent, I can’t tell, but I can say that I couldn’t post yesterday and now I can. So in good IT tradition I’m going to close this up as resolved.