The Mueller Hearings

I do not have any special insights into, or additional information about, the Mueller hearings; to paraphrase some baseball hero: All I know is what I see on TV, and read on the Internet.

Mueller looked confused, and stumbled.  Apparently he was a lot sharper when he was younger--which strikes me as amazing--and was a lot quicker to respond.  This investigation alone, and its implications, would have aged anyone.  We're not accustomed to thinking about the White House as a hotbed of anarchy, even if it has been often the source of serious wrongdoing, crime, or even misbehavior.  The way things stand now, Mueller must have felt very exposed for a couple of years.  Compared with the shenanigans of Kenneth Starr, Mueller's behavior was the epitome of rectitude.  (But what do I know?)

Does Mueller's team have the ability to totally exonerate?  This sounds like a good point; in criminal law, one can convict--in which case, there has been no exoneration at all--or one can not convict--in which case there has been neither total conviction, nor total--what's the word?--exculpation.  The word exoneration is being used here in a colloquial sense, and one wonders whether it should have found its way into the report.  In response to the Administration's crowing about 'No Collusion,' etc, perhaps it was put there to make it clear that ongoing investigations could still yield some damning conclusions, for a later, more appropriate time.

Russian Interference in Election 2016.  Mueller was explicit in stating that there had been systematic efforts--largely successful--to sway voters before the election, and direct interference by means of hacking into Ms. Clinton's email account, and the Democratic National Convention computers, etc.  All the hacking is criminal, and all the efforts put into social media subversion probably comes close to being criminal, but to my eyes, it seems just glorified propaganda.  Since we Americans exist in an atmosphere of aggressive marketing (which is close to the President's idea of Fake News), we are both more susceptible to swallowing propaganda than the Russians themselves, but we're also inured to marketing in some ways.

It seems to me that the Republican strategy of restricting polling access was arguably a more direct and significant influence on the election outcome than Russian fiddling with facebook and twitter.  It is pathetic to point the finger at how much of an effect the Russians had on feeble-minded Pennsylvanians and their beliefs; Pennsylvanian conservatives absolutely rejoice in the feeblemindedness of their constituents.

Distraction.  By now, most of us are well aware of the principal Trump (and New Alt-Right) technique of distraction.  The onslaught of polemic from Trump and company is often stepped up when they are about to quietly take some very deliberate action to do something terrible.  At present, what they're trying to do is to win the 2020 election, to get done all sorts of unfinished business having to do with supreme court justices, appointing other federal judges, more legislation to benefit the wealthy, and big business, and giving away access to National Parks, etc.  Health Care and Immigration are only distractions, at this stage.  There are some diehard conservatives who keep those topics in the forefront, but the Republicans just can't bring themselves to put in the work it would take to replace the ACA (a.k.a. 'Obamacare') with anything that the people would like, and the insurance companies would like.  Immigration is even more difficult, and almost anything they try will result in howls of protest, from many among the Republicans as well as outside the GOP.

Another thing Republicans (and their Alt-Right Running Dogs) want, is for the Democrats to fight among themselves and select an nonviable nominee.  But I personally don't think steering the nomination towards someone who is deemed to have winnability is something we could live with (though it certainly looks as if the candidates themselves are making winnability calculations that are alarmingly cynical).  However, choosing the candidate of whom Trump seems most afraid of is surrendering more power to Trump than is comfortable to me.  He isn't intelligent, but he is tricky.

In conclusion, I do think Impeachment might be the right thing to do, as Robert Reich says; but beginning Impeachment proceedings could send a lot of lazy Republicans to the polls, who might otherwise be more interested in swilling beer and hunting deer, and so on (just kidding; they're probably wonderful people working ordinary jobs and drinking diet Coke, like everyone else).  This election, like most others, will be determined by who stays home.  And also by how successful the GOP is in discouraging minority voters.  The GOP never minds what minorities do actually--to paraphrase Professor Higgins in My Fair Lady--as long as they don't vote.

A Few Thoughts that Have Nothing To Do With the Mueller Report

I'm sorry to see the negativity that surrounded Beto O'Rourke's First Debate performance.  He seemed to be very careful in his statements, but that caution came across as hesitation.  If he settled down, and became quicker on his feet, he would have been a great candidate, though the tide of Democrat opinion seems to be to nominate a female / minority / young candidate.  Beto is certainly young, but . . .

Perhaps it's a little too early for this, but the success of any future Democrat presidency will not be dependent on the know-how and agenda of a single man or woman.  I must be a collaboration; something that the GOP cannot do.  There has to be a team, the members of which must work like dogs to repair the economy (though in statistical terms, the economy is performing in such a way that it gives Wall Street daily--thrills--shall we say).  Bear in mind that there are some extremely wealthy people who actually advocate higher taxes for upper-income individuals and corporations.  My belief is that these people know that the US infrastructure is sadly lagging behind, and the government can support repairing infrastructure and extending it and developing it only if the tax dollars are available.

The Green New Deal has a lot of window-dressing, but most definitely environmental action can no longer be kicked down the road.  A president who is good for the US will have to be someone persuasive enough to convince the people to adopt at least a few austerity measures.  I worry about water quality.  I worry about education.  I worry about deforestation.  I worry about the politics of Central America, and the opportunists, hardliners and crooks (not all the same people) who tend to snatch power there, sometimes with US clandestine help.  A huge deal of talent will have to be brought to bear on the problems that have been deferred for the last several years, and more that have been actually caused in the last several years.  I worry about plastic waste, but I fear that contracts might be taken out on anyone who brings that up, from both parties.

Okay; I need to go eat some oatmeal; we all need to keep healthy and sane, and tackle problems a few at a time, and be little Eveready Bunnies for the foreseeable future.

Arch