It is dark, cold, and wet these days. The daily number of new Covid cases in my county is down 70 percent from two weeks ago, yet still no one I know is sure about what risks to take or what protocols to follow. The winter funk is deeper than usual. And the political landscape is troubling. As I wrote about in the last issue, President Joe Biden and the Democrats have yet to settle upon a clear kickass strategy for 2022, and the risks posed by an extremist Trumpist restoration in the midterms, as I noted in the issue before that, have not been fully integrated into the daily discourse. The cut-to-the-chase, brass-tacks, no-foolin’-around bottom-line is that we are engaged in a battle royal for American democracy, though one side has yet to adopt a war-footing. (Why do you think Steve Bannon’s podcast is called War Room?)

This week during his end-of-the-first-year press conference, Biden rightfully cited what has gone right—jobs, vaccine distribution, a rescue package, a major infrastructure bill, lots of judges confirmed. Yet when it came to throwing down the gauntlet, it was not quite an inspiring and defining St. Crispin’s Day speech. He did repeatedly point out that the Republicans do not spend much time these days saying what policies they are for. The GOP motto seems to be “I’m against it.” (Pick Groucho Marx or the Ramones for a musical version of this cry.) Yet Biden stopped short of sharply depicting the Republicans as the main reason there is no paid family leave, lower drug prices, expanded Medicare, universal pre-K, a child tax credit, climate action, and you-name-it. Earlier that day, I caught Kate Bedingfield, the skilled White House communications director, on MSNBC. She spent 15 minutes ably defending the Biden record, yet not a peep about Republican obstructionism. Tell a story. If the midterms are a referendum on the incumbent president—as midterms often are—the Ds will likely be in the soup. If Biden and the Dems can cast the Rs as the impediment to better days, they just might have a chance. But the only way to do that is…to do that, over and over and over. And the time to start was yesterday.

This is a long way of saying, yes, I know, many of you are contemplating these upsetting or sometimes discouraging matters. I can tell from the email I received in response to the last two issues. There is plenty of aggravation, frustration, and worry. So I am going to try something new and turn over this issue’s lead item—or what’s left of it—to you, dear readers. Let’s go straight to the mail regarding all this.

The response to my suggestion that the Democrats get off the stick by cutting a quick deal with Sen. Joe Manchin for whatever they can get (say, universal pre-K alone) and then force the GOP to vote against (or filibuster) each of the other popular measures of the Build Back Better package left at the side of the road was generally well received. Bob Muehlenkamp kindly wrote, “Thank you, David, for saying it so clearly. As of ‘yesterday’ M[anchin] and S[inema] are not the enemy; the party of Trump is.” Bruce Miller echoed this sentiment: “That is the kind of writing I've waited too long for.” Bruce, I am glad the wait is over. And Mary Scott chimed in, “You are able to separate the wheat from the chaff and are both poetic and pragmatic. I only wish that the Democrats will be prudent and follow your guidance. Alas I fear, they might not. One can only hope.”

“Hope is the thing with feathers,” Emily Dickinson told us. I don’t know how that applies to the Trump era. But it does seem clear that one political necessity these days is to keep hope alive, even as Republicans endeavor to undermine faith in the system and the right to vote.

Not every comment was a hosanna. Patricia Jaeger had a complaint:

I have to be honest. When I read this short sentence in today's newsletter, "Half a loaf, a quarter of a loaf," it hit a nerve. However, I continued to read, and I do see your argument. That doesn't mean I completely agree with it though. Women have lived through "a quarter of a loaf" for a very, very long time. POC have lived with a "quarter of a loaf" (and much less) for a very, very long time. We're tired of this, especially when it's told to us by an old white man. Again, I understand your logic but not your choice of words when you've always had a whole loaf in front of you. Why don't the Democrats, on the floor of the Senate, begin an honest debate with the Republicans about which aspects of the voting rights bill they object to. No grandstanding, no general speeches about voting rights, but actual debate. The MSM should also begin vigorously questioning Republicans about the actual issues and not allow the grandstanding (i.e., see how Mehdi Hasan does it). I don't think the Republicans will actually debate, but this would make for good campaign videos. There really is no half or quarter loaf for voting rights. They either exist for everyone or they don't. On the BBB I do think it should be broken up into smaller bills that the GOP can vote against as you mentioned.

Patricia, you’re right. It is easy for an old (old?!) white guy who has a decent job, a nice home, and health care to say it’s time for a quarter of a loaf. I’m sorry the phrasing ticked you off. But this is a strategic suggestion. The system is partially rigged against those of us looking for a full measure of social justice right now. If you cannot get pre-K and lower insulin prices, grab one and fight like hell for the other. I second your endorsement of my pal Mehdi Hasan and his interviewing prowess. Other journalists certainly can learn from him. Yet better questions from reporters will not move Republicans who believe their survival is based on implementing a minority-protecting political apartheid. To defend and bolster voting rights, the Democrats need a few more senators who give a damn. Short of that, they are stuck. Proposing a grand debate is admirable. However, you can bring a senator to the floor, but you cannot make him or her debate. Consider Mitch McConnell’s dumb and bigoted remark this week: “If you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans.” Aren’t Black voters Americans?

Sharon Vollett emailed:

You seem to have a grasp as to what is happening, but ...WHY? Why are the Republicans so powerful and destructive that they easily take over the country? They build on deception and divisive politics. They play a fear-based agenda that is massive and leads people in a way that gives them the leverage to rob, pillage, and plunder in the name of justice… You are right that Biden needs to push the good through and make it happen. But he needs to pull out the stops and really make it happen. Not play the nice guy anymore. This is a sick and old mentality that has let a political faction run the country/world and we just live in a bubble and let it happen….Why is the Vice President lying low and being quiet? She needs to gather an army of strong women that are willing to fight for what is right…Thanks for listening. I will now subscribe.

Music to my ears—that last line. Sharon, it was clear that Joe Biden spent much of Year One trying to stay true to his heal-the-soul-of-America goal of seeking bipartisan achievements. He did dump that approach on Build Back Better when it became clear not one Senate Republican would contemplate a BBB package of any size or shape, but then he ran into the dark immutable souls of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Now he does indeed need to change gears and supercharge his attack on the GOP, and there is a role in this for the veep. I cannot say why she has not been more forceful. Nor do I have an answer for your first why. Why have the Republicans become a cult of personality bent on exploiting fear, grievance, and bigotry? I assume the answer boils down to…power. That’s what they want, and this is how they believe they can get it and keep it.

Scott Abercrombie also had a question about the Rs:

I don't believe anyone is talking about a Republican Party endgame, at least I haven't read or heard of it. It's clear they are intent on seizing elections with restrictive voter legislation and restoring their beloved Donald Trump to power, but what is their long-term goal?.. It’s clear they are either intentionally or unintentionally determined to establish a permanent one-party rule led by an autocrat… Actively going after the Republican Party by charging/slamming them with attempting to create a permanent one-party rule, and connecting such a dystopian government to Communism and to current world dictators might just be an effective political strategy.

I’m not sure the Democrats can Red-bait the Republicans on this point. But it is imperative that part of their assault this year zero in on the GOP’s authoritarian impulses and its attempts to subvert democracy. I do think it is a difficult point to bring fully across. It was tough for the Dems to convey to the public the significant impact of Vladimir Putin’s covert attack on the 2016 election. My sense is that these audacious raids on democracy are so extreme and beyond (what used to be) the normal assumptions of politics that they are difficult for many voters to recognize and process. Consequently, nothing else will matter much if the Democrats don't beat the Republicans on bread-and-butter issues.

Robert Combs noted:

Dems are at a big disadvantage because they don't have a dynamic, showman leader. I am a big Biden fan, but unless he gets bold and starts yelling, not many will listen. Too bad, but that's the dynamic today. Because of Fox News and allied right-wing media there is little chance of getting to them with anything that would be meaningful to their consciousness… I think the only way to change minds and hearts is with the House Jan. 6 committee forcefully exposing loudly what they can on a daily basis while the administration continues to toot its horn on the nations' progress. Bold action would help also.

Persuasion is a difficult exercise these days. (That topic is worth an entire issue—or book.) Biden flexing his policy muscles and taking whatever action imaginably possible to conquer Covid and address high prices certainly would not hurt. I’ve been impressed with the January 6 select committee so far. I’m reliably informed major hearings are coming soon. We can hope those will grab the attention of many citizens. I don’t know if that will change any minds. But creating a clear line between the political forces in favor of democracy and those against it will probably be healthy for the republic.

As for how to handle—and call attention to—Trump’s and the GOP’s neverending embrace of paranoia, extremism, and craziness, readers tended to be as perplexed as I often am. Meg Makransky Sheketoff sent in this note:

This is a serious question. Why do people believe in him? I would like to have some concrete examples of the other side that seems rational to me. I am 72 and have become more conservative as I age. I no longer tune in, turn on and drop out, but my heart hasn’t changed.

Meg, it beats me. I have spent 40 or so years trying to understand why voters do what they do. Usually, it’s not that hard to figure out, whether you agree or not. But with Trump, it is tough to fathom why any sentient human would look at him and not see that he is a narcissist running a con and playing his supporters for fools. (Just read the fundraising emails he relentlessly sends out to sucker people.) Trump doesn’t pay his bills. He lies unceasingly. He doesn’t deliver on promises. He boasts without delivering. All I can figure is that many Americans are so drowning in their own sense of personal grievance that they are willing to embrace a scoundrel who seems to be on their side or, at the least, who is a foe of the people they hate. The enemy of my enemy is my hero, no matter how rotten, corrupt, vile, deceitful, and authoritarian he may be.

Lisa Crye wrote:

The article on Q is so alarming. It’s hard to understand how people could believe the tales spun out. There were crowds in Dallas long after JFK Jr was supposed to come back to help Trump. It seems like a collective psychosis. It’s also made me think of Richard Rovere’s book on Joseph McCarthy, who “walked with a heavy tread over large parts of the Constitution.” McCarthy’s tactics described in Rovere’s book are a playbook for Q and the conservatives: McCarthy’s skill at galvanizing mobs, manipulating public opinion, and gaining publicity. He was a master liar, which is what has had Rovere’s book on my mind. As he describes McCarthy, in speeches he would spin out so many lies at once that the press could only address a few of what they thought were the whoppers. Since the rest were not addressed, they stood as fact. Maybe the press should do a run on Rovere’s book and see how McCarthy was brought down.

Good connection, Lisa. Remember who was a key staffer for Tailgunner Joe? Roy Cohn. And who was a lawyer for and mentor to Donald Trump? Roy Cohn. This stuff isn’t that complicated. Yes, it is hard for anyone, including reporters, to deal with a firehose of lies. And the liars know this.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

It’s a tie. Both winners scored in the let’s-kill-people-to-own-the-libs category. First, we have Doctor Ben Carson, the former secretary of housing. He suggested that public health officials and government leaders were pushing Covid vaccinations because they “just are drunk on power.” He criticized them for not emphasizing “natural immunity” and claimed they have a "compulsion to inject everybody with this virus.” And there is apparently a nefarious reason for that: “So they are not going to recognize anything that gets in the way of that because it’s a tremendous mechanism to be able to control people.” Carson was positing a conspiracy theory that has become gospel on the right: the push for vaccination is somehow a government plot to “control people.” Coming from Carson, this is not a surprising sentiment. As I reported a few years ago, Carson was a fan of a far-right conspiracy theorist named W. Cleon Skousen, who claimed commie subversion was everywhere and who even the National Review called a “nutjob.” Now Carson is applying his penchant for crackpottery to a life-and-death subject and undermining public health advice that can save lives. What’s the penalty for violating the Hippocratic Oath?

On her nightly show, Fox host Laura Ingraham has a running feature called “Positively Boosted.” As cartoon-like music plays, she cites the cases of famous people who were vaccinated but still stricken by Covid. Isn’t that fun? Her perverted point is that vaccines are not so swell. This week, she delightfully clapped, as she reported with glee, “All right, the triple vaxxed Joint Chief[s] chairman Mark Milley—our favorite, Mark Milley!—tested positive for Covid yesterday. And who else? General David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant, also positively boosted.” Ingraham nearly shouted hooray. Imagine publicly celebrating someone being infected with the coronavirus. How warped must one be? And there was more. Her sidekick Raymond Arroyo added, “Well, Laura, the positively boosted club has now reached the Vatican. The Holy See’s boosted secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin just dropped a vaccine mandate on Vatican employees, firing many of them. He has tested positive.” Arroyo flashed a large grin as he conveyed this news. This segment, like many on Fox, is designed to cast doubt on the vaccines and to pander to the anti-vax crowd. It discourages vaccination. See? They don’t really work. Yet the whole point is that the vaccines largely stop the virus from killing people hit by Covid. Unconscionably, Ingraham and Arroyo did not share with Fox viewers the fact that Milley experienced only mild symptoms, which was probably because he was “positively boosted.”

The Mailbag (Moxie Edition)

Several readers sent kind-hearted notes after reading about Moxie’s harrowing plunge through the thin ice covering a pond. Emmy Lewis had a basic question: “I hope she’s doing well after that frigid scare! Is she a poodle? Please give her a cuddle from me!” Moxie is a standard poodle. A bit on the small side (39 pounds). We call her a substandard. I’m not sure she enjoys that joke. Dan Morgan wrote:

I love your story! I am so glad that you trained her to respond to "jump" and that you had the presence of mind to use it. And, I am so glad you resisted your impulse to jump in to save her — we would have lost both of you!

I believe the water was probably not too deep. Had I needed to leap in, I am certain I would have survived. But it would have been an extremely unpleasant hike home. Keith Pillman emailed:

Glad that Moxie survived her misadventure at the pond. The pic of her wrapped in the blanket, laying on the couch really gets the message across that she was pretty scared. I hope she now avoids running out on ice unless she's walking with you. Did you use to have some cats? Have they passed on?

Keith, we have not been near any ice-covered ponds since that dramatic day. But I now see it as my job to keep her off the ice if we come to one. As for cats, the answer is no. I’d rather not talk about cats.

Mary Ann Plant asked, “Did she recover from the ice-water dip? Very scary stuff. Glad you didn’t have to go in after her.” As you could tell from the photo, Moxie took a long self-imposed time-out. But she bounced back, and the next day was bounding about when we went out in the snow. I wonder if she has any recollection of a traumatic event that is so strongly etched in my memory. Any experts on canine brains out there?

MoxieCam™

I know. Moxie shouldn’t be driving by herself with just a learner’s permit.

Read Recent Issues of This Land

January 19, 2022: Why the Democrats must yield to Manchin to keep the Trump cult from gaining power; gushing about The French Dispatch; a true-crime podcast with political and international significance; and more.

January 15, 2022: We’re all tired of Trump’s crazy, but it’s dangerous to ignore; Dumbass Comment of the Week (US Senate edition); the Mailbag; (a harrowing) MoxieCam™; and more.

January 11, 2022: My interview with Jamie Raskin about his son’s suicide, January 6, and the second Trump impeachment; Aaron Sorkin’s one big mistake in Being the Ricardos; Slow Burn’s look back at the LA riots; and more.

January 8, 2022: It’s time for Merrick Garland to reveal if the Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

January 4, 2022: The lesson of January 6: Tragedy does not yield national unity; Ayman Mohyeldin’s impressive American Radical podcast; and more.

December 23, 2021: Farewell to a stupid year; Dumbass Comment of the Year; Mailbag, MoxieCam™; and more.

December 21, 2021: How the GOP is establishing political apartheid; Donald Trump’s most outrageous email, spending time with The Shrink Next Door; Susanna Hoffs’ delightful new album; and more.

December 18, 2021: Mark Meadows, the chief’s chief coup plotter; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag, MoxieCam™; and more.

December 14, 2021: Denounce Julian Assange, don’t extradite him; why WandaVision is marvelous; hanging out with Neil Young and Crazy Horse in an old barn; and more.

December 11, 2021: Trump’s newest—and biggest—potential conflict of interest; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Tucker Carlson Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

December 7, 2021: John Lennon and the NRA—four decades later; Chris Christie: Trump is afraid to lose in 2024; an inspiring documentary about Jacques Cousteau; and more.

December 4, 2021: Donald Trump and the Cruddy Pan Theory of human behavior; Peter Thiel, kingmaker?; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more