DECEMBER 2021 IGNOMINIOUS ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH: THE IGGY

The Ignominious Absurdity of the Month (IGGY) award used to be called The Bonehead Absurdity of the Month. I used the word “bonehead” because I thought the utterances selected were largely products of stupidity or ignorance. Coming to believe that the people I selected were not just ignorant, but downright evil, I decided to change bonehead to ignominious, hence was born The Ignominious Absurdity on the Month. This shouldn’t imply, however, that ignominious individuals are not also ignorant; in reality, there is a close affinity between the two, as some of this month’s selections will attest.

1. The Usual Suspects. It’s become habitual that certain persons will repeatedly distinguish themselves as IGGY candidates. This month, Reps. Jim Jordan, Matts Gaetz, and Marjorie Taylor Green put their ignorance and stupidity once again on display. If we can’t require IQ tests as a prerequisite to serving the US House of Representatives, at least we should require an MRI of their brains to check for nougat. It’s the least we can do for the American public. The nougat brains of Jordan, Gaetz and Green showed their tangle of glitching neurons when commenting on the Covid virus.

First, Jordan’s brilliant observation: “Real America is done with Covid-19. The only people who don’t understand this is Fauci and Biden.”

Done? As the year ended, there were over 580,000 new cases in the U.S., the highest on record.  Worrisome projections about the new Omicron variant suggest Jordan must have been absent when brains were passed out.

Next, Gaetz: “Still the best vaccine we’ve found is mother nature’s vaccine, it’s contacting the virus that’s what has provided the greatest, most durable, protection over the longest period of time.”

Sorry Matt, scientific research has revealed that people who have had Covid are not immune to getting it again, especially, apparently, from the Omicron variant.

The immutable Taylor Green apparently thinks cancer is somehow analogous to COVID-19. In her words: “Every single year more than 600,000 people in the US die of cancer. The country has never once shut down. Not a single school has closed. And every year, over 600,000 people of all ages and races will continue to die from cancer.”

Apparently, Georgia’s Greene missed a few days of school—including the day all Peach State schools are required to set aside once a year to teach something other than creation science. So, the nougat-brained Green thinks cancer is somehow analogous to COVID-19, a communicable disease that continues to spread, evolve, and kill innocent people across the globe.

It’s a tragedy that so many people still die of cancer each year. But what we haven’t done in the face of this ongoing crisis is demonize effective treatments, politicize basic precautionary measures, or relentlessly attack one of the world’s foremost experts on the problem.

Obviously, there’s a significant difference between cancer and COVID-19. Let me see if I can puzzle this one out. Hmm. No luck. Guess I’m just too obtuse.

NOVEMBER 2021 IGNOMINIOUS ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH: THE IGGY

1. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala). On Sunday, an article in Rolling Stone reported that both Republicans members of Congress and their staff met repeatedly with organizers of the Jan. 6 insurrection to plan protests around blocking the official tallying of the Electoral College vote. This month, the Montgomery Adviser reported that Brooks denied helping to plan the rally, saying that he had not had any  involvement in fundraising for the rally, and only showed up to speak “because the White House asked him to do so.”

In a phone interview, Brooks seemed quite sure that his hands were clean when it came to the rally and the violent and deadly assault on the Capitol that followed. "If you’re talking about someone participating in meetings, setting the agenda, raising the money,” said Brooks, “I don’t know of anything that suggests my staff as doing that stuff.”

But speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, Brooks walked that statement back a critical distance. Speaking to CNN’s Melanie Zanona, Brooks continued to claim that he had not attended planning meetings for the event, but said, “I don’t know if my staff did ... but if they did I’d be proud of them for helping to put together a rally lawful under the First Amendment at the ellipse to protest voter fraud and election theft."

Which is certainly made more interesting by how, back in July, Brooks told Slate that he was aware there was a likelihood of violence at the rally. “As a consequence of those warnings,” said Brooks, “I did not go to my condo. Instead, I slept on the floor of my office. And when I gave my speech at the Ellipse, I was wearing body armor.”

An article from another Alabama television station, WKRG, has Brooks making the statement about purchasing a Glock after a more general statement about the threats that he receives as a member of Congress. Which makes this seem like less connected to the Jan. 6 event.

During that interview in July, Brooks refused to say who had given him the heads up on what was about to happen. Or provide details on that warning. But those would be excellent questions for the House select committee on Jan. 6.

In a statement to WAFF in Huntsville, Alabama, Brooks later claimed that he had “zero warnings of any kind” about violence from Trump supporters and only wore body armor because he was concerned about “the risk of threatened violence by BLM and ANTIFA.” Brooks also hinted that he might have been carrying a weapon at the rally, saying: “As a consequence of these threats, I have body armor, a concealed carry permit, and purchased a Glock to go with them.”

According to the original Rolling Stone article, at least one of those involved in planning the January 6 rally has been in communication with the select committee. That organizer is apparently now a cooperating witness, sharing information about the members of Congress and their staff who helped plan events on Jan. 6. That organizer specifically mentioned that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was present at meetings, and that others—including Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Lauren Boebert, Rep. Madison Cawthorn, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Louie Gohmert, and Rep. Mo Brooks—either attended themselves or sent “top staffers.”

If Brooks’ statements seem to constantly skate the edge of self-contradiction and encouraging violence, they fall solidly in the speech Brooks made to the insurgents gathered before him on the Ellipse the morning of January 6. On that morning, Brooks’ didn’t tell them to storm the Capitol and engage in violence. He only told them, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass. Our ancestors sacrificed their blood, their sweat, their tears, their fortunes and sometimes their lives to give us, their descendants, an America that is the greatest nation in world history. So, I have a question for you. Are you willing to do the same?”

He didn’t tell them they had to stop the electoral count. He only told them, “Today, Republican senators and congressmen will either vote to turn America into a godless, amoral, dictatorial, oppressed and socialist nation on the decline, or they will join us and they will fight and vote against voter fraud and election theft and vote for keeping America great.”

He didn’t tell them they had to attack the Capitol, he only called out to the crowd, “Will you fight for America?” before saying, “We, American patriots are going to come right at them!”

It seems clear that Brooks had staffers—at least—involved in the pre-planning of Jan. 6 events. It’s clear that he had foreknowledge that violence was likely, if not certain. It’s clear that on Jan. 6, Brooks helped deliver that violence by informing the crowd that the nation would be lost if they didn’t act immediately. And it’s clear that every day since then, Brooks has continued to blast the Big Lie about election fraud, even as he has hedged his own claims to stay just this side of obvious sedition.

Is this the last straw in Brooks’ worthiness for a Hall-of-Shame induction?

OCTOBER 2021 IGNOMINIOUS ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH: THE IGGY

ANNOUNCEMENT: Ted Cruz, Rudy Giuliani, Tucker Carlson AND Louis Gohmert are four irredeemable evildoers who have appeared repeatedly as monthly IGGY candidates and winners (Carlson and Gohmert appear again this month). In a quiet ceremony after picking up dog shit in my backyard, I inducted the four of them in the Phronesis Hall-of-Shame. This means that their ignominious actions and utterances will not appear in any future IGGY listing. Their membership is well-earned—and long overdue.

Near misses for induction included Senators Mitch McConnell and Ron Johnson, Representatives Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, and Marjorie Taylor Green, and Governors Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott. Strong future contenders include Senators Mike Lee, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. Feel free to recommend additional worthy candidates.

1. Representative Elise Stefanik. House Republican Conference chair Elise Stefanik wouldn’t dare call out Jan. 6 insurrectionists and their failed attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. After all, that’s how she got her current gig. So, she’s instead stooping to calling undocumented immigrants the actual insurrectionists—and echoing a white supremacist conspiracy theory in the process.

“Radical Democrats are planning their most aggressive move yet: a PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION,” Elise for Congress claimed in one Facebook ad last week, according to Zachary Mueller of America’s Voice. “Their plan to grant amnesty to 11 MILLION illegal immigrants will overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.” Just days later, Stefanik doubled down.

“After national press attention condemning Stefanik's use of the white nationalist 'replacement theory' in her Facebook ads warning of an ‘election insurrection’ ... she has doubled down and is STILL running these ads,” Mueller tweeted. “In total, Stefanik paid Facebook to show these xenophobic dog-whistle ads to over a million Facebook users, all but 5% of whom lived outside New York with the majority being over the age of 55,” he wrote last week. “Stefanik is not using these ads to communicate a message to voters in her district,” he notes. “Instead, she is targeting older Americans across the country who react positively to online racialized fear-mongering.” Replacement theory seems to resonate.

This white supremacist belief has more recently found a home on Fox News via Tucker Carlson. It also found a home among the House Republican caucus way before Stefanik’s disgusting ads, echoed by Pennsylvania’s Scott Perry in April.

“For many Americans,” The Washington Post reports Perry said during a hearing on Central American migration, “what seems to be happening or what they believe right now is happening is, what appears to them is we’re replacing national-born American—native-born Americans to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation.” Like the Post noted, never mind that it was Perry, like Stefanik, who sought to “transform the landscape of this very nation” by supporting overturning the election. Facts, smacts.

Among the national press attention that slammed Stefanik’s ads came from her hometown newspaper, which “offered a scathing response” to her rhetoric, HuffPost reported. “Quite a choice of words, of course, considering that the country is still suffering the aftershocks of the Jan. 6 insurrection in Washington by supporters of Mr. Trump who tried to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election,” The Times Union Editorial Board said. “The Harvard-educated Ms. Stefanik surely knows the sordid history and context of this.”

That suggests that Stefanik should know better, and indeed, Stefanik is on the record criticizing Trump in the past. “In fact, at times Stefanik sounded practically like a Never Trumper, as she called on Trump to recognize that Russia had attacked the 2016 election to help him, urged him to release his tax returns, and assailed him for his comments about women,” Mother Jones reported in May. Some might argue that Stefanik is a weathervane adjusting to whatever winds are necessary to hold onto power. Or maybe, just maybe, Stefanik’s now finally showing us exactly who she is.

SEPTEMBER 2021 IGNOMINIOUS ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH: THE IGGY

Sorry this is arriving late, I was out of town.

1. Senator Ron Johnson. Even before the January 6 insurrection by supporters of former President Donald Trump, Senator Ron Johnson was pushing the Big Lie that Trump was somehow cheated out of a second term.

As chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Wisconsin Republican used the December 16 session to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. In a lengthy, if largely fact-free, statement to the committee, he claimed that alleged irregularities could be grouped into three categories: “1) lax enforcement or violations of election laws and controls, 2) fraudulent votes and ballot stuffing, and 3) corruption of voting machines and software that might be programmed to add or switch votes.”

“In the time we had,” Johnson babbled, “it was impossible to fully identify and examine every allegation. But many of these irregularities raise legitimate concerns, and they do need to be taken seriously.”

That declaration was, of course, false. So outrageous was the senator’s hearing that The New York Times headlined its report, “The election is over, but Ron Johnson keeps promoting false claims of fraud.”

No surprise there. Johnson is the king of false claims—on everything from Covid-19 cures to tax-policy votes that invariably end up benefiting the senator and his campaign donors.

Johnson’s amplification of the Big Lie fostered the fantasy that the presidency was being stolen from Trump. Now, however, there’s reason to believe that Johnson’s been knowingly lying about the Big Lie.

On Sunday, when he spoke at a Republican event in Wisconsin with Lauren Windsor, a progressive activist who posed as a conservative and taped a conversation with Johnson, the senator said, “I think it’s probably true that Biden got maybe 7 million more popular votes. That’s the electoral reality. So to just say for sure that this was a stolen election, I don’t agree with that.”

Windsor is a self-described “progressive pugilist swamp-slayer” who has gained prominence over the past decade with multiple exposés of conservative hypocrisy, and, as executive producer of the political web show The Undercurrent, has distributed a tape of the conversation on social media. Johnson said during what he apparently thought was a private conversation, “There’s nothing obviously skewed about the results.” He even told Windsor that Trump lost because he had underperformed as compared to other Republicans. “If all the Republicans voted for Trump the way they voted for the Assembly candidates, he would have won,” said the senator. “He didn’t get 51,000 votes that other Republicans got, and that’s why he lost.”

Still, Johnson continues to peddle Trump’s Big Lie—even going so far as to support a bogus audit of the election results that has been promoted in recent weeks by Trump-aligned Wisconsin legislators. The audit will cost Wisconsin taxpayers $680,000.

Let us hope that Johnson’s big lie will follow him like stink on a skunk when he seeks a third term—should he decide to run.

AUGUST 2021 IGNOMINIOUS ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH: THE IGGY

1. Rep. Dan Crenshaw Rr-Tx) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark). Republican lawmakers spent the entirety of the Donald Trump administration hunting for and condemning government whistleblowers. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Rand Paul, Reps. Nunes and Takeyourpick—they all sternly warned of the threat posed by anonymous government figures coming forward with a new possible crime Trump or his team seemed to be committing. But that was then, and this is now, and if you're talking about whistleblowers willing to squeal about Secret Scary Wokeness hopping through government hallways or putting up sinister new motivational posters, that's different. That's the sort of stuff Fox News lives for.

Continuing the Republican tradition of pretending at maximum manly toughness while thumping through life with shows of weaponized gutlessness, it's Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Arkansas's Sen. Tom Cotton leading a new charge against Rampant Theoretical Wokeness in our nation's tough manly military. Crenshaw announced it on Twitter with suitable turgidity: "We won't let our military fall to woke ideology," he puffed. The Crenshaw-Cotton response is a new "whistleblower webpage" where you can "submit your story" of being, um, exposed to Wokeness. He promises to expose the "spineless military commanders" who have failed to oppose "progressive Pentagon staffers" who "have been calling the shots."

This feels a tiny bit like Biff and Taller Biff demanding the military oppose civilian control and "call the shots" themselves, but we're probably imagining that. Both Republicans have shown a truly stellar understanding of our military's structure and enforced limitations in the past, which is why most of America knows their names despite neither Biff showing much success in any government sphere that does not involve self-promotional shitposting.

Crenshaw and Cotton's push here is part of a larger Republican attack on the military for perceived anti-conservatism, and immediately follows a Sen. Ted Cruz bit of buffoonery in which he compared the turgid manliness of Russia’s military recruitment posters, under Vlad Putin, to the "woke, emasculated military" of the United States.

It's an organized Republican campaign to portray the military as "weak" so that conservative-minded changes can be made. Crenshaw and Cotton's quasi-populist, more-quasi-fascist goal is to ignite partisan battles within the military command itself—the promise to "expose" commanders that do not oppose Crenshaw-identified "woke" policies makes that clear enough—so that the military can be purged of conservatism's enemies in the same manner that Trump's allies purged whistleblowers, watchdogs, and perceived critics from civilian government agencies.

With Crenshaw's crude attempt, however, it was evident what was going to happen next. First, Crenshaw was going to start collecting some painfully butthurt stories from conservative soldiers upset that their new commander is a womanfolk or whatever, and after months of sorting through all the ones too obviously racist or sexist or ridiculous to put his name to will come up with some that Tucker Carlson can print out and roll around in on live television.

Second, it was a certainty that Crenshaw’s little form was going to be absolutely overrun by Americans trolling Crenshaw with frightening incidents of "wokeness" that may or may not have been culled from movies, television shows, or their own imaginations.

REVISITING THE HIROSHIMA MYTH

By Ronald T. Fox

Hiroshima After the Bomb 

In previous Phronesis posts about the atomic bombing of Japan, I challenged conventional wisdom in the United States that the use of atomic bombs forced Japan to surrender, thus ending the war. I referred to this as “The Hiroshima Myth.” In my post, I left little doubt that I believed Truman’s decision was motivated not by a desire to end the war quickly in order to avoid a bloody invasion of the mainland, but to end it before the Russians would enter the war and extend their influence throughout East Asia. I also argued that Japan’s decision to surrender was motivated more by fear of Russia’s invasion than the atomic bomb and Truman’s promise of a “reign of ruin” from the sky.

Since my original post in 2015, I have dug deeper into the historical record and have come to understand that Truman’s decision, and the Japanese response, was more complicated. Useful for my rethinking was Marc Gallicchio’s book, Unconditional: The Japanese Surrender in World War II.

I now believe that while the atomic bombs were not the driving force in ending the war, they played a larger role than I originally acknowledged. It was both the Russian entry into the war and the atomic bombings, along with Japan’s deteriorating military and economic situation, that motivated the country to accept a slightly modified version of “unconditional surrender.” Evidence points to both the bomb and the Russian entry into the war as necessary conditions for Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. At the same time, my additional readings reinforced my belief that Truman was thinking beyond Japan, to the American-Soviet rivalry in the post-war world, when he decided to shun diplomacy and pursue a quick military ending of the war.

What follows is a complete revision of my original essays. I will post the revision, on the 76th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, in three parts. Part I covers Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs on Japan. Part II explores the Japanese Decision to surrender. In Part III, I speculate on the enduring legacy of the Hiroshima Myth. Part II will be posted tomorrow and Part III the next day.

PART III. THE LEGACY OF THE HIROSHIMA MYTH

By Ronald T. Fox

THE LEGACY OF THE HIROSHIMA MYTH

Parts I and II examined distortions of truth surrounding the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These distortions formed a mythology about the bombings that has become deeply embedded in the collective American conscience. Part III offers my thoughts on the legacy of the Hiroshima Myth.

Enduring American allegiance to the Hiroshima Myth—or, conversely, our collective failure to confront its truth—has had a profound impact on the United States, both at home and abroad. Perceiving the atomic bomb as the decisive weapon necessary to end World War II helped create a conviction that nuclear weapons could serve a useful military purpose. Americans came to embrace them as essential protectors of our nation. To be safe, we needed to stockpile nuclear weapons and be prepared to use them, a belief that would spark a massive nuclear arms race in the ensuing decades. Accepting the Hiroshima Myth meant accepting nuclear weapons as a fact of national and international life.

The United States has refused to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons, even if their use risks the end of human civilization. Ask yourselves: would this refusal be the U.S. stance if Americans did not so forcefully believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the winning weapons that forced Japan to surrender?

The belief that the bomb killed thousands to save millions imparted a moral righteousness to the bomb that today translates into a collective American numbness to matters of mass destruction, even genocide. Almost anything is permissible if used to “save American lives.” This numbness, along with our belief in American exceptionalism and the decisiveness of military power, helps explain why the US is prone to deploying extensive force and using increasingly destructive weapons against perceived international enemies, however non-threatening they may appear to the reasoned mind.