The Dawn of Maximum Unity

After President Biden’s Inauguration Address, I messaged my liberal friend…

Image for post
Image for post

Inauguration Addresses are usually light on substance, but this took it to a whole new level.

People are praising Biden’s address for its “tone,” but to me, it was insulting to the American people’s intelligence.

He talked of unity, but I heard nothing in his speech about what he means by “unity” or how he intends to create more “unity.”


Image for post
Image for post
Senator Rand Paul Tweeting Spending Bill | Photoshopped by Author

The U.S. Senate should pass the “Read the Bills Act.”

This Act was written in 2006 by Downside DC, which is a non-profit focused on decreasing the size of the federal government. The Act has since been sponsored and proposed in the U.S. Senate by Senator Rand Paul.

This Act requires legislators who want to vote YES on a bill to sign an affidavit swearing to have read or heard read the entire bill. Every bill is required to be read aloud before a quorum in both chambers.

This Act also requires legislation to be publicly posted at least 7 days before it can be voted on in order to give legislators and the American public more time to read and discuss it. …


First, let’s get into this guy’s mind…

Image for post
Image for post

He believes the election was stolen. He believes he’s on the side of American democracy.

If your an American and you believed our democracy was about to end then wouldn’t you support violence to take it back? Violence doesn’t always equal bad. America was born in violence, kept together through violence, and has spread our ideals through violence.

As Americans, we’ve ALWAYS BELIEVED that when democracy fails, violence is required. This is the PRIMARY reason why we have the 2nd Amendment.

But the deeper question is are you certain our democracy failed?

To a Trump Supporter who primarily consumes their news from Donald Trump, The_Donald, and Rudy Giuliani I can see why they feel certain Trump won. The crackdown by mainstream and social media on Trump supporters also INCREASES the hysteria because they don’t feel like they’re getting a fair shake in the court of public opinion. Before any investigation was made Democrats closed their minds and said there was no fraud. As soon as you claim there’s “no fraud” then even if fraud is discovered you’d have your whole reputation wrapped up in mocking and disputing it so then Democrats moved the ball to there’s “no widespread fraud.” Every fraud claim was immediately dismissed as fake or unimportant. …


My Thoughts:

President Trump is incompetent.

Why wasn’t he in the room when Pelosi, Schumer, and Mitch McConnell were negotiating the COVID bill?

I thought Trump was some great dealmaker?

President Reagan worked closely with Speaker Tip O’Neill. Great presidents take an ACTIVE role in proposing legislation. True leadership!

Trump is a reactionary president.

He’s not guided by vision or philosophy, but by his desire to be liked by his base.

Since his base has shown their disdain for the COVID bill, which his administration helped draft via Secretary Mnuchin’s involvement in the negotiations, Trump is now against it too.

(It’s well documented that Trump’s administrators realize how incompetent Trump is so they try to keep him as far away from the actual dealmaking as possible since Trump might give away the gingerbread house in the interest of getting a good headline.)


Image for post
Image for post

In my opinion, a high-information electorate is one where the vast majority of voters can answer 5-of-7 questions from the Pew Research Civics Quiz.

What’s the benefit of a high-information electorate?

A voter is the boss of his public servants.

How effective would an institution be if a boss hired his employees based on how they looked or sounded or made him feel or what their favorite color was or where they stood on a single issue (Free lunch must always be provided!)?

Imagine if the boss wasn’t even sure what his employees do?! …


Image for post
Image for post
Rambo in Action | Edited by Author

Where Are the Idealists?

In my opinion, the United States of America shouldn’t go to war (economically, digitally, or militarily) just to save people from oppression. I think there needs to be additional parameters, such as America being attacked first.

But nonetheless, I wonder… where are the idealists? Where are the people who say, “We are all human,” “I want to make the world a better place!” If that’s your philosophy and objective then why aren’t you supportive of fighting to protect human rights — regardless of nationality?

There’s a justifiable distrust of our military-industrial complex, but that doesn’t mean our might hasn’t and can’t be used for good. Where are the idealists who say, “Never again!” in reference to today’s genocides — Rohingya in Myanmar, Nuer in South Sudan, Yazidis in Syria, Christians in the Central African Republic, Darfuris in Sudan, Uyghur in China? …


Image for post
Image for post
Photo by Patrick Ruffini | Photoshopped by Author

Politics used to be boring. When we listen to our former presidents their words were more measured and their message more centrist in its attempt to try and appeal to the left and the right. There was a decorum that came with being president because one misplaced word or incorrect syllable (“Nuculur”) or ill-advised banner (“MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”) could distract from their agenda indefinitely.

One of the most important powers of a president is his ability to frame the narrative. Pick a popular issue. Use the bully pulpit to focus the media’s attention on it. If the president, however, has ADHD then it will be virtually impossible to build consensus on any issue because the president would have already moved on to creating the next headline. Entertaining? Perhaps. Effective? …


It’s a well-known secret that Republicans generally want to suppress turnout (let’s force people to wait 2 hours to vote) while Democrats generally want to boost it (Twerk the vote!).

Image for post
Image for post
Woman twerking to the polls in order to raise voting awareness. ‘Merica!

(Woman twerking to the polls in order to raise voting awareness. ‘Merica!)

This isn’t because one party is evil and the other is angelic. They’re both acting in their perceived self-interest. There are also countless cases where Democrats suppress turnout by closing poll places in Republican strongholds while Republicans boost turnout by sending buses to pick up seniors from nursing homes. Call your Grandma! But historically Republicans have won more during low-turnout elections and Democrats have won more during high-turnout elections hence their overall difference in approaching turnout. …


Image for post
Image for post
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution | Photo by Newseum

Free speech is essential to democracy. As Ruth Bader’s Ginsburg said, “The right to speak my mind out, that’s America!” Her frenemy Anton Scalia agreed, “If you had to pick one freedom that is the most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech.”

We must protect each other’s right to call the other fat, stupid, and lazy, but globalization could strip us of this fundamental right because free speech threatened anywhere is threatened everywhere. This is because corporations are competing with each other to make money. For example, if Apple can make their smartphones in China for 50% less money and then more importantly sell those smartphones to China’s massive consumer market without having to pay a tariff then what choice will Google have but to relocate there too in order to stay price competitive with Apple? This gives enormous power to the Chinese government. …


We had the largest turnout in American history — 145 million votes — Donald J. Trump got more votes than any presidential candidate in history, except for Joe Biden. This election broke another record by being the most negative since the American Civil War where red states got redder and blue states got bluer.

So did this polarization lead to the higher turnout?

TIME columnist Olivia B. Waxman and USA Today columnist Michael P. McDonald think so, but political scientists Shanto Iyengar of Stanford and Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard have long believed negative ads, “shrink and polarize the electorate.” Political science schools such as the one I graduated from argue that when campaigns “go negative” it’s more about reducing turnout for your opponent than increasing turnout for yourself. The bottom line is it’s hard to explain away such a massive uptick in turnout to America’s ongoing trend of greater political polarization. There was also a higher turnout in 2008 vs. …

About

Anthony Galli

socio-political polemic and essayist | www.AnthonyGalli.com

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store