David Brooks, conservative pundit at the New York Times, captures the essential point when it comes to the nastiest issue swirling around Donald Trump, the use and practice of “white identity politics” by politicians on the right:

White identity politics as it plays out in the political arena is completely noxious. Trump … established his political identity through birtherism, he won the Republican nomination on the Muslim ban, he campaigned on the Mexican wall, he governed by being neutral on Charlottesville and pardoning the racialist Joe Arpaio. Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead.

Hold that in your mind, particularly the part about “completely noxious” – coming from a principled conservative yet – along with the part about “each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not.” And then read the unambiguous welcome GOP Senator Roy Blunt has extended to Donald Trump on the occasion of his visit to Missouri:

“I’m glad that President Trump will be in my hometown of Springfield to highlight the economic benefits that tax reductions and other pro-growth policies will have for Missouri families, farmers, and small businesses,” Blunt said. “The president and the Senate have taken important steps to roll back burdensome regulations and create a stronger foundation for economic growth. I look forward to continuing that effort by pursuing changes in our tax code that will increase U.S. competitiveness, boost wages, and expand opportunity for Americans.”

But Republican Trump Blunt wasn’t alone. Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill issued a statement “welcoming” Trump to Missouri and signaled that she is also more than willing to chill with a Putin-loving demagogue, whose true metier is spewing racist “garbage” intended to rile up an angry white base, as long as Missouri “moderates” will applaud her good manners – no matter how badly he disses her in the process.

Here’s what she had to say during her recent tour of the state when asked about an effort to censure Trump’s Charlottesville circus-of-the-damned performance:

“Listen, I’m disappointed and discouraged and worried about some of the things that president has said and the tone he’s taken on some issues. But my job out there is not to fight the president. My job is to fight for you,” McCaskill told the crowd about 100 gathered at the American Legion post. “My job is to work as hard as I can representing Missouri families and doing the things that I think will make a difference in your lives. I’m going to stay focused on that.”

Who’da thunk it. McCaskill and Blunt, siblings in political pragmatism. Or should that be cynicism. These responses amply illustrate the point David Brooks was trying to make about he dilemma facing Republicans – except in Missouri it seems to pose a problem for Democrats as well. It has to do with facing up to the fact that “fighting” the president is just exactly what is called for in order to fight for the full range of ones constituents, not just the white, old and angry segment.

What we got from Blunt is what we expected. Slick twaddle over a layer of corruption. So big whoop.

But what we got from McCaskill? A failed balancing act … so thumbs down. But only because we care.

I understand the need to keep the eye on the prize. The little one that comes after the next election, not the big one that has to do with the long-term survival of American democracy. I get the part about focusing political energies on the possible – and non-controversial – good one can actually do. But even from that point of view, would it have really hurt McCaskill too much to just have kept her mouth shut. Did she have to make with the cheery official welcome extended to a de trop sleaze-bag intent on destroying American political and civil norms?

*2nd and 3rd from last paragraph slightly edited; text added (5:51 pm. 8/29).

Yesterday, Senator Roy Blunt (R) joined the ranks of Republican luminaries who will support the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Of course, “support” in the case of Trump doesn’t alway mean “endorse”; there are many GOP pols , most notably New Hampshire’s Senator Kelly Ayote (R), who are trying to have their cake and eat it too by supporting Trump, but not endorsing him, whatever that means when it comes to what counts. And the brief twitter statement from Blunt fails to make it clear at this time if Blunt is willing to “go all the way” with Trump.

That said, Blunt is very good at looking out for Blunt. It’s likely, as St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger, points out today, that Blunt has decided, given the unexpectedly strong challenge he is facing from Secretary of State Jason Kander (D), that he will do better by hitching his wagon to Trump and his angry and fired-up base. Trump, Messenger argues, could do well in Missouri and Blunt seems to want at least one hand on his potential coattails – while keeping the other hand free, if he needs to cut himself loose.

Blunt may be on to something. One can certainly argue that Trump’s appeal to his supporters is based on his overt appeals to racism along with his embrace of the conservative authoritarian tradition that likes to see individuals, ethnic groups, or nations that are perceived as threats forcibly and firmly put down by a Big Daddy enforcer – which means that there are significant numbers of Missourians who will find Trump simpatico when they ender the voting booth.

Why do I think heavy-handed racism will appeal to Missourians? Apart from events like Ferguson and its aftermath, there’s lots of evidence that racial resentment plays a big role in Missouri’s political life. Daniel Marans and Mariah Stewart wrote in the Huffington Post that, “Missouri’s status as a border state between the North and South makes it one of the country’s most fertile breeding grounds for racial strife. The state suffers from some of the worst racial pathologies of both regions.” An 2014 article in Salon observed that:

For decades, Missouri has spawned or attracted many of the nation’s most virulent racists, including neo-Nazis and the remnants of the once-powerful Ku Klux Klan. Associated with violent criminality and crackpot religious extremism, these fringe groups could never wield much influence in the post-civil rights era. Beyond those marginalized outfits, however, exists another white supremacist group whose leaders have long enjoyed the patronage of right-wing Republican politicians.

The Council of Conservative Citizens, headquartered in St. Louis, is a living legacy of Southern “white resistance” to desegregation, with historical roots in the so-called citizens councils that sprang up during the 1950s as a “respectable” adjunct to the Klan. Its website currently proclaims that the CCC is “the only serious nationwide activist group that sticks up for white rights!” What that means, more specifically, is promoting hatred of blacks, Jews, gays and lesbians, and Latino immigrants while extolling the virtues of the “Southern way of life,” the Confederacy and even slavery.

The group’s website goes on to brag that the CCC is the only group promoting “white rights” whose meetings regularly feature “numerous elected officials, important authors, talk-show hosts, active pastors, and other important people” as speakers.

The “elected officials” that the CCC boasts about have included prominent officials like former Senator John Ashcroft (R), who, it’s implied, in common with other Missouri officials, tried to keep his association with the group on the down-low. What about Blunt? The guy’s discreet; we’ll probably never know if he played or plays footsie with CCC types.

It’s certainly true, however, that Blunt has been willing to flirt with bigots. Remember his joke comparing the Obama administration to monkeys? Now it seems that he’s willing to “support” a presidential candidate who’s been endorsed by David Duke and is a favorite of white supremacists nationwide – and, as the public record attests, for very good reason. Shaun King recently asserted that, “if you support Donald Trump, after all he has said and done to offend virtually every ethnic group in America, after he has been blatantly gross and bigoted and inhumane, then you are a bigot as well.

How about it Roy?

In the wake of the vigorous calls to finally repudiate the Southern “Stars and Bars” Battle Flag after a Confederate flag-waving racist brutally murdered nine African-Americans in order to spark a race war, some members of the House of Representatives believed that it was important for our lawmakers to take a stand on the propriety of its public display in the House:

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., introduced a privileged resolution banning the Confederate flag from the House and House office buildings, unless it is displayed at a member’s office. The goal of his resolution is to remove the Mississippi state flag from the Capitol, which displays the Confederate battle flag in its upper left corner.

“I’m convinced that an effort to remove this flag from the hallowed halls of the House of Representatives is the right thing to do,” Thompson said on the floor.

Unfortunately, his fellow Republicans, including the GOP members of the Missouri delegation, preferred to equivocate:

Due to the nature of Thompson’s resolution, the House would have been forced to vote on the divisive issue, but on Thursday GOP leadership moved to send the resolution to committee, avoiding a floor vote for now.

The House voted along party lines, 240-184, to refer the resolution to the House Administration Committee. Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., was the only Republican to vote not to send the resolution to committee.

While this strategy on the part of Republicans may have seemed like a clever way to avoid committing on a politically fraught issue, the stark nature of the division in the voting – Republicans against Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus – nevertheless provided, as Roll Call suggested the vote might, the defacto “first opportunity in recent history to get members of Congress to record their stances on Confederate imagery’s place on government property.”

With this vote, Missouri’s Republican House delegation made it clear that they, along with the rest of their GOP tribe, just want the whole issue to go away. On the one hand, it seems that the Confederate Flag is losing whatever respectability it ever had and to defend it might invite public shaming. On the other, to repudiate it openly would be to offend many of the diehards who whole-heartedly support the real meaning of the flag – and I don’t mean the mint julep that also figures in the so-called “Southern heritage” that defenders of the flag blather on about. These are the folks, after all, who make up the hardcore Republican base. Nothing like getting bitten on the backside by your own hitherto reliable Southern strategy.

This impression is backed up by the deep silence to date from the Republican Missouri delegation on the question of the Confederate flag. Visit our GOPers Web pages. You’ll find no mention of the vote, no mention of the flag controversy. Google their names in conjunction with confederate flag. Nada.

Maybe its early yet, but I’m willing to bet that the Missouri GOP reps won’t say a thing unless some interviewer puts them on the spot – and then we’ll hear about “states rights” – Mississippi gets to decide about its flag, not Congress, right? – or more of the specious drivel about the flag meaning different things to different people, and we must respect all points of view, correct? And then, of course, there’s always history. Like history’s going to go away if we don’t enshrine its bad actors (and actions) in our public places. Like it isn’t especially important that we call out those who seek to whitewash those bad actors.

The flag’s meaning has always been clear. And it’s always been shameful. It’s about the 12.5 million Africans kidnapped out of Africa and sent to the United States (minus the nearly 2 million who died or were murdered en route). It’s about their descendants born into forced servitude. It’s about an entire economy that depended on this horror to survive and the fat-cat perpetrators of that system who started a treasonous, deadly war to preserve a way of life that depended on economic hegemony over an entire race. Lest you doubt:

In Germany, the censorship of Nazi symbols is still a matter of debate — with many wrestling over the dual necessity of preserving liberal freedoms while also recognizing the evils of the Third Reich. Far-right and even neo-Nazi groups exist and organize in the country, but raising the Nazi swastika is a red line that no one can cross.

Instead, at times, some European fringe groups have come up with another symbol to represent their hateful creed: the Confederate flag.

Sooner or later, our Missouri Republicans will have to take a stand. Will it be with the white backlash inspired by the election of the first black president? Or will they recognize the backlash inspired by the excesses of racists emboldened by their very own recent rhetoric? It’s a no-win situation; in the words of the song:

Mr. Backlash, Mr. Backlash

Just what do you think I got to lose

I`m gonna leave you

With the backlash blues

You`re the one will have the blues

Not me, just wait and see

         From Blacklash Blues (Nina Simone)

By now most Missourians who are even remotely tuned into state politics have heard that Lt. Governor Peter Kinder was contending that his $86,000 salary was not enough to stave off penury. His proposed solution: a per diem allowance of $103 for each day he spends in Jefferson city doing – wait for it – essentially nothing. But, hey, who can blame him? His cohorts in the legislature not only get that exact per diem allowance, but make out like bandits with gobs of lobbyist swag that likely doesn’t come his way that often.  

Unfortunately for Kinder’s endangered quality of life, it seems his peers in the legislature either didn’t take his situation seriously or were unwilling to risk the ire of constituents who are managing to eke out a living on considerably less than $86,000.  There’ll be no per diem for Lt. Governor Kinder. As a consequence, I surmise that he might be in a bad mood. He’s facing abject poverty, after all.

And bad mood might be the only way to explain his latest news-making move. The Lt. Governor has decided to weigh in on the topic of racism and the Ferguson uproar. And what he had to say either demonstrates the type of displaced anger that leaves one making ill-considered remarks that one regrets later when emotional and mental equilibrium are restored, or it’s just racist, dim-witted dribble. Judge for yourself:

The lieutenant governor of Missouri says “there is more racism in the Justice Department” than in the St. Louis area, pointing the finger at President Obama and the Justice Department who, he says, often incited “the mob” in the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown back in August of 2014.

“The whole blow up of this protest movement was based on the lie that never happened of ‘hands up don’t shoot,'” Peter Kinder, the Lt. governor told NewsMaxTV’s Steve Malzberg Show Monday. “But it’s bad enough the protestors were behaving that way but we have a right to expect more from the attorney general, the head of the Justice Department of the United States, and the president of the United States. And instead what we got too often from them was incitement of the mob, and, uh, encouraging disorder in Ferguson and distributing the peaceable going-about of our lives in the greater St. Louis region.”

Kinder added President Obama and Eric Holder “took one side” following the death of Michael Brown. Asked why, he said the Justice Department was “staffed with radical, hard-left radical, leftists lawyers.”

He called the Justice Department under Holder, “not like any Justice Department in American history” and “Eric Holder is unlike any previous attorney general.”

“Many of them have spent most of their careers defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals,” he added. “

So the entire “blow up” was the result of a “lie”? Evidently, Kinder didn’t read or lacks the capacity to process the Department of Justice (DoJ) report on Ferguson policing and justice systems. Nor does he seem to understand what a mere spark can do to a field that’s ready to burn. But, just as the mayor of Ferguson claimed that the thorough DoJ investigative report doesn’t constitute “proof” of racial misbehavior, Kinder thinks that we can disregard the well-substantiated facts recounted in the report because “Eric Holder is “unlike any previous attorney general” – which is to say, he’s black and, hence, ipso facto, in cahoots with radicals whose legal careers have been limited to “defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals.”

Is this resentment feeding on resentment? A sad, resentful man appealing in turn to the white resentment that fuels so much of the right wing? Do you think maybe Kinder wants a little appreciation from the types who think that the state of race relations leans a little too much toward those damned “takers.” Do you think he might be trying to erase the memory of the ridicule he excited the last time he stuck his head up into the light and demanded poverty relief?

I wonder, though, do you think that if people had to supply supporting evidence for such absurd claims before anyone would report on it, they’d think twice about what they had to say? What is the correct label for someone who puts ugly, unsubstantiated libels into the public record? And fails to take it back, apologise, explain that he was in a funk, had a headache, whatever, when he’s called on it (not too stringently, admittedly) by the media?

I recollect the efforts of St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Tony Messenger to avoid, in his own words, contributing to “this state’s political problems, rather than elevating the discourse” after the dust-up about hateful political rhetoric that occurred in the wake of Tom Schweich’s recent suicide. Specifically, he apologised for calling a State Senator Kurt Schaeffer a fool when, he said, it would have sufficed to point out that one of Schaeffer’s legislative efforts was foolish. His mea culpa, no matter how admirable, bothered me – I hope to have more to say about it in the future – because if discourse is to be elevated, all the participants have to agree about the height of the plane on which they are going to get together and discuss. Otherwise, those who insist on going alone to the most elevated level will have nothing do do except shout into the wind.

Peter Kinder has revealed himself as one of those people who experience uncontrollable vertigo when confronted with the ladder that leads to that higher space. They confuse ideological labels with facts, the expedient with the good, their own good with that of everyone. Such people can do lots of harm – and are doing so daily in the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress and statehouses across the country. Such behavior is demonstrably foolish. And we call those who act foolishly fools, among other things. The correct label for Peter Kinder is fool, among other things. No apology will be offered.