Greenwald’s recent interview with Amy Goodman is well worth your time and attention: “It has become exceptionally important to Democratic partisans to believe that the reason they lost this election is not because they chose a candidate who was corrupt and who was extremely disliked and who symbolized all of the worst failings of the Democratic Party. It’s extremely important to them not to face what is really a systemic collapse on the part of the Democratic Party as a political force in the United States, in the House, in the Senate, in state houses and governorships all over the country. And so, in order not to face any of that and have to confront their own failings, they instead want to focus everything on Vladimir Putin and Russia and insist that the reason they lost was because this big, bad dictator interfered in the election.”
I guess no one should be surprised at the time and attention Clinton supporters are devoting to justifying themselves after November’s debacle but the result of nominating Clinton speaks for itself. Of course, there’s no way to prove a counterfactual, i.e. that Sanders would have beaten Trump if he’d gotten the nomination, but it’s important to note the obvious: Clinton lost in precisely the way that Sanders supporters predicted she would. Given that Sanders’ supporters provided a far more accurate analysis of the electoral landscape in 2016 than Clinton’s supporters did, it seems clear to me whose advice the Democratic Party ought to be heeding in 2017… and whose advice it ought to ignore.
Matthew Yglesias over at Vox offers his analysis of the contest for Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee and I think he gets it exactly right. Keith Ellison’s candidacy for this post is simply too important an opportunity for the Democratic Party to miss. The entire piece is worth reading but the nut graf is here:
Signaling to supporters of Bernie Sanders that they have an ownership stake in the party while reassuring the party’s core African-American supporters that they aren’t being ditched in the post-Obama era is solid step toward unity.
I weighed in on the race for the DNC Chair a few days after the election (I support Ellison) and subsequent events haven’t caused me to change my mind. But I’ve got to say that the whole Perez candidacy strikes me as a bit bizarre. Sure, he doesn’t seem like a bad guy and, from a policy standpoint, there’s not much to argue with when you review his stated positions.
But it’s worth asking: What’s the raison d’etre for this candidacy? When Perez got into the race, Ellison had already secured the endorsements of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) — two large unions that had endorsed Clinton in the primaries. He was emerging as a unity candidate behind who both faction of the party could unite.
Since Perez doesn’t seem to disagree with Ellison about all that much, what is the point of his getting into the race? Many people (myself included) believe that Perez’ candidacy is based solely on a desire of the DNC’s old guard to deny leadership to anyone who supported Sanders in the primaries. (This analysis of the race by Jeff Stein is worth reading in its entirety. It details the kinds of ugly tactics that don’t deserve to ever be rewarded in a party that purports to take the high road.)
If that’s the case then I hope the DNC is prepared for the inevitable backlash from the party’s most committed activists. That kind of political vindictiveness against Sanders supporters would be a horrible mistake and would represent a grievous unforced error in the battle for the country’s future.
Isn’t it clear that the folks who blew the race against Donald Trump have forfeited the mantle of leadership? Their brand of politics offers no value for progressives in 2018 or 2020.
Steve Jobs famously believed that everything in life could be described by either a Beatles song or a Bob Dylan song. As it turns out, our most recent Nobel Laureate described the Ellison/Perez race pretty well in 1964 when he wrote:
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
Cause the times they are a-changing
A little more than a week after the election, I weighed in with five predictions about what will happen as the new regime settles in after the inauguration. As it turns out, the Trump transition has already validated two of my predictions and there’s still almost a month before the winner of the election loser of the popular vote even takes office.
Prediction #1: I wrote that “After eight years of bleating and braying about the outrageous, unsustainable deficits that Barack Obama ran up (mostly paying for George W. Bush’s recession), Republicans will have an epiphany and realize that deficits really aren’t all that important, especially when they result from tax cuts.” According to Talking Points Memo, the House Freedom Caucus is already laying the groundwork for the new, improved GOP position on fiscal austerity. Check.
Prediction #2: I also wrote that “unattributed stories will make their way around right-wing media that the Obama team sabotaged the incoming Trump staffers through various nefarious means.” Well, the disinformation campaign is bypassing right-wing media altogether (popping up instead in The Washington Post) and the source is not exactly unattributed, but otherwise the whining has already begun. Check.
The 2016 election was wildly unpredictable but the pettiness and cynicism of the incoming Trump administration is something you could have seen coming from a mile away.
So, let me add one more prediction: The next four years are going to be far, far worse than most people imagine right now. We’ve flirted before with leaders who were unprincipled, unprepared, or otherwise unsuited for the office… and we’ve mostly gotten away with it. This time, however, I’m afraid we really screwed the pooch.
Since the election, I’ve been consuming a lot of history. It’s oddly comforting to realize that the issues we’re wrestling with in 2016 are the same ones they were wrestling with a hundred years ago. The cast of characters continually changes but the ideological battle lines have remained substantially the same. There is an ebb and flow that plays out over generations and each one of us can only do his or her part and then pass the baton. (If you don’t believe me, check out Doris Kearns Goodwin’s The Bully Pulpit or Oliver Stone’s outstanding The Untold History of the United States which is currently available on Netflix.)
It seems to me, though, that the real issues we need to confront are not political or ideological. The conversation we really need to have is about values: What values do we embrace and how do we manifest those values in the world? If we get that conversation right, the politics and policies will (theoretically) happen much more easily. But, for the most part, we never seem to have that conversation. Our failure to do so explains why progress in other areas is so difficult to achieve or maintain.
To make the nature of the problem a little clearer, here are a couple of articles that crossed my desktop recently. The first is George Monbiot’s takedown of celebrity culture, “Celebrity isn’t just harmless fun – it’s the smiling face of the corporate machine.” The title says it all. As a culture, we’re awash in various flavors of Kim Kardashian. That doesn’t happen by accident and it’s important to understand how we got here. (Along the same lines, there’s an old question that’s well worth asking: “Cui bono?”)
The second one is an exploration of The Frankfurt School, a collection of philosophers, cultural critics, and sociologists that coalesced in 1938. They believed that mass culture, in all its forms, was a prop for totalitarian capitalism. The ideas were challenging and controversial but they fell out of favor during the generations long somnambulance that followed World War II. The ascendance of Donald Trump, however, has given them a whole new credence and relevance. (Believe me, this is more interesting reading than I make it sound.)
These articles do not, by themselves, represent the conversation about values that we so desperately need to have. They go a long way, though, towards explaining why we never seem to have it. I’d be interesting in hearing what you think.
I’ve written before about the perfect storm of factors that combined to create the result of this year’s presidential election but the ones I cited were mostly political and procedural. Here’s an outstanding analysis by Dr. Michael Bader, a psychologist and psychoanalyst in San Francisco with over 30 years of experience, that emphasizes the cultural/psychological factors that were involved. Specifically, Bader cites the long-term, ongoing decline in empathy in our society.
I strongly recommend reading the whole thing, especially if you’re a progressive (or even a Democrat). In the meantime, though, here’s a pull quote that I hope will pique your curiosity:
The failure of our institutions to empathize with the plight of the middle and working classes, to recognize their sacrifice and reward their hard work is traumatic. It is the same type of trauma that children experience when their caretakers are preoccupied or rejecting. The trauma erodes trust. It overwhelms systems that people have developed to deal with stress and creates psychological suffering and illness.
The future of the progressive movement lies in understanding and unequivocally embracing the fight of the working class, not as an electoral strategy but as a pillar of the values that drive us. Otherwise, the people who’d most benefit from progressive policies will find no reason to reject corporatism that masquerades as opportunity or bigotry that pretends to be populism. Our most destructive deficit isn’t in our budget. It’s the empathy deficit that makes us ripe targets for a cynical carnival barker like Donald Trump.
In case you haven’t heard about Donate Bigly, it’s a portal that’s crafted the best possible response to the incoming Trump administration. While it will take time for the political opposition to Trump to coalesce, the societal and cultural opposition can begin immediately.
I’m reconsidering my last post. I’ll write more later (I’m in a motel room in North Carolina at a family funeral at the moment) but, in the meantime, here’s a short essay by Robert Reich that really lays the relevant issues out quite clearly. (And, if you’re in the mood, a bonus read from The Guardian: Not the new normal.)
I’ve enjoyed producing this blog but it’s clear that I’ve not been successful in attracting readers. I’ve decided, then, to shut this blog down before the end of the year. For everyone who’s taken a look over the years, I appreciate your interest.