Harry Reid made an effort bring some measure of sense to American gun policy. Ron Johnson voted to defeat that effort.

We need to tell Ron Johnson that he isn’t speaking for the people of Wisconsin on this issue.

Some points to make

• There is no reason for the proliferation of weapons — handguns , assault weapons — that are designed to kill human beings.
• It is fundamentally immoral to have weapons that are designed to kill human beings.
• The American people want sensible gun control — the killers in San Bernadino bought their weapons legally.
• There is nothing unconstitutional about regulating firearms — why else did the framers include “well-regulated militia” in the second amendment?

Contact Ron Johnson here http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

I feel pretty comfortable drawing a straight line between the GOP and the terrible shooting at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs.

The GOP not only encourages   or at least makes common cause with   persons who view armed conflict as an acceptable form of social control in this country, but it has encouraged   or at least made common cause with   persons who characterize Planned Parenthood as an evil abortion mill.

Why should we be shocked that an armed, deranged person would stage a murderous attack on an organization that has been calumnized by the GOP and its fellow travelers.

This is not that last episode of this kind.

The response of the Republican presidential candidates to the horror in Paris is nothing less than capitulation.

The aim of the mad killers was to strike fear into the hearts of their targets. At least within the GOP, they seem to have achieved their aim.

The ludicrous bill passed by the the GOP-controlled House of Representatives (thank you, Paul Ryan), and the equally ludicrous proposals by Rubio, Bush, and the rest, seem to be the products of minds so blinded by fear as to be incapable of strategic thought.

One can’t be certain whether these people believe in their proposals, or are simply trying to stir up enthusiasm in their supporters, but either way, it’s a sorry spectacle to see in a country that considers itself the greatest democracy in the world.

There is much to disdain about Scott Walker’s politics and policy — well, his policy is all about politics — but I think it’s worth considering the foundation of his political thought as a correctve to both his political futures and the dismal trajectory of the country since modern conservatism has established itself.

This means a critique of Reaganism.

There can be little doubt that Walker conceives himself as a successor of Reagan, and indeed his program seems to echo Reagan’s presidency. Consider Act 10 as a repeat of the Air Traffic Controller strike. Consider Reagan’s disastrous tax cuts as a model for Walker’s damaging tax policies.

Now consider the “revolution” begun by Reagan as the beginning of the decline of America’s middle class.

I suspect that Reagan, for all his seriously poor policy ideas, was not as cynical or deceitful as Walker. But there can be little doubt that he made many people comfortable with  those poor ideas. To make those ideas uncomfortable again is a key to delivering a body blow to Walker’s political ambitions.

It’s wicked,but I had to share

“We are now facing a cut that will absolutely savage the infrastructure and quality of teaching and research to this university,” said John Sharpless, a Republican who is a history professor at the Madison campus. “What would be a shame for us in Wisconsin is if Scott leaves a wake of damage here on his way to the presidency.”

It would seem that Prof. Sharpless is a historian of ancient times. If he’d been paying attention to recent history, he’d know that Scott Walker always leaves a wake of damage.

We’re all familiar with the expression, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

It seems that Wisconsin’s government is controlled by people who have such ideological disdain for any public institutions that their approach is, “If it ain’t broke, break it.”

K-12 education? Break it.

Fair electoral system? Break it.

Supreme Court? Break it.

Wisconsin Retirement System? Break it. (You heard it here first.)

You couldn’t imagine a better example of this “philosophy” than the unprecedented damage Scott Walker proposes to inflict on the University of Wisconsin System.

We’re talking about an institution that is admired around the world. Obviously, much of the admiration is directed at the oldest campus, Madison, but the entire system offers first-class  — and often world-class — education to Wisconsin citizens at some of the lowest costs available in the nation.

This is an institution that doesn’t need repair.

Aside from ideological disdain for public institutions, there are two other reasons for this proposal:

1. Tax cuts and refusals to take federal funds have combined to create a massive deficit, in large part because the tax cuts were a double-whammy: They directly reduced revenue to the state, and rather than enhancing the economy, they created anti-stimulus, dampening economic activity and further reducing revenues. Republican fiscal policy has ill served this state’s economy.
2. Scott Walker can’t take responsible action to fix the deficit, because responsible solutions aren’t part of the extreme right-wing ideology on which he hopes to float his presidential aspirations.

Speaking of those aspirations, it’s clear that Walker is ready to sacrifice one of this state’s greatest legacies for the sake of his personal ambition. So yes, there are potential benefits to this proposal, but they are for Scott Walker, who wants to leave this state, not improve it.

Scott Walker’s proposal was not formulated to benefit the State of Wisconsin or its truly great public university system. It is designed to win the support of people who imagine that any public activity is a threat to their private interests — especially if it’s successful.

People who believe “if it ain’t broke, break it.”

In today’s Journal Sentinel, Christian Schneider claimed that “liberals can’t fathom the idea that Walker could be a national candidate.”

I’m afraid Schneider is projecting his shallowness. We may have high principals and ideals but we’re not delusional.

• Liberals have seen the election and re-election of a president who initiated the decline of the American middle class, Ronald Reagan
• Liberals have seen the election and re-election of a president who made Americans culpable for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and who made us a nation of torturers, George W. Bush.

Other Americans saw this too, but perhaps haven’t yet appreciated  the enormity of those elections. But those of us who have, realize that a Walker presidency would mean further degradation of the principals of justice and fairness that had made the United States a beacon to the world.

So, we liberals don’t find the notion of a President Scott Walker unfathomable.

We find it appalling.

I’ve said this before in a different context, but while I’m very happy for the couples who can marry because of the Supreme Court’s refusal to overrule the lower court in the matter of the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans, I remain disappointed that the people of Wisconsin haven’t spoken up for themselves in this matter.

I hope someday soon that’s rectified.

Uppity Wisconsin said it well yesterday, but they kind of buried it:

Walker, like so many — “conservatives” doesn’t seem to quite cover it — have been amazingly successful at tearing down their opponents with attacks designed to turn the opponents strengths into weaknesses.

The classic case is the “Swift-Boating” of John Kerry by people in service to an administration of draft dodgers.

Now we have Walker attacking Mary Burke by vilifying Trek for not paying income tax and for outsourcing.

While presumably this is something he’d applaud in other businesses, Walker needs to attack Mary Burke’s obvious strengths of competency and business acumen.

It was refreshing to see the normally supine Milwaukee Journal Sentinel give considerable space to a clarification of Burke’s and Trek’s record. Sadly he hasn’t received a “pants-on-fire” rating.

I don’t have an obvious answer to this stratagem, and I suppose if it were obvious, the body politic would have been inoculated against it some time ago.

But we’d all to well to anticipate its use against any progressive candidate we support. The key thing is that it is hard to imagine a bald-faced lie about our candidates’ strengths, but, given the current state of political reportage in this state and country, it’s likely to happen, and the lie told gets more attention an has a bigger impression that the refutation. We need to train ourselves to imagine what we are

“Eric Cantor represents large corporations who want a never-ending supply of cheap, low-wage foreign labor,” Dave Brat said in his stump speech.

So, we’ve witnessed this political season’s shocker. What can we learn?

For me, Brat’s statement above — and his shocking victory over Eric Cantor — suggests an opportunity, though one that’s admittedly tricky to exploit.

It’s been my belief for some time that the dominant sentiment in the Tea Party is repressed economic anxiety. Of course, there’s economic anxiety all around. But on the right, it often finds expression in ways progressives rightfully find repugnant: anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-women’s rights — or crazy gun rights advocacy. But I contend this is the result of deft misdirection by the GOP, which now has found it’s got a tiger by the tail.

But Brat’s attack on “large corporations” also suggests a hope of finding common cause with many Tea Party adherents — if they can only be made to see that taxes, gays,  women, and black presidents aren’t their problem — their problem is the overwhelming economic and political power of the 0.1%.

We need to bear this in mind when confronted by Tea Party “hate.” It’s not hate, it’s really fear –  fear that we share, frankly. The better we get at turning the conversation in that direction, the more successful we progressives will be.

For more, read Ryan Lizza’s excellent piece on Brat in the New Yorker.

Just in time for those family gatherings, here are a couple of sources of info to have in your quiver should the conversation turn to politics:

• How to talk to your Republican uncle
• 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican

Happy Thanksgiving!