The "Tell" on Election Law, Immigration, and More

More and more I am understanding the political world through the notion of the "tell" in poker, the idea that the other player unconsciously signals the value of his hand in his face and body language.

And so I interpret the behavior of our Democratic friends as desperation, the last mad bet of a gambler about to get cleaned out.

Take the Democratic Texas legislators that left town and headed to Washington DC so they could gesticulate about racist election laws. Really? Are the arcane election laws really that important to you? Why would that be?

Now we read that the Senate Dems are putting immigration law changes into the budget reconciliation package. That's because it is much harder for Democratic senators who might be on the fence about immigration to vote against the juicy loot-and-plunder items in the reconciliation package. But why would you snuggle immigration into the budget package unless you knew it was a vote loser that would never have a chance of passing if it were offered up by itself?

You really want election laws that do not have the imprimatur of a straight-up bill passed by both Houses of Congress with a Moynihanian 70-30 vote in the Senate. If you don't understand that then you don't belong in national politics.

I keep reading my racist-sexist-homophobe friends agonizing about the Democrats setting up a "one-party" state. But you don't even think about a one-party state unless you are afraid that you are about to lose the whole game.

But still.

I get that our educated ruling class has the notion that it knows best, on everything from race relations to mass transit and climate change. What is interesting that it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that the way to advance these ideas is through a free and open discussion of the issues, in which the opinion of the "other" party is at least accommodated in the final result. In other words, to persuade. Instead all opponents to the educated-class agenda are stigmatized as "deniers" and "bigots." What's that all about?

I mean, really. Does our ruling class think it can rule without even a pretense of accommodating the opinions and the world view of the great middle class?

I get that with the current ruling-class ideology of "antiracism" you are either an ally, an oppressed people, or a white oppressor. So, obviously, the only thing to think about are the needs of the oppressed peoples. Otherwise you are not an ally, but a white oppressor.

But, how do you allies know what is best for the oppressed peoples? Done any social science lately? Do you have any ideas that contradict the ideas of Charles Murray that say that the ruling educated class has Made Things Worse for the lower orders starting not later than the Great Society programs of 1965? Other than saying Charles Murray is a racist?

I mean, why all the pedal-to-the-metal opposition to President Trump? Can he really mean the end of everything we hold dear when you Dems won back the House in 2018? How much damage can a president do when he is facing a divided Congress?

Or is the problem the very idea of a middle-class rebellion against your rule? I mean, given that the educated class takes pretty well all the bandwidth of the public square, wouldn't you expect an inchoate revolt of the deplorables every now and again? And wouldn't it be the very height of political wisdom to throw the plebs a bone every now and again?

See, the way I think, it is a "tell" to overreact to the election of a populist nationalist in a normal change election. The "tell" is that you regard the rise of an opposing narrative as a threat to your very being. Really? Is your rule based on such a weak foundation?

And what's with the trillions upon trillions of spending this year? What does it mean? That your supporters demand a huge payoff right now or else they are goin' fishin'? Or what?

For instance, I expect that the inflation and consequent efforts to contain it will fall heaviest upon the lower class and upon the middle class, who will react by voting for Change. Did you chaps think about that before you put your pedal to the metal on the spending accelerator?

And climate change. I read a piece that suggested we need to build a 1.2-gigawatt nuclear plant every month till 2040 if we are going to eliminate fossil fuels. Because certainly wind and solar ain't gonna do it. Yeah. Good luck getting even one nuclear plant built between now and 2040. So what is this climate change thing really about?

Did you chaps think about the effect of your COVID lockdowns on the livelihoods of ordinary American workers? Or that it would toss millions our of the workforce into homeless camps?

I just have this nagging feeling that you rulers really don't have a clue, that you are madly punching buttons up there in the cockpit without a clue what you are doing.

I just hope I am wrong, and that everything turns out for the best in the best of all possible worlds.