Despite Boris Johnson’s best efforts, his Conservative Party won in a landslide in the recent 2019 United Kingdom general election.
I say this because while Johnson is the bumbling incumbent prime minister whose role in advocating for Brexit on false pretenses is widely known at this point and while his government has yet to “get Brexit done,” this latest vote seemed to be more of a referendum on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn than anything.
Corbyn, assailed by critics on the left and right in the lead-up to this election, evidently could not shake the lack of public faith he and his party have engendered. Many Labour supporters would be quick (and perhaps justified) to point to British media’s vilification of Corbyn, not to mention the notion Johnson is a con man.
Still, the accusations of anti-Semitism dogging Corbyn’s party and his perceived inability or willingness to deal with them, as well as admonishment of Labour’s middling and muddied stance on Brexit, appear to have been too much for Labour to overcome. Corbyn will reportedly step down in the spring when his successor as party leader will be chosen. PM Johnson, meanwhile, has an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons by which to carry out his vision for Brexit. Whatever that is. Because he totally has a plan that will not meet any pushback from the EU. Right.
With this result now in the books, most of America’s attention now turns back to the impending 2020 election and the clusterf**k the campaign has already been. Of course, with the Conservative Party’s drubbing of Labour fresh in our minds, it’s no wonder U.S. media has already taken to making the connection between the socialist Corbyn’s defeat and a potential loss for leftists next November.
It’s not just journos and “contributors” either. Both Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg have taken the UK general election results as a “catastrophic warning” for Democrats not to move too far to the left. Donald Trump, the Boris Johnson of the USA, meanwhile, has professed he believes the outcome is a “harbinger” for things to come in the States. These sentiments coming from the president are no surprise. Although the use of the word “harbinger” is, quite frankly. Did he look that up before he said it? Or did he have an aide feed it to him before he spoke to reporters? I have questions. Many, many questions.
Trump’s limited vocabulary aside, it’s alarming to see how quickly candidates and pundits alike are jumping on the “Labour lost and so will the left” narrative. To be fair, it is a compelling one following the events of 2016. The Leave campaign’s narrow victory in the Brexit referendum presaged Trump’s slender electoral win over Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election. Conservative and far-right candidates have been winning elections across the globe in the past few years too, whether it be Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil or Viktor Orbán in Hungary or any number of figures with a voice at the national level of the countries from which they hail.
So, if someone like Bernie Sanders were to lead the Democratic Party ticket, this would all but hand the presidency to Trump, right? Not necessarily. Christo Aivalis, Canadian historian, media commentator, and writer, in acknowledging the pain of Labour’s loss in the UK general election, highlighted several reasons why Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are not perfect analogs in a video essay titled “Don’t let Neoliberals use Jeremy Corbyn’s Defeat as an Attack on Bernie Sanders.”
In the essay, Aivalis highlights three salient points as to why Sanders is no Corbyn, despite Sanders being Corbyn’s closest spiritual comparison, so to speak, in the U.S. presidential race:
Brexit: Quite simply, there is no overarching issue facing the United States with the magnitude of a Brexit as it is with the United Kingdom. This is not to say America doesn’t have its issues—far from it actually—nor is it to suggest there aren’t legitimate points of worry on a global scale (cough, climate crisis, cough). Even so, there is no analogous central subject that binds American voters as it does their UK counterparts. Britain’s very economic future is tied to what kind of Brexit is negotiated and its subsequent ability to reach a new deal with the European Union, if possible.
With this in mind, even as the impeachment process unfolds, there is nothing quite like Brexit in the U.S. to fundamentally disrupt the workings of the left-right paradigm. To quote Aivalis, “Trying to graft the lessons from the British election onto the United States with Brexit alone already makes that whole idea suspect.”
Popularity: As much as leftists outside of the UK might revere Corbyn or at least understand how Corbyn’s positions are better for his country’s denizens, the man and his party have seen their popularity wane of late in part due to their positions on Brexit and charges of anti-Semitism within the ranks. Corbyn in particular has met criticism for his seeming indifference on the latter in past remarks, in addition to newer repeated denials which some leftists see as giving too much credit to a smear campaign designed to paint his anti-Zionist attitudes as anti-Semitic.
By contrast, Americans really seem to “feel the Bern.” Sanders consistently rates among the most popular politicians in the United States. Since entering the mainstream with his bid in 2016, the independent running as a Democrat has appealed to Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans with his attention to taking on corporate greed and addressing widening income and wealth inequality.
Even without strict adherence to policy positions both domestic and foreign, though, and even with a chorus of detractors among hardline conservatives and neoliberals, Sanders’ esteem hasn’t plummeted to the near-toxic levels of Corbyn’s. Quoting Aivalis again, “Personal popularity isn’t everything; it’s not the only issue. But especially when you’re talking about running for president, their personal approval rating in the minds of people really does matter.
Polls: OK, I get it—polling in 2016 was a disaster. Experts and talking heads predicted a narrow win for Vote Remain in the Brexit referendum vote. That did not happen. In the U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton was the odds-on favorite to emerge triumphant in her showdown with Donald Trump. The opposite occurred. With pollsters apparently getting things so wrong, some voters began to cast aspersions on survey science altogether. You can’t trust the polls. You can’t trust politicians. Nothing is what it seems.
Except in 2019, Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party were expected to win and they did. It might not have been been forecast as quite the impressive showing that it turned out to be for the Tories, but the outright victors were correctly assessed. In advance of 2020, several polls indicate a handful of Democrats beating Trump head-to-head, with Bernie beating the incumbent pretty much across the board.
In Aivalis’s words once more, “While the polls were accurate in projecting a Labour defeat under Jeremy Corbyn, the polls thus far in the United States all seem to be pointing to a victory for Bernie Sanders and a rather large one at that…If you want a bold, left-wing choice, you can make that choice with Bernie Sanders in the United States and not have to worry about handicapping yourself electorally.”
Christo Aivalis only makes these few arguments in his defense of Bernie Sanders or someone who fits the bill of a progressive like Elizabeth Warren. For their brevity and simplicity, however, these three key points are more than sufficient.
Treating Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s defeat as a “harbinger” of doom for anyone in his mold overlooks the 800-pound gorilla of Brexit, a significant complication to traditional two-party politics. Corbyn was also deeply unpopular, a quality shared more by Donald Trump than someone like Sanders.
Furthermore, surveys of prospective American voters aren’t favorable for Trump. Prior to November 2016, Trump at least had the benefit of the doubt that people could not be certain of what he would do as president. Now that he’s had some three years under his belt, the cat’s out of the bag. Sure, history favors the incumbent. That said, Trump is no normal president and he might not be so lucky this time around.
All this can be argued in service of refuting a narrative that only a moderate can win a general election—and that’s before we even get to the recent instance of the moderate losing a general election to a man who had and may still not have no idea who Frederick Douglass is and who would have his supporters believe wind turbines cause cancer.
Unmoved by their disappointment in 2016, establishment Democrats are content to go back to the well in 2020 with another centrist, getting behind a candidate without much in the way of a platform and playing not to lose rather than to win. The safe approach is often a poor strategy in sports when in the midst of a close match, and in anticipation of another hotly-contested election, coming with anything less than a full effort is ill-advised.
The postmortem pile-up on Jeremy Corbyn is an understandable one, particularly for those critics who reject various policy stances of his amid perceived character flaws. As bad as the results from the UK general election were, though, there are appreciable differences to be had in the trip across the pond. What’s more, as ordinary Americans continue to feel the pinch from laboring within a system rigged against their interests, a true embrace of progressive politics will be essential to creating a more just society, and with that, a Democratic Party that lives up to its name.
“Too far left?” As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be keen to say, America’s progressives are bringing the party home. At the end of the day, embracing a leftist agenda might just be the country’s ticket to avoiding four more years of President Donald Trump.
Vaccines don’t cause autism and you should definitely vaccinate your kids.
Many of us would agree readily to all of the above. Ample evidence exists that glaciers are melting, the seas are rising and warming with the rest of the planet, and more and more animal species are facing extinction. The link between vaccines and autism is a spurious one, having been debunked numerous times over. The Earth is round because, well, it’s 2019 and we have technology that lets us see that sort of thing.
And yet, there are those people who would contest one or more of these statements. Flat Earthers, as the name implies, contend that the Earth is flat, citing visual evidence. Anti-vaxxers, often inspired by some Republicans/libertarians, insist that the government is wrong to mandate they vaccinate their children, making the issue a matter of personal freedoms. Climate change deniers dispute that global warming exists, argue against humans’ role in promoting deleterious climate change, and/or say that all this carbon dioxide we’re creating is actually a good thing because plants need it. Right.
It’s one thing, for instance, for Flat Earthers to more narrowly believe that our globe is not a globe and have it end then and there. The rest of us say one thing, they say another—to each his or her own. Sure, some (or most) of us might laugh at their expense, but we agree to disagree.
The problem arises when subscription to an alternative viewpoint potentially puts the non-subscribers among us at risk. Anti-vaxxers are wingnuts to be dismissed—that is, until areas start encountering outbreaks of measles, a disease said to be eliminated from the United States in 2000. Climate change deniers are all well and good—except for the notion the world is on fire and we need all hands on deck to prevent a climate catastrophe. And when even Flat Earthers move from a relatively innocuous refusal to accept that the world is round to the theory that tragedies like the Holocaust and the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting never happened, it would appear their healthy skepticism is anything but.
Such is why all of the above extreme stances existing in opposition to verifiable scientific evidence must be regarded seriously, even if some members of these various movements aren’t wholeheartedly committed or straightforward. Susceptibility to mis- and disinformation campaigns is a pressing matter, especially in the digital age. A few errant clicks and you may find yourself down the proverbial rabbit hole, led astray by some YouTuber with a cursory grasp of video production and a passion for pushing conspiracy theories. Or—who knows!—that red-blooded American you’ve been talking to online might not have your best interests in mind—and he or she might actually be half a world away at that.
As a point of emphasis, the growth of these factions is disconcerting. Though measles is on the rise in the U.S. after a historic low, it’s not all the fault of anti-vaccination rhetoric. Inadequate access to vaccinations for poorer Americans/families of color and imported measles cases from overseas are contributing factors, too. Nonetheless, the anti-vaxxer movement is gaining traction and, along with it, so is the risk that measles or any other highly contagious disease may spread. Climate change skepticism, even if it were to be standing pat, is an impediment to the kind of progress we need to be making on this issue. Simply put, staying still at a moment in which we need to be moving forward is effectively sending us backwards.
Making matters worse is the idea these movements are at the cusp of becoming mainstream if not already there. A handful of celebrities—some of them comparatively minor but even so (cough, B.o.B., cough)—have counted themselves at one point among those who doubt the sincerity of NASA and other scientific organizations for putting forth a round-Earth framework. Republican leaders like Kentucky governor Matt Bevin promote anti-vaccination talking points from their seats as elected officials. On the climate change front, meanwhile, there is perhaps no more prominent skeptic than the Denier-in-Chief himself, Donald Trump, who once famously referred to the observed effects of climate change as a “hoax.”
These aren’t just fringe campaigns. They possess real potential to influence large swaths of individuals, people who are our neighbors, parents of children at our schools, even family and friends. Like the diseases vaccines are developed to guard against, left unchecked, they have the ability to spread and do real damage. What’s more, addressing them in the wrong way could make holders of their core beliefs that much more resistant to change.
This begs the question: how do those of us who have accepted phenomena like the efficacy of vaccines, human beings’ part in contributing to climate change, and the very roundness of Planet Earth as fact have a conversation with those who don’t? How do we operate in an environment in which truth almost seems to be treated as merely a construct, a relativistic abstract concept independent of what we can test and infer? Despite the obvious perils accepting alternative theories presents, the evident uptick of pseudoscience peddlers is, in it of itself, alarming. As the great thinker (if only in his own mind) Ben Shapiro has said, facts don’t care about your feelings. Fine. Great. But when it’s my facts vs. your “facts,” we are at quite an impasse indeed.
Earlier, I noted how it’s easy these days, as a result of a few errant clicks, to find oneself in the company of a YouTuber who peddles nonsensical arguments and unsubstantiated conjecture to serve a particular narrative. On that note, I’m about to supplement my stances with content proffered by…a YouTuber. Wait, the climate-change-eschewin’, flat-Earth-believin’, no-vaccine-havin’ among you may say, you think your YouTubers are better than our YouTubers because they subscribe to the prevailing views of the scientific community and we don’t? My answer to this is, um, in a nutshell, yes. Yes, I do.
In a video essay on the Flat Earth ideology from December of last year, Harry Brewis, known by the handle “Hbomberguy,” argues that, despite how ludicrous some of us might find this position, its holders may not necessarily, ahem, flat out reject scientific principles. He explains in the waning moments of his 40-plus-minute production:
These people are attempting a form of science, and I think that’s what really gets to me about them—not simply that they’re pretending they’re scientists who’ve secretly found the truth. … People like Mark [Sargent] are right to want to question authorities on issues. They’re right to want to question everything they know about reality and the society they live in, and that’s because at the center of Flat Earth—not the North Pole, the actual center of the ideology—its core is a tiny, shining fragment of a systemic critique. It’s the beginning of trying to understand what’s wrong with our society and what to do about it.
… People seek these solutions because they perceive, on some level, a problem—and they’re right. Something is wrong with the world right now. The world is figuratively on fire. World leaders are asleep at the wheel. There’s nothing in place to prevent another massive financial crash which will destroy thousands if not millions of livelihoods. And ecologically speaking, on top of being, you know, figuratively on fire, the Earth is literally on fire. Wildfires are getting worse, temperatures are all over the place, ice is melting at an astounding rate. Even on a globe Earth, the edge is coming fast.
So I can’t blame anyone for feeling alienated and lonely about living in late-capitalist society. At least under feudalism, we had job security. So of course people are going to try to find something that helps them cope or seems like a solution. That’s why you get cults. That’s why you get Scientology. That’s why you get Jordan Peterson supporters. Something is wrong and we can all tell, and some people have arrived at a solution that doesn’t really work or at the very least makes them feel a little bit better.
… Believing these things isn’t a solution, and it’s not really accurate about what the problems are. The problem isn’t NASA. The problem isn’t the Earth being flat. The problem is something else.
While mercilessly roasting the more outspoken promulgators of Flat Earth like Mark Sargent and calling out its most bigoted elements, Brewis does seem to possess a certain degree of sympathy for its followers. The same might apply to anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. They feel something is wrong. They distrust the authorities and institutions that, to a large extent, have let them down.
When someone comes along and offers them an alternative, who tells them they are right to be scared and eagerly points out a scapegoat, that’s how we get parents who decry the long arm of the state in forcing them to vaccinate their children. That’s how we get millions of viewers who believe the likes of Steven Crowder regarding the notion the ice at the poles is growing, not shrinking. That’s how we get Brexit and President Donald Trump. These people are right to be skeptical. Unfortunately, they’ve picked the wrong matters to be skeptical about and the wrong people to guide them in their search for meaning and purpose.
This rejection of scientific consensus based on anecdotal evidence (“I’ve never seen the Earth curve—have you?”) or disqualification due to a presumed agenda (e.g. vaccines as a ploy of the for-profit health care industry) is not to be utterly exonerated. Certainly, those individuals who would exploit others’ susceptibility to manipulation in this way should be held accountable as well.
The question of how to interact with these types of people, however, still lingers. How do you penetrate a world in which facts don’t matter to people who claim to believe in science? A piece by Bill Radke and Sarah Leibovitz accompanying Radke’s interview of Boston University philosopher of science Lee McIntyre for KUOW’s The Record might provide some insight.
As McIntyre did or at least attempted to do going undercover at the Flat Earth International Conference, he approached attendees armed not with evidence or an attacking or condescending manner, but with a “philosopher’s question”: What would it take to convince you you’re wrong? According to the article, they didn’t have an answer.
McIntyre submits that this is a hallmark of anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, Flat Earthers and the like and thus where they diverge from true scientists: they cherry-pick data, ignoring information that disagrees with what they believe. To be fair, in a time in which Russian bots and other foreign agents try to influence public opinion and in which information reaches our senses faster than we can rightly process, it’s not just the InfoWars-Breitbart crowd who can fall prey to what is termed “confirmation bias.”
Prevailing trends of the population at large notwithstanding, McIntyre cautions against simply brushing these alternative-theory movements aside for fear of encouraging other campaigns built on faulty reasoning. He also reasons you shouldn’t write off their subscribers or cut them off, but rather “engage, listen, and work the facts in where you can.” Additionally, scientists need to do their part in standing up for the importance of uncertainty to the scientific method. It’s OK not to have the answers—that is, as long as this admission is made in the service of trying to find them in earnest.
The Earth is an oblate spheroid, not flat. Climate change on Earth is real. Vaccines don’t cause autism and you should definitely vaccinate your kids. It’s important we uphold these truths. At the same time, we can engage non-believers in an accessible, trust-oriented way and draw attention to the real causes of the problems Harry Brewis and others might enumerate. After all, we’re going to need a communal effort to solve them and it’s going to take all types of people working together to do it.
I do not follow President Donald Trump on Twitter, if for no other reason than I don’t want to be counted among his followers. Seeing as he’s President, though, and his words matter—perhaps they should matter more than they do, but matter they do—the media reports on what he says, and so I get enough of what I need to know secondhand. This is not to say that his words don’t affect me—indeed, they do, and because they affect me, I try to distance myself so as not to get overwhelmingly angry or distraught.
In saying this, I realize I am privileged to the extent that, while what Trump says might affect me emotionally, what he says is unlikely to affect my daily existence to the extent it disrupts it or completely changes it. For recipients of legal status under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, the stakes are much higher, and as such, every Tweet has the potential to signify a policy shift which could make for a life-altering event. Akilah Johnson, in a recent piece for The Boston Globe, explores this reality for so-called Dreamers, who have to monitor the volatility of Trump’s Tweets the way others might follow the ups-and-downs of the stock market (and increasingly so in the wake of fears of a brewing trade war). Johnson provides a bit of context thusly:
On Easter morning, Trump began a series of tweets about DACA, border security, and the country’s immigration laws, and there has been at least one nearly every day since, though he has been tweeting about immigration since before taking office.
But young immigrants said they don’t see themselves in many of the tweets, which equate immigration with criminality one day and express sympathy for DACA recipients who have been “abandoned” and received “very unfair” treatment in another.
It’s as if, they say, their academic accomplishments, hard work, and individual stories mean little. Instead, they are reduced to stereotypes in the immigration debate that is playing out on social media. The declarations of support are even more confusing, they say, because it was Trump who seeks to end the program that shields them from deportation.
And so each news alert or iPhone notification about the president’s ever-changing immigration agenda can be panic-inducing.
That Donald Trump’s mindset and position on specific issues tend to vacillate—I’m being kind here—is no big secret or surprise. Assuming he even understands what he’s talking about, and that’s a big enough assumption as it is, Trump lacks the familiarity with the underlying subject matter and its nuances by virtue of not having seriously considered it as a function of his political inexperience. To a certain extent, the malleability of his stances reflect the notion he is a novice, as well as the high probability he seems unprepared to take the lead on areas like immigration because he not only wants to deflect blame or responsibility, but that he also was unprepared to win the 2016 presidential election in the first place.
Beyond learning on the job, however, Trump’s treatment of DACA recipients via Twitter reflects an attitude toward their plight that representatives of both parties at times have seemed too ready to embrace: that of behaving as if DACA is a mere bargaining chip and not something which affects hundreds of thousands of young people currently residing in the United States. Earlier this year, DACA negotiations were a notable sticking point in spending bill negotiations that ultimately resulted in a relatively brief government shutdown, but a shutdown it was. Democratic Party leadership apparently had its fears that Republican legislators would refuse to hold a vote on the immigration issue assuaged by Mitch McConnell’s promise that hearings on the matter would be forthcoming.
That was in January. We’re into April now, and evidently, little progress in Congress has been made on the subject of DACA, leaving Trump to unleash Tweetstorms about illegal immigration with his usual reckless abandon and even address the topic during the White House Easter Egg Roll. Seriously. At the time of the shutdown’s end, activists and other advocates for Dreamers maligned Chuck Schumer et al. for what they saw as “caving” on DACA, a characterization that was not lost on the GOP and other conservative critics who took their own opportunity to take jabs at their opponents at the center-left of the spectrum. Specifically, pro-immigrant groups voiced their disappointment with Democratic leadership agreeing to anything predicated on a Mitch McConnell promise, which would be—and these are my words, but I’m sure the sentiment is shared—like trusting a pack of wolves not to touch a juicy steak. Three months later, it appears their concerns were well justified.
What is singularly disturbing about the political gridlock surrounding DACA, and whether it is “dead” or simply in limbo following the passing of the March 5 deadline set by President Trump to get a deal done, is that, amid the inaction and turmoil, Trump’s voice is amplified. This is a terrible development, because in making illegal immigration a central theme of his campaign and into his presidency, Trump has exploited Americans’ fears about immigration, legal and not—as well as their lack of knowledge about the subject and/or refusal to adequately fact-check. On Easter morning, he raged about “big flows of people” trying to come to America and take advantage of DACA. He also has Twitter-shouted about “caravans” of dangerous criminals trying to cross the border, and has blamed Democrats for standing in the way of reform and wanting to let would-be Mexican border-crossers in unchecked. Presumably, it’s because the Dems are banking on undocumented Latinos to illegitimately vote by the millions for them, you know, despite there being any evidence of this whatsoever.
Like Akilah Johnson, Tessa Stuart, writing for Rolling Stone, spoke directly with Dreamers back in September 2017 to discuss the confusion surrounding DACA and the misconceptions that might exist as a result of hateful rhetoric related to its fate. In particular, the young people consulted for this piece hoped to debunk these myths about them and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals:
Myth #1: DACA recipients can just become citizens.
Even Barack Obama as President was explicit about the idea that DACA is neither amnesty nor immunity nor a path to citizenship. As Astrid Silva, interviewed for the article, outlines, one of the primary benefits of DACA is an Employment Authorization Document, or EAD. But as Silva asserts, the current immigration picture is more complex than a situation like in The Proposal where Sandra Bullock marries for papers, and as Stuart spells out with the help of Rep. Ruben Kihuen, the first Dreamer elected to Congress, it’s much different than it was some 30 years ago, when immigrants who overstayed their visas could adjust their status.
Myth #2: DACA allows immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to stay indefinitely.
Nope. As Stuart spells out, the window for qualifying to receive DACA is a fairly narrow one: one had to arrive in the United States before the age of 16, live in the country since 2007, and be younger than 31 as of June 15, 2012. Of the 1.7 million people eligible, fewer than half actually have registered for the program, and have had to apply for a renewal of their status every two years.
Myth #3: DACA recipients “put our nation at risk of crime, violence, and even terrorism.”
Wrong again. That’s Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, espousing his views based on tolerance as head of the Trump administration’s totally impartial Department of Justice. Felony convictions and multiple or significant misdemeanors disqualify DACA recipients, as do those who are considered “a threat to public safety or national security.” The vast majority of Dreamers are law-abiding, America-loving people. Which makes Jeff Sessions full of you-know-what.
Myth #4: DACA gives undocumented immigrants access to federal benefits.
DACA recipients can obtain driver’s licenses and go to college. But they can’t receive federal financial aid, nor can they even enroll in a healthcare plan under the Affordable Care Act. For the young people trying to afford school, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals at least affords them the opportunity to work while they go to school so they can apply for private loans. People who harp on the supposed glorious “benefits” received by Dreamers overstate their case, and understate the contributions made by these immigrants, including but not limited to paying income taxes.
It should be stressed that Donald Trump is not the only influential voice to espouse anti-immigrant views steeped in racism and xenophobia. Worldwide, migration and refugeeism/asylum-seeking has helped put a strain on relations between ethnic groups; in Europe, for instance, one need look no further than the notion Marine Le Pen was one of the finalists, so to speak, in the race for France’s presidency that ultimately saw Emmanuel Macron elected, or how the Brexit referendum was pushed by far-right elements within the United Kingdom.
Besides, for Trump to succeed with a presidential campaign that, on Day One, bashed Mexicans as criminals, drug dealers, and rapists (with some good people; gee, thanks), he had to tap into prejudices shared by his supporters and others who voted for him. Though not an altogether significant group, a certain percentage of voters in the 2016 election went from casting their ballots for Barack Obama in 2012 to buying a ticket for the “Trump Train.” While economic factors and Trump’s faux populism had a part to play in this, the trepidation of white Americans over the nation “losing its identity” and of having “their culture” diminished by the influx of other ethnic groups likewise figured heavily into Trump’s upset electoral victory.
All this aside, Trump regularly ginning up the “deplorables” within his base deserves every bit of condemnation one can muster, and for the conservatives who cling to trickle-down theories of economics and change, this should inspire a proportionate sense of shame. While still misplaced, it would be one thing for Trump and his administration to more provincially focus their intensity on those undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes or are otherwise found guilty of significant misdemeanors, as he indicated he would do while stumping for votes.
Instead, Trump being Trump, DACA recipients are liable in their own right to be detained or deported, with boasts of “DACA being dead” and no opportunity wasted to throw members of Congress (especially Democrats) under the bus, and Trump keeping with the nonsense about a wall furnished and paid for by Mexico. Meanwhile, Trump, Jeff Sessions, and their conservative ilk continue to push the myth that DACA recipients and immigrants in general are more likely to commit crimes. This is made especially galling when considering that immigrant children often outperform their peers in school, as Bruce Fuller, sociologist at UC-Berkeley, and others have observed. By this token, we should be outraged that Trump et al. are attacking our best and brightest.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes for Recode’s Revolution TV special, spoke about how DACA is not an immigration issue, but a moral issue. Indeed, by going after Dreamers, the Trump administration is demonstrating its penchant for cruelty in threatening to deport those who came here as young children and who have little to no recollection of living in the country of their birth. People, who, moreover, contribute to America’s rich cultural tapestry, not to mention its economy. Even those who trumpet the need to uphold our nation’s laws seem to have their priorities in disarray. Are we content to punish DACA recipients for the “sins of their parents,” as outgoing GOP senator Jeff Flake would say? Is that “making America great again?”
The DACA debate is one that should serve as an impetus for all of us as Americans—native, immigrant, and otherwise—to consider who and what we support, and where we are going as a country. For members of the Republican Party, it is high time for them to contemplate how long they can continue to push false narratives about immigrants given a rapidly changing and increasingly diverse pool of individuals here. For Democrats and conscientious members of the electorate, it’s time to reassess whether or not we are doing enough to advocate for DACA recipients, open borders, and other liberal/progressive policies related to immigration. The shadow of the so-called “ugly American” looms large over the battle to protect a vulnerable subset of the U.S. population. Whether or not we care enough to put aside our hate and privilege, and act on these matters, is the question ultimately worth asking.
To view this post as it appears on Citizen Truth, click here. Citizen Truth is an independent and alternative media organization dedicated to finding the truth, ending the left-right paradigm and widening the scope of viewpoints represented in media and our daily conversations. For more on CT, please visit citizentruth.org.
If you’re like me, you may have fallen into this same cognitive trap: when you see two or more instances of some phenomenon, you suddenly believe it is way more representative of a situation than it really is. Wow—two people wearing bowler hats? Everyone is wearing them these days! Chances are, though, that the proliferation of bowler hats is not as widespread as one might believe despite the anecdotal evidence. At least I would hope that is the case. It’s bad enough fedoras are as popular as they are—we don’t need bowler hats and possibly even suspenders being thrown into the mix as well. Looking around the media landscape, it would seem this tendency to overrate the frequency and/or importance of salient events is more universal a problem than you or I alone would suffer. For instance, watching various crime procedural shows on television would have you convinced murder and other lawlessness is rampant in this country. For that matter, so would President Trump, but at least these programs are intended as entertainment. You know, as opposed to trying to inspire feelings of dread and loathing for one’s fellow man.
This all gets exacerbated, moreover, when terms created and popularized by popular media are applicable, seemingly for no other reason than to justify repeated use of the term. In the wake of Watergate, the suffix “-gate” has become synonymous with scandal, despite the nonsensical aspect of having -gate as a standalone term. Meanwhile, following the upset wins of Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the option to Leave the EU for the United Kingdom that same year, news outlets are on the lookout for the next “-exit.” If Marine Le Pen had won the French presidential election—Frexit? Greece’s possible withdrawal from the Eurozone—Grexit? If LeBron James were to theoretically leave Cleveland again—LeBrexit? It would appear the mainstream media is wishing for these kinds of things to happen just so they can make use of this portmanteau. All the while, damn the potential fallout to the world economy and to the people within these countries. And Cleveland? F**k ’em! They got their championship! They can go back to watching the Browns and wallowing in their misery!
Along these lines, various outlets have given a considerable amount of attention to the unrest surrounding a possible declaration of independence in Catalonia apart from the whole of Spain, billing it as another iteration of a more global tension between the ruling and the ruled in today’s political climate. As with the 2016 U.S. election and the UK Brexit referendum vote, support for or against Catalan secession is a mixed bag, with a majority of those who came out for a referendum vote expressing their desire to see a “Catal-exit,” but less than half of eligible voters actually participating in the event (and all kinds of irregularities surrounding the vote). There are also historical considerations to be had; in the case of Catalonia, the lineage of a distinct region within Spain is considerably longer than that of the rocky relationship of the democratic masses of the United States with their elected representatives or even that of our forefathers and their colonial overlords. Despite these superficial similarities, though, there are aspects of Trump’s rise/Brexit lacking in a potential Catalan exit that makes the latter a rather imperfect analog. This is to say that not all pushes for “liberty” are created equal.
First of all, let’s talk about how we got here in the first place. The BBC offers a concise primer on the subject of Catalan independence, noting Catalonia has been a Spanish fixture for nearly a millennium and, for much of its history, enjoyed relative autonomy. Then came along the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s and the rise of the dictatorial General Francisco Franco—and that all got shot to shit. Eventually, though, Franco up and died, Catalans regained their independent spirit, and come 1978, Catalonia regained its effective autonomy under the new Spanish constitution. Flash forward to 2006, and Catalans were voting for outright autonomy and status as a separate nation; as with the current referendum, voter turnout wasn’t exactly robust (less than 50%), but the majority of those who cast ballots for the occasion opted for autonomy. Which, um, lasted all of about four years. In 2010, the Spanish Constitutional Court ruled to annul or re-interpret key provisions of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, prompting a large-scale protest in June of that year, and pretty much annual demonstrations on the matter since. Leading up to the most recent referendum vote, an informal vote regarding independence was held in 2014, and in 2016, Carles Puigdemont was elected President of Catalonia, a noted pro-Catalan-independence separatist. As the article underscores, alongside these repeated referenda and the tug-of-war with the central Spanish government, there has additionally been a fair amount of economic strife between Spain and Catalonia, especially following the 2008 economic crisis which hurt so many nations worldwide. For those on the side of forming a new republic, and right or wrong, there is often the concurrent view that Catalonia gives more than it takes to Madrid, and that Madrid takes more than it gives.
So, about that whole referendum vote. Prior to the October 1 vote, the Catalan parliament held a simple yes-or-no vote pertaining to whether or not Catalonia should hold a referendum vote to become an independent state. This did not go over well with the Spanish government, as the Spanish constitution regards Spain as a whole as indivisible, and in response to the passing of the referendum, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and the rest of the Spanish government declared their action illegal, using the Spanish Constitutional Court to suspend the referendum law enacted by the Catalan parliament. Rajoy’s government also moved to seize Catalonia’s finances and to take control of the Catalan police force, arrested pro-independence members of the parliament, blocked access to paper ballots, shut down websites designed to inform the public a vote was even occurring, and suspended a Catalan parliament session at the behest of anti-secession Socialists. And when the fateful day arrived? What resulted was nothing short of a shit-show. Close to 900 people were injured as a direct result of the police show of force implemented to try to prevent a vote from occurring, and to say there were voting irregularities would be an understatement. Polling stations were closed. Ballots were confiscated. Various Catalans reported receiving both wedgies and Wet Willies. OK, I made up that last one, but the government’s response to a prospective move for independence struck many as being disproportionately brutal. What’s more, the heavy-handed way in which the Rajoy government approached the situation may have done more to push Catalans on the fence about secession in favor of leaving Spain. Everyday people generally do not enjoy getting beat up on their way to the ballot box. Just saying.
As bad as Spain looks following the clamp-down on the mere notion of Catalonia possibly leaving the country to form a new nation, it should be stressed that this does not mean the desires of Carles Puigdemont and other Catalan separatists are necessarily prudent. As numerous loyalists to the Spanish crown and independent outside observers and experts have expressed, a move out of Spanish jurisdiction for Catalonia stands to be disastrous for both the region and the European Union in sum. Catalonia is largely reliant on Madrid for its communications regulation and energy supplies, and the Spanish government controls a majority of the region’s transportation infrastructure, not to mention Catalonia is only part of the EU because it is part of Spain. As for Spain, Catalan independence would mean a significant efflux of people and capital, which potentially could hurt a country still trying to recover from a recession and threatens to destabilize the Eurozone altogether. Indeed, for as many Catalans supporting independence, that many or more want Catalonia to remain as part of Spain, as evidenced by the numerous pro-unity rallies held in Barcelona—not even in Madrid. Furthermore, the Spanish government has the support of various influential EU member states, with Germany stating its belief that the rule of Spanish law should prevail even with the violence occurring on the day of the vote, and with France openly conceding it would not recognize an independent Catalonia. As such, and in many respects, it would appear that a “Catal-exit” would be as ill-advised as voting for Donald Trump or voting to Leave the EU.
Still, there is a component evidently lacking in Catalonia’s push for independence that makes treating tensions with Spain a rather poor fit as an analog for American Trumpist populism and British separatism. Catalan separatism seems more provincially limited to considerations of economic and political autonomy, alongside pride in Catalonia’s history and culture. Above all, however, this strikes one as an attitude which exists as a function of regional self-confidence and concomitant lack of confidence in the Spanish state. In the United States and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, while economic concerns and class-based inequality have had a role to play, the specter of race hangs over the decision in both cases to make what many so-called “experts” would perceive was the impractical move. On the U.S. side of things, Donald Trump began his presidential campaign with racist statements, and since then, has aligned himself with white nationalists and has shown a questionable (at best) devotion to meeting the needs of Americans of color, right down to Puerto Ricans needing basic assistance and supplies in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. In the UK, meanwhile, Nigel Farage, the UK Independence Party, and others on the far-right made similar appeals to British voters, championing the need for economic independence from the European Union, but also for securing the nation’s borders. Of course, the United States and the United Kingdom are not the only two places to experience this tension fueled by racism and xenophobia; Marine Le Pen made it to the finals, if you will, of the French presidential election, and Geert Wilders, while an also-ran in the Netherlands, maintains an international profile as an extreme right-winger. Trump’s victory and Britain’s stunning vote to Leave the EU are just the most glaring (and successful) challenges to the status quo.
With this in mind, Catalonia’s possible secession from Spain is more comparable to that of Scotland’s theoretical exit from the United Kingdom than that of America’s and Britain’s apparent departure from sanity. Back in 2014, Scotland held a referendum vote which decided against independence, and since then, hasn’t really wavered from the 10-percentage-point disparity which at least temporarily put the kibosh on Scottish secession from the UK. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon and the controlling Scottish National Party still are intent to keep the possibility of a future independence referendum on the table, especially since the English government led by Theresa May doesn’t seem to have much of a clue as to what it’s doing regarding Brexit’s next steps, thus inspiring little confidence from the likes of Scotland or even Northern Ireland, of which a majority of voters opted to Stay in the EU.
Another similar situation has manifested in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, in which Iraqi Kurds voted overwhelmingly in a September referendum vote to declare independence from Iraq. As with Spain vis-à-vis Catalonia, the Iraqi government has announced it has no intentions of honoring the results of the referendum vote, and Kurdish talk of secession has been decried by most of the international community. Even herein, however, the issue is not one of motivation out of fear of foreign bogeymen, but the desire for representation for a group spread throughout the Middle East and yet lacking the authority full statehood could provide. Again, this may not be an altogether prudent course of action; Kurdish independence could lead to economic woes for both parties and, as many fear, destabilization of the region. In the ongoing fight against jihadism in the Middle East, this is no mere trifle, though one’s mind is always left to wander as to what the motivations are of those taking sides on what amounts fundamentally to an internal matter for the Iraqi people.
The above concerns lend themselves to what is perhaps an inevitable question: do Catalonia and other prospective independence-seeking regions have a right to declare themselves a new nation? If you believe the central governments that contain these states, the answer is a firm no, and in the specific case of Catalonia, this is considered unconstitutional. If you adhere to the viewpoint of Carles Puigdemont and others sympathetic to the pro-independence cause, then they have a right at least to conduct a vote and have earned the ability of self-determination. At this writing—and I say that because this volatile situation is subject to change—Puigdemont has apparently postponed any formal declaration of independence in favor of talks with Madrid. What this means for other regions contemplating their own -exits is similarly up in the air. Your feelings on the subject are probably colored by your personal finances/politics and your attitudes toward government at each level. If you have a vested interest in the European single market, you likely are pro-government. If you are disenfranchised with your country’s politics—and that would seem to cover a lot of us, come to think of it—you may very well be behind the notion of Catalan independence. I admittedly share concerns about the instability Catalan secession from Spain would bring, but a part of me admires Catalonia’s chutzpah in bringing about this whole scenario. Yes, I said chutzpah!
Whatever side of the fence you find yourself on, do consider that hasty comparisons between Catalonia and Brexit and President Trump do Puigdemont and Co. a disservice. Catalonia is attempting to assert its place in the Spanish landscape. Trump supporters and pro-Brexit enthusiasts, even when believing in the supposed purity of what their chosen leaders have put forth, nonetheless are falling prey to the illusory nature of the “great” and magical time and place they have concocted. Not everyone seeks independence for the same reasons. Catalonia is owed a little more credit for that reason.
When someone blows up a physical embodiment of the year “2016” and encourages people to tell that year to go f**k itself, you know it’s been an abnormally bad one. John Oliver took the opportunity to give 2016 this proper send-off (a report on this event was equally properly filed under the category “F**K 2016” by Aimée Lutkin and Jezebel), and that HBO agreed to afford Oliver the chance to explode something of that magnitude likewise speaks to the horror that was this past 366 days. That’s right—in case you had forgotten, 2016 was a leap year, so all-too-appropriately, we were given one extra day to protract the misery. The Julian and Gregorian calendars can eat a collective dick on that front.
I only started this blog in the middle of June of this year, so I missed the chance to comment on some things that happened earlier in 2016. With over 50 posts under my belt on United States of Joe, however, there’s still enough topics to revisit to make reflecting on the year that was worthwhile. Well, at least as far as I’m concerned. And since, despite my overall belief in fair and democratic principles, this blog is not a democracy but a Joe-ocracy, that’s the agenda for this session. You’re welcome. So, kick back. Get plenty of champagne ready—noting how awful the past year has been, it may take quite a bit of alcohol to get into the spirit. And get ready to count down to 2017. It’s time to give our own send-off to 2016, middle fingers in the air and all.
Well, before we take the plunge into the abjectly negative, let’s go back to the app-based sensation that was Pokémon Go. Since its initial breakthrough success which had critics saying the smartphone game had ushered in a new era of augmented reality and had fundamentally changed the way we look at mobile gaming, downloads and use of the title have understandably cooled. In light of the downward trend, members of the media are now looking at Pokémon Go altogether as a disappointment, especially in light of some updates which failed to impress. You need to walk 3 KM just for one stinking Charmander candy? I’m never going to get that Charizard! NEVER, I SAY!
Now that I’m done being dramatic, not only do I find these charges against the game and its maker Niantic overblown (although, seriously, those Buddy System ratios are pretty shitty), but expectations, buttressed by the app’s initial success, were probably always too high. Though Niantic did its part to make the game palatable to people of all ages and ability levels by making gameplay largely based around throwing Poké Balls and by simplifying battles, the players who are most likely to find the experience rewarding are fans of the original game, who are used to grinding for experience, completing the game as completely as possible, and overall, staying in it for the long haul. It’s not Angry Birds. It’s not Candy Crush Saga. It’s not Fruit freaking Ninja. You have to walk and work for your rewards. You know, when you can’t pay money for some of them. Either way, you still have to walk!
When Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign in July and formally endorsed Hillary Clinton, it admittedly felt like a punch to the gut. For all the mental preparation made, when the moment actually arrived, it still hurt. What made Sanders’ decision and the associated feelings yet worse, though, was the reception his standing behind Clinton received and the accusations that got hurled around in the wake of the announcement. Con-man. Sell-out. Traitor. Looking at Bernie’s endorsement in a purely ideological vacuum, it is easy to assess this move as a betrayal of his principles and what he stands for. In this instance, however, context is everything, and with Donald Trump having sewn up the Republican Party nomination, Sanders saw greater merit in trying to unite Democrats and other prospective voters in an effort to defeat Trump. Ultimately, the orange one shocked the world and scored an electoral victory, but Bernie Sanders did his best to avoid this eventuality. That not enough Americans either came out to vote or otherwise didn’t buy what Hillary was selling is largely on her, not Bernie.
Of course, in the immediate aftermath of the suspension of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the remaining candidates looked to capitalize. Even with the bulk of Sanders supporters presumed to be going over to Hillary Clinton’s camp, Donald Trump himself made an instantaneous pitch to those “feeling the Bern,” trying to tap into their fervent and justifiable anger at the political establishment. Third-party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, too, though, made a play for these suddenly available votes, rationalizing that there was no better time than now than to tell the two major parties to shove it. In endorsing Clinton, Bernie repeatedly tried to communicate the danger and inadequacies of Trump as a presidential candidate first and foremost, even though he may have largely been preaching to the choir, as younger voters by and large detested “the Donald.” He also, meanwhile, cautioned against a “protest vote” for someone like Johnson, Stein, or even Harambe (and yes, he would’ve loved to follow this election), realizing, as did all these newfound suitors for Bernie backers’ affections, that the votes of his faithful could swing the election by helping to decide key swing states. To reiterate, it didn’t work all that well, but the effort on Sanders’ part was there.
Ultimately, as Bernie Sanders himself will insist, his run for President, while important, was always more concerned with starting a revolution and getting more Americans, especially younger voters and working-class individuals, involved with the political process, even at the local level. Whether the energy behind his campaign and the urge for progressive grass-roots activism is sustainable in the United States is yet to be seen, but either way, there is yet room for optimism that people will want to keep active and informed as a means of exerting greater control over their own destiny. Thus, you may call Bernie any name you want, but I choose to label him an inspiration, and I feel history will bear out this sentiment as well.
As we Bernie Sanders supporters worked our way through the Five Stages of Grief and Loss, eventually, we had to come to accept that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump was going to be our next President. In fact, even the non-Berners were forced to do the same, in all likelihood ensuring many who were on the fence—that is, on whether or not they would vote at all—would choose the latter option and just stay home. In my piece referenced in the title of this section, I mused about the notion that maybe we, as a collective electorate, did not deserve better than these choices that a significant portion of said electorate neither trusted nor cared for much. Ever since 2000, when Ralph Nader was accused of costing Al Gore the election (even though Gore lost that shit on his own, with an admitted probable helping from electoral shenanigans down in Florida), Americans have been highly critical of parties like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, with the usual refrain being some combination of “they could play spoiler to a legitimate candidate” or “you’re throwing away your vote” if you opt for one of them.
However, to invoke the words of Mr. Nader himself, not only is this attitude politically bigoted, as it negates the will of the individual to make an informed choice in accordance with his or her conscience, but it nullifies our bargaining power with the two major parties. After all, if we blindly vote either Democratic or Republican, beyond losing the election, what motivation does either party have to institute reform that better reflects the needs and wants of the voting public? Especially for members of the working class, both Democrats and Republicans have seemed to take them for granted, which at least partially explains why the Dems lost this election and why Trump and Sanders achieved the levels of popularity they did this election cycle.
In the end, though, despite the increased visibility of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the lead-up to the election, most Americans who voted (and there was a good portion of the country who could’ve voted which didn’t) cast their ballots for either Hillary or Donald. As historically unfavorable as these two candidates were, and for all their flaws—Trump as an idiot and professional con-man stoking the flames of fear and hatred, Clinton as an out-of-touch elitist with a penchant for pandering and expensive Giorgio Armani jackets—better than nine-tenths of voters decided they had to pick one of the two, if for no other reason than to block the other candidate they liked even less. Which is pretty shitty, if you ask me. Personally, even with the knowledge that she wouldn’t win, I voted for Jill Stein, as I felt neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton had earned my vote. That relative few other Americans opted out of the two-party paradigm, however, signals to me that we, as a nation, are not ready to demand political change as strongly as we should. It’s either red and blue in these United States, and if you don’t like either color, the present message, unfortunately, is to get the f**k out.
Holy f**k, indeed. In retrospect, I’m not sure why the pollsters were so surprised that Donald Trump scored the “upset” victory, or why we were so easily convinced that Hillary Clinton was such a strong favorite to win the presidency, when their models were consistently wrong or failed to predict the magnitudes of certain results throughout the primary season. At any rate, as must be reiterated for anyone who sees Trump’s win as a mandate, the man who considers himself a master of “The Art of the Deal” won the presidency on the strength of electoral votes, not because he had a resounding victory in the popular vote (in fact, he lost by more than 2 million votes, and it apparently tears him up inside)—and certainly not because he ran a stellar campaign.
So, how did Trump win? Looking at the exit poll data, certain trends do tend to stick out. Regionally, Donald Trump fared much better in the Midwest and the South, and of course, he carried key swing states, notably those in the Rust Belt (e.g. Ohio, Wisconsin). In terms of demographic data, Trump had an easy advantage among male voters and voters 45 and above, not to mention he held an appeal among less educated individuals and the wealthiest earners (a seeming paradox, though as evidenced by how they spend their money, rich people aren’t necessarily all that smart—look at Trump himself!), as well as evangelicals and married people, but perhaps most notable of all, whites voted at almost a 60% clip for Donald Trump, while close to three of four non-whites went for Hillary Clinton. CNN commentator Van Jones referred to this aspect of the results as a “white-lash”, as in “white backlash” after eight years of a black president the Republicans have characterized as a cause of America’s problems and someone with a secret Muslim agenda, and it’s hard to argue otherwise, really. When the former head of the Ku Klux Klan is cheering you on and citing you as an inspiration, you know white supremacist beliefs, racism and xenophobia helped you to victory.
On a somewhat related note, the thematic reasons why Trump voters chose the way did are also significant. Speaking of racism and xenophobia, supporters of Donald Trump rated immigration trends and terrorism the most important issues facing the United States. Screw the economy and foreign relations—let’s worry some more about brown people. As for the quality that best drew voters to Trump, it wasn’t whether the candidate cares about them, exhibits good judgment, or has the right experience—those voters tended to go for Clinton—but whether he or she could bring about “change.” Whatever the heck that means.
In a nutshell, that’s why Donald Trump is set to be our next President. As for who we can blame for this, besides the obvious in Trump himself and his supporters, there are three core enablers for the man’s political success. Certainly, the Republican Party let him waltz right in and secure the nomination after a barrage of similarly weak candidates failed to stand in his way, and after the GOP at large sowed the seeds of fear and hate he exploited. The media, too, acted irresponsibly and selfishly, chasing ratings while failing to challenge Trump on his lack of defined policy, his factual inaccuracies, his reckless language, or even his refusal to publish his tax returns. In addition, the Democratic Party, in its own right bears some responsibility. Among its most damning sins are its failure to stand up for the working class, its inability to protect jobs and wages, its support for disastrous trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, its complicity with corporations and wealthy donors, and its allowing antitrust laws to lapse or otherwise become weaker, thereby consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. The failure to stop Donald Trump is a collective one, and though it probably won’t happen, these enablers should do some serious soul-searching for fear of endangering their long-term prospects.
Should anything happen to Donald Trump, whether in terms of his health (not that I’m wishing for the man to pull a William Henry Harrison or anything) or impeachment, the next man in line may not be all that much of an improvement. Mike Pence, who has been governing the proud state of Indiana, has arguably made a number of shitty choices during his tenure. He vetoed a refund of a tax overcharge on the basis it would have cost too much to administer. Before he got too much (warranted) negative feedback, he proposed JustIN, a state-run news service some likened to Pravda in the Soviet era. He rejected Medicaid expansion in his state under the Affordable Care Act on principle, to the detriment of his constituents. He insisted on a ban against a needle exchange program that was effective in limiting the spread of HIV related to a particular drug injection, and later reversed his position, but refused to use state funding to provide for such exchanges. Perhaps most notably, he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, which allowed for discrimination against the LGBT community and cost Indiana some $60 million in revenue before its reversal. An opponent of gay marriage and women controlling their own reproductive rights, Mike Pence is one of a seemingly increasingly long line of conservative Republican leaders who puts evangelical beliefs ahead of his state’s and the nation’s best interests. He’s not Trump, but he’s no rose either.
In terms of what damage he may do in terms of signing legislation into law and what damage he likely already is doing in his appointees for key positions (Rick Perry for Secretary of Energy—are you f**king serious?), that Donald Trump has been thrust into a position of immense power is bad enough, but his association with the far-right and his inspiration to the likes of David Duke makes for some shitty ripple effects just the same, let me tell you. I said earlier that Trump’s electoral victory should not be seen as a mandate given how he lost the popular vote and in light of how divided we are as a nation. And yet, the Breitbart crowd and members of the so-called “alt-right” have taken it as such, viewing themselves as fighters in a culture war they are winning, standing against political correctness and other liberal “absurdities.” They also apparently like boycotting companies who don’t stand for their white supremacist agenda. You know, even though they probably don’t use their products anyway. But boycott it is! TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP!
When Hillary Clinton formally acknowledged the alt-right in a speech during the campaign, though I feel it needed to be said, it further legitimized this loosely-constructed movement that coincides with the likes of Gamergate’s sexist perpetuators. That Stephen Bannon has been given a prominent advisory role in Trump’s administration, though, should concern us more conscientious Americans. Donald Trump is not normal, and those who sanction his misdeeds and try to normalize his objectionable behavior are standing in the way of progress. Furthermore, the gang mentality with which many of them operate, encouraging online attacks on and/or death threats against individuals whose values clash with theirs, is troubling, as is the unwillingness of social media services to more aggressively pursue those accounts which violate their terms of service for fear of losing traffic. In short, the alt-right has arrived, as much as many of us might not like to dignify them with a response, and it is incumbent upon those of us who have respect for others—not just respect for white males who refuse to admit to their privilege—to speak out against their behavior and words as dangerous and wrong.
Before Donald Trump swooped in to save the day and stop the threat of taco trucks on every corner in the United States, the United Kingdom gave us a teaser trailer for the U.S. presidential election with a referendum vote on whether or not to remain in the European Union. As with the election in the States, the experts predicted voters would do the sensible thing; if this were an analogy in the vein of the old SATs: UNITED STATES: ELECT HILLARY CLINTON :: UNITED KINGDOM: VOTE REMAIN. And, as with the election in the States, voters did the exact opposite.
The parallels are uncanny. The decision to leave the EU was, as it was in the United States, mediated by a greater incidence of older voters opting to do the wrong thing. Like with Trump’s anti-immigrant appeals and vague notions of “making America great again,” Leave voters were swayed by visions of “securing the nation’s borders” and “taking back control” of the country’s economy, not to mention equally empty promises of the UK Independence Party. Additionally, voters seemed to be making choices that were a direct rejection of existing politics. Barack Obama, David Cameron—either way you slice it, the public clamored for change, no matter who would bring it or what it would entail. The fallout from both votes is still being assessed, but the discontentment of the working-class voter and upward trends in outspokenness among white nationalists worldwide suggest the U.S. and UK votes are not isolated incidents, and in turn, that the risk of other Brexit-like events occurring in the future in other countries is all-too-real. The winds of change are blowing, and one can only hope our houses don’t get knocked over when the gusts have subsided.
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of some, black people don’t enjoy getting mowed down by police at routine traffic stops. While police shootings may not have been any more numerous in 2016 than in years past, through the advent of cellphones and other camera-based technologies, violence involving police certainly has become more visible. Whatever the precise rates of deaths related to encounters between civilians and police, it would seem as though we have a lot of progress to make regarding recognition of the disparity of treatment people of color receive at the hands of police and that which is received by whites, regardless of whether the person accosted by one or more officers has a gun or not.
A perfect illustration of the failure of much of white America to confront its privilege in this regard comes in arguments about the very name and nature of black activism in the United States which exists in large part due to documented police brutality. In response to hearing the moniker Black Lives Matter, or merely even the phrase “black lives matter,” some people are too quick to “correct” the original speaker with the phrase “all lives matter,” or counter with their own version (i.e. “blue lives matter”) that serves to negate the critical recognition of blackness inherent in the initial figure of speech. To me, however, this falls prey to a fairly obvious logical trap: if all lives matter, then black lives, as a subset of all lives, should matter too, and there should be no problem accepting that terminology. “Black lives matter” does not mean black lives should matter more than other lives, but simply that they should matter as much as white lives, blue lives, or any other color lives of which one can think. Clearly, though, they don’t, or else there wouldn’t be a need for organizations such as Black Lives Matter.
The need to scrutinize adherence by individual officers to specified protocol when engaging possible suspects, as well as the systems which serve to shield “rogue” cops from criticism and/or prosecution, is undermined by two key strategies of those who react to protests with knee-jerk defenses of our uniformed police. The first is to question the integrity of the victim—yes, victim—who, because he or she is labeled a “thug” or has a history with the law, evidently deserves to be effectively lynched by the police who intercede him or her. The second is to de-legitimize efforts of black activists wholesale, conflating them unfairly with those who loot and otherwise take advantage of violence and associated protests for their own gain, likening them to terrorists, or wrongly insisting they are advocating for the slaughter of police. In both cases, this is counterproductive, regressive thinking.
As some have argued, those cops who are too nervous not to shoot someone at a routine encounter shouldn’t be placed in such a highly leveraged situation, and either way, good police—which comprise the majority of forces around the nation, let’s be clear—should be appreciative of efforts to root out bad actors from their ranks. As for the protests against police brutality, this doesn’t equate to disrespect for the police, nor does kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem constitute an affront to our military, as Colin Kaepernick’s example reminds us. Black Lives Matter et al. don’t want to see law and order dissolved. They just want to see police officers and officials who wear the badge held accountable when they do wrong, and at a very basic level, not to be utterly afraid they might die when getting pulled over by a squad car. It’s 2016. We need to do better as a country in addressing racial inequality, especially within the purview of criminal justice.
There have been too many mass shootings in the United States of late, but the Orlando nightclub shooting, in particular, was particularly devastating for many of us. Not only was it a tremendous loss of life, but that the LGBT community was apparently the specific target of the violence made this brutality that much worse for a population that regularly faces hatred and persecution. Speaking for myself, it is difficult to comprehend how someone could harbor such hate for themselves and others that they would wish to walk into a building and start firing indiscriminately. Perhaps this idea gets the tiniest bit easier to understand when we understand this hate works both ways. As jihadists would seek to inspire terror in the West through bombings and mass shootings, white nationalism encountered in Austria, France, Holland, the United Kingdom and the United States, among other nations, has created an environment that has often proved hostile to Muslims, and has made the prospect of accepting more refugees from war-torn countries like Syria decidedly poor. I mean, Donald Trump ran on a platform of which one of the key tenets was a temporary ban on travel to the U.S. for all Muslims. It’s incredible, and incredibly shameful, at that.
Never mind the idea that all this bluster about “bombing the shit out of ISIS” may actually be good for the Islamic State’s ability to recruit and strengthening its resolve. The jingoists among us would have everyone believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of the United States, that it is a “cancer” to be snuffed out, and that American Muslims who don’t do enough to help discover would-be terrorists in their midst (which, evidently, is quite easy) are guilty in their own right, and regardless, likely merit surveillance of their homes/places of worship and tests administered to gauge their love for and commitment to the U-S-of-A. This conflation of Islam, a religion which preaches peace at its core, and the bastardized religion ISIS and other jihadists/”radical Islamists” practice, is a patently false equivalency.
For the sake of an analogy—one for which I can’t take credit, let me stress—ISIS is to everyday Muslims what the Ku Klux Klan is to white people who aren’t unabashed racists. In both cases, the majority disavows the hate and violence these groups perpetuate. This is by no means saying we shouldn’t be vigilant against individuals who would wish to do us harm. As bad as the Orlando massacre was, though, and as unforgivable as the actions of an organization like ISIS/ISIL have proven, our responses and the negative feelings that accompany some of these reactions reveal an ugly side to our patriotism as well. In the demonization and the pursuit of “the other,” we run the clear risk of losing ourselves.
I didn’t originally write about it, but the Chicago Cubs actually won the World Series. To wit, I have neither observed nor heard any stories about swarms of locusts descending on fields or rivers of blood forming, but I’m not ruling them out just yet. The apocalypse takes time to develop, you know?
Wells Fargo was forced to fire thousands of mid-level managers for directing employees to create fake accounts and sign up customers for services without their knowledge, essentially making them scapegoats for the company’s aggressive sales model. The company eventually apologized—sort of—and John Stumpf was eventually removed from the role of CEO, but the big bank largely closed the book on this sordid chapter of its history without really admitting wrongdoing, and Stumpf had a nice golden parachute on which to drift to security. Meanwhile, Wells Fargo has apparently learned absolutely nothing from this fiasco, as new CEO Tim Sloan has expressed the belief that the company and the banking industry as a whole could actually do with less regulation. Evidently, it’s all fun and games when you get to play with other people’s money.
FBI director James Comey, despite finding that Hillary Clinton and her aides were extremely careless in their handling of E-mail while Clinton was Secretary of State, that Clinton should’ve known certain E-mails were classified and didn’t belong on an unsecured server in the first place, that the State Department was generally lacking in security protocol for classified E-mails, and that Hillary used multiple unsecured devices in locations where American adversaries could have exploited this vulnerability, held a press conference to announce he was not recommending charges be filed against the Democratic Party nominee. Then, a week before the general election, he announced that the Bureau was looking anew into Clinton’s E-mails, which she and her campaign cite as a factor in why she lost. So, nice going, Director Comey! You’ve undermined confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and perhaps swayed the election! Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard!
Chris Christie not only failed to capture the Republican Party nomination, but he was overlooked by Donald Trump for vice president despite being, more or less, his manservant. Oh, and Bill Baroni, deputy executive director of the Port Authority, and Bridget Kelly, Christie’s deputy chief of staff, two key figures in “Bridge-gate,” were found guilty on all counts in a trial related to the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal, and a separate criminal trial is set to take place for Christie himself. Congratulations, Chris. You played yourself.
Puerto Rico defaulted on its debt, a result fueled by a combination of fiscal and economic factors, including the repeal of tax breaks for businesses, the creation and sale of triple tax-exempt municipal bonds, the inability of the commonwealth to declare for bankruptcy, exempting wealthy investors and businesses from paying capital gains taxes, “vulture” hedge funds buying up bonds and demanding a full payday, and institutions like UBS selling risky bonds they themselves underwrote to unsuspecting customers. Today, Puerto Rico’s financial future is yet in peril with individuals who are alleged to have helped the island along the path to crisis serving on its appointed oversight board, and with Donald Trump being a crazy mofo. Also, the U.S. Virgin Islands may be on the way to its own debt crisis. Um, huzzah?
In some good news, the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be all but dead, being disliked on both sides of the political aisle. Also, the Dakota Access Pipeline is on indefinite hold, as the Army Corps of Engineers found more research needed to be done regarding the environmental effects of its intended route through the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Of course, supporters of these canceled or postponed initiatives may yet redouble their efforts, so we concerned progressives can’t really relax. At least we can enjoy a short breather before the ball drops, eh?
In the title of this piece (remember back that far?), I reference the notion that 2017 has to be better than 2016. I’m not sure it amounts to much, though, beyond wishful thinking. If the best qualification for improvement which comes to mind is that we won’t be electing Donald Trump, it’s cold comfort in light of the fact he’ll already be President. Going back to his appointees, if they are any evidence, the country is set upon a bumpy path for the next four years, or until the man gets impeached—whichever comes first. His Defense and National Security Cabinet leaders view Islam as a threat to America. His Education Secretary is an opponent of public schools, despite never having attended one. His Energy Secretary infamously once forgot the name of the department he has been tapped to helm. His Health and Human Services director wants to privatize everything and largely gut social programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. His HUD Secretary knows nothing about housing administration.
Wait, I’m not done yet! His head of the Justice Department failed to be confirmed as a federal judge once upon a time because he was an out-and-out racist. His Labor Secretary opposes raising the minimum wage. His Secretary of State has likely financial ties to Vladimir Putin. His Transportation Secretary is married to Mitch McConnell—and that’s evidence enough of poor judgment. His Treasury Secretary oversaw 50,000 or so foreclosures from his position within OneWest Bank, an entity which was accused of unethical practices and discrimination against minorities. His EPA head is a climate change denier. His Small Business Administration director is former CEO of a fake wrestling empire. And his United Nations representative has no foreign policy experience. Irresponsible does not begin to describe these selections, and fingers are crossed that one or more of them fail to get confirmed by the Senate.
So, yeah, I’m not incredibly optimistic about the United States’ prospects right now. The silver lining, as I see it, is that more and more Americans are waking up to the realization that our system is broken and that it doesn’t work for everyone, and with luck, that number will grow as the sheen wears off the shiny promises Trump has made and can’t hope to keep. I wouldn’t have wished for a Donald Trump presidency in a thousand years, but if this hastens the movement of the nation in a more progressive direction, so be it. For those of us who refuse to accept Trump and the America he has envisioned as normal, and who insist that we’ve come too far as a country to simply put the train in reverse, the resistance starts now. 2017, we look to you in strengthening our resolve. And 2016, once more, you can go f**k yourself.
“President-Elect Trump.” Sweet Baby Jesus, I hate the sound of that.
In case you were living under a rock or had recently slipped into a coma and just emerged from your unresponsive state, I potentially have some very bad news for you. Defying the pre-vote polling and forecasting models, Donald J. Trump has won the 2016 presidential election. In one of those lovably quirky outcomes of a system based on the electoral college (read: many people are not loving it right now), Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote, but Trump garnered the necessary 270 electoral votes to carry the day. As of this writing, according to The New York Times‘ election tracker, 279 electoral votes are officially Trump’s, 228 are Clinton’s, and Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire are still being contested, though CNN is calling Arizona for Donald Trump, and I tend to think no amount of recounting is going to allay that result.
As far as Democrats are concerned, the night was especially bad when factoring in the results of House and Senate races. Prior to the polls closing, Dems had hopes of either the House, the Senate or both turning blue in terms of a majority, but those hopes were quickly dashed when the actual results came in. Republicans will maintain a narrow majority in the Senate, despite losing two seats, and have retained control of the House of Representatives as well. Talk about a whitewash, or “red-wash,” as it were.
Not that I really wish to belabor the the mechanics of how exactly Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton and supporters of human compassion and understanding lost, but it may be instructive to go into detail for future reference, i.e. preventing any unqualified buffoon like Trump from winning again. Some considerations on how the 2016 presidential race shook out the way it did in terms of the electoral map and what we’ve learned from exit polls:
Looking at the electoral map at large, there’s an awful lot of red to behold. Clinton carried the bulk of the Northeast and has a nice strip of blue to show for her efforts along the Pacific Coast and Hawaii. The Democratic Party nominee also recorded victories in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New Mexico. But that’s it. When the smoke clears, Trump will likely have won 30 states to Clinton’s 20, owing to his greater share of the popular vote among Midwest and Southern states, as well as those less populous states in the Northwest like Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.
Perhaps most significantly, Donald Trump emerged victorious in a number of key battleground states, including Florida (29 electoral votes), Iowa (6 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). That’s 83 electoral votes right there, and if you count Arizona and Michigan as GOP wins, then you’re over the century mark. This is to say that those close contests really did make a difference in this election. Also, Florida and Ohio were instrumental in screwing over Democrats yet again. They can shove oranges and buckeyes up their respective asses right now, for all I care.
OK, so this one is perhaps no big shock. According to exit polls conducted by CNN (to which I will refer for the rest of the demographic information referenced herein), men, by more than 10%, chose Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. A similar margin informed women’s votes in favor of Hillary. Is this election, then, a referendum on a woman’s ability to be President/a leader in the United States? Perhaps partially, but that alone does not explain how Trump won so decisively. So, while gender is a factor, let’s not make it out to be some end-all-and-be-all.
Here, too, the splits were pretty stark. Voters 18 – 29 overwhelmingly chose Clinton over Trump, and within the group from the ages of 30 – 44, 50% to 42% were “with her.” Once you get above the age of 45, however, the script flips, as the baby boomers and old codgers among us opted to ride the “Trump Train.” This is not unlike the divide experienced with Brexit, in which millennials and other youths voted overwhelmingly to Remain. In both cases, though, it was the younger voters, arguably, who behaved more like adults.
Gender and age were significant factors in the 2016 presidential race, but the issue of race looms largest. Just look at these tallies. Whites, 58% – 37%, sided with Donald Trump. Non-whites (Asians, blacks, Latinos, et al.), by a whopping 74% to 21%, were in Hillary Clinton’s camp. These disparities are too big to ignore, and prompted CNN contributor Van Jones to refer to the results as a “white-lash,” a portmanteau of “white” and “backlash” which explains the public’s reaction against a changing electorate and a black president.
Looking at the race through the lens of race, it’s kind of hard to argue otherwise. Trump supporters may aver that it’s the Obama administration’s policies which have them so incensed. But when their candidate of choice has been so deficient in the area of policy—be it domestic or foreign—how can they claim to be so principled in their vote? The majority of people who voted for Trump voted based on emotion, not on conscience or principle, and in all likelihood based one or more of the uglier emotions in the human expression at that.
Broadly speaking, voters who have not gone as far in their education (high school or less; some college) tended to go for Donald Trump, while college graduates trended toward Hillary Clinton, and even more so for those with a postgraduate degree. It should be noted, though, that at the intersection of education and race, non-white voters without a college degree voted 75% – 20% for Hillary. In other words, they didn’t need fancy book learnin’ to be able to see through Trump’s bullshit.
Though slight preferences, voters who make $50,000 a year or more tended to cast their ballots for Donald Trump, while voters under that threshold chose Hillary Clinton more often. Hmm, I guess they really don’t want to pay their fair share.
For what it’s worth, married voters sided more heavily with Trump, while unmarried voters aligned more frequently with Clinton. It should be noted that even with the subset of married voters, though, it was married men who really brought the overall rates of Trump’s supporters up above the 50% mark; married women showed a minuscule 2% preference for Hillary Clinton. A similar effect was observed for unmarried women pushing up support for Clinton, as unmarried men exhibited a slim bias toward Hillary.
Christians, by and large, supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Per the CNN exit polls, a majority of Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and other Christians allied with the GOP on Election Day, with white born-again Christians/evangelicals in particular throwing their support for the Republican Party nominee (81% of respondents!). By contrast, Jews, atheists, and those under the broad designation of “other religions” favored Hillary Clinton. To a certain extent, this appears to be another manifestation of the liberal-conservative divide, though noting “Two Corinthians” Trump is not exactly known for his adherence to “the good book,” it’s yet a little surprising.
On the most important issue facing America
As with the earlier discussion of race, results along this dimension are pretty telling. For those voters most concerned with matters of foreign policy or the economy, double-digit majorities voted for Hillary Clinton. For those voters most troubled by immigration trends and terrorism, meanwhile, Donald Trump was their strongman, er, man. The exit poll did not indicate what either side, meanwhile, thought of climate change, keeping with the election’s theme of not giving a shit about the Earth, escalating global temperatures, and declining species. But that’s OK—let’s keep worrying about Mexicans crossing the border.
On which candidate quality matters most
Also speaks volumes about the state of American politics. On whether they thought a particular candidate cares about them, has the right experience, or exhibits good judgment, a majority of respondents indicated this was true of Clinton, but not of Trump. However, on the notion of which candidate is more likely to bring about change, voters who sided with Donald Trump overwhelmingly agreed with this statement. Apparently, experience, good judgment and giving a shit about people are not requirements for the top political office in the United States. The vague concept of change is enough to get you a seat in the Oval Office—even if it turns out that change is distinctly negative.
For someone like myself, a progressive-minded white guy residing in a state, New Jersey, in which a majority of voters did not choose Donald Trump, the results of the election were pretty damn disappointing. I feel powerless. I feel scared. I feel as if I should be apologizing on behalf of white people everywhere for ushering in a candidate who has made appeals to our baser tendencies his way of interacting with the world and who has inspired a culture of bullying that parents have passed on to their children, leading to harassment and taunts on school playgrounds. And as bad as I feel, I feel worse for those segments of the population who stand to be most adversely affected by a Donald Trump presidency, especially immigrants and Muslims. We all stand to suffer under President Trump, but realistically, I have had and will have it easier than most.
Regardless of any tiered system of potential personal misfortune, so many people are reacting to the news of a Trump presidency with a mix of raw emotions, and in their anger, disappointment and shock, they likely are looking for someone to blame. Based on the narrative one seeks, there are any number of options for scapegoats. Certainly, in a few of those aforementioned battleground states, having names like Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and even Harambe stealing votes was not inconsequential. I’ve talked about this subject at length, and to this charge of “spoiling” the election for Hillary Clinton, I say phooey. Ralph Nader, accused of the same “crime” in 2000, talks about this phenomenon as political bigotry perpetrated and perpetuated as a result of the two-party oligarchy represented by the Democratic and Republican Parties. Not only does this attitude demean the individual’s right to choose, but by meekly giving in to choosing the so-called lesser of two evils, we lose our bargaining power as voters to entice the major parties to put forth policies that authentically reflect the needs of the electorate. The onus is—or at least should be—on the major party and the major-party candidate to convince the voters he or she is the best choice to lead the country. Gary Johnson was never going to win the presidency, but to intimate that he or any other candidate cost Hillary the election is a falsehood.
OK, so if blaming the Libertarian Party or Green Party candidate is disingenuous, who instead might be deserving of our scorn? Some disenchanted Democrats point to James Comey’s 11th-hour revelation that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s E-mails, as well as apparent attempts by Vladimir Putin and Russia to meddle in the U.S. election by hacking the private E-mails of prominent Democratic Party officials. On the latter count, while few would relish the idea of foreign governments influencing our domestic political affairs, the counterargument can be made that the hacks are merely exposing the kinds of attitudes and secrets the American people deserve to know. On the former count, meanwhile? While, again, the truth should be known regarding possible wrongdoing, what good does the announcement of the reopening of the E-mail investigation so close to the day of the election do? James Comey’s reputation had already taken a hit in the decision not to press charges in the first place. This just further undermines his and the Bureau’s credibility. With confidence in public institutions eroding year after year, these shenanigans just grease the wheels of a flaming car careening down a winding mountain path.
Ultimately, though, it’s Hillary Clinton’s use of one or more private E-mail servers and unencrypted mobile devices which prompted the FBI and Comey to intervene. Besides, the Bureau director himself can’t be held responsible for the rise of Donald Trump in the first place. Might we, therefore, look to groups of people/organizations and trends in politics rather than individual people and dead zoo-bound gorillas? You know, beyond the obvious in those who voted for Trump, because they evidently don’t know any better? Robert Reich, in a recent piece on his blog, weighed in on the three biggest enablers to Donald Trump’s path to the presidency. You probably can guess them offhand, but here they are in writing, just to make sure we are on the same page:
1. The Republican Party
When you allow an asshat like Donald Trump to become your party’s nominee, um, yeah, you’re culpable in this regard. As Reich explains, Trump’s racism and xenophobia, while extreme, are not out of character for more recent iterations of the GOP, nor is his “disdain of facts” and the due processes of law and lawmaking. In other words, Donald Trump may be among the Republican Party’s worst examples, but he’s not the only one.
2. The media
Conservatives and right-wing extremists already had a bone to pick with the mainstream media due to perceived liberal bias. Now, liberals have a legitimate gripe against this same institution with respect to all the free advertising they gave Donald Trump, and if public confidence in networks like CNN suffers catastrophically in the coming years, we might look back on this moment and know why. In no uncertain terms, major news outlets gave Trump a megaphone in exchange for a ratings grab, all the while failing to truly vet him as the unqualified candidate, shady businessman, and reprehensible person he is—at least not until it was too late, and even then, they underestimated the depth of Trump’s appeal. And Fox News can eat a dick. Just for general principles.
3. The Democratic Party
Wait, but the Democrats ran extensively against Donald Trump. How can they be blamed for his ascendancy? This is perhaps Robert Reich’s most damning round of criticism and seemingly so in light of what would appear to be higher expectations for the Democrats, evidently unfounded after this electoral debacle. Within the larger fault-finding of the Dems as enablers, Reich points to specific failures of the party in representing the needs of working-class Americans, including:
Forsaking the working class in favor of Wall Street money and other big-ticket donations, as well as seeking votes primarily from upper-middle-class suburban households in areas designated as important voting blocs (i.e. “swing” states).
Failing to protect jobs and wages while in control of one or more congressional houses.
Pushing job-killing free trade agreements under the Clinton and Obama administrations.
Allowing corporations to chip away at the bargaining power of unions or to violate labor laws without meaningful consequences.
Permitting antitrust laws to stagnate or otherwise become less effective, paving the way for larger corporations and consolidation of power within industries into the hands of the few.
You can feel free to argue the relative merit of Robert Reich’s assertions, but for the Democratic Party, as well as the other two enablers, it would seem that each needs to some soul-searching, because it’s a sure bet each of these parties dislikes one or more aspects of a Donald Trump presidency, including the press, who may find themselves at a disadvantage if Trump’s intention to weaken First Amendment protections of publications against claims of libel/slander actually comes to pass. The pertinent question, though, as Reich frames it, is whether or not these enablers have learned anything from the results of this election, and I would tend to doubt they have—at least not yet. They don’t call them the stages of grief for nothing, and if the hashtag #NotMyPresident trending the day after the election is any indication, those not thrilled with Trump’s victory are still a way’s away from acceptance. This includes, of course, those responsible in part for Donald Trump’s rise accepting their responsibility.
Not only do I personally agree with Robert Reich’s assignment of culpability in these three instances, but I embrace his call for a reformation of the Democratic Party, if not the need for a new political party or more enthusiastic recognition of third parties. In a follow-up to his piece on the role of the GOP, the media, and the Democrats as Trump enablers, Reich builds on many of the same themes, but in a more provincial context that directly confronts the necessity for change within the Democratic Party. From the opening of his essay:
As a first step, I believe it necessary for the members and leadership of the Democratic National Committee to step down and be replaced by people who are determined to create a party that represents America – including all those who feel powerless and disenfranchised, and who have been left out of our politics and left behind in our economy.
The Democratic Party as it is now constituted has become a giant fundraising machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests. This must change. The election of 2016 has repudiated it. We need a people’s party – a party capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition to Donald Trump’s Republican party, which is about to take over all three branches of the U.S. government. We need a New Democratic Party that will fight against intolerance and widening inequality.
What happened in America Tuesday should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.
“Widening equality”—that sounds familiar. Strange. It’s not like anyone talked about this on the campaign trail. Oh, wait—that was Bernie Sanders, and he talked about it LITERALLY AT EVERY F**KING RALLY AT WHICH HE SPOKE. Noting Sanders’ consistent domination of Donald Trump in theoretical presidential election polls pitting the two men from New York against one another, a number of people have played “Wednesday morning quarterback,” if you will, wondering whether or not Bernie could have saved us from “the Trumpocalypse.” Reich, for his part, was a fervent Sanders supporter until the Vermont senator suspended his campaign, at which point both men honorably got behind Hillary Clinton and tried to sell her as an alternative to Trump.
Prior to that, however, Robert Reich consistently made his distinction between Hillary and Bernie. Clinton, Reich insisted, is an accomplished, experienced politician, and indeed was the better candidate to work within the system we have in place now. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, was the better candidate to get us to the kind of political system we desperately need, one not dominated by lavish donations from business executives and Hollywood stars, or too cozy with special interests to insist on practical, substantive reform. A democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people. At the time, Reich’s focus on this progressive agenda seemed a bit remote, even for those like myself who believe in Bernie’s vision, in light of Hillary Clinton’s near-certainty of capturing the Democratic Party nomination.
With Donald Trump pulling off the upset to win the 2016 election, however, and with Hillary Clinton’s march to the White House and into the history books halted perhaps permanently, unexpectedly, Democrats must take a cue from Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich sooner than later and more aggressively pursue policy that would benefit the American people and the planet as a whole. Whereas leading up to the election, the media elites suggested the Republican Party was in shambles, thus enhancing the likelihood that Clinton would win, now, in the overreaction to Trump’s victory, people are saying the Last Rites for the Democratic Party. Perhaps this is mere wishful thinking, but I believe, relative to the GOP, the Democrats, by preaching the virtues of inclusion and equality, are still in a better place than the Republicans in the long term, in spite of their poor showing on Election Day. Sure, right now, Trump supporters are popping off, getting in the faces of those who don’t fit their mold and convinced they personally have won something as a result of their candidate’s electoral college win. And while outward shows of discrimination in its various forms shouldn’t be tolerated, to the extent conservatives and the alt-right might now underestimate liberals and progressives, this could be the silver lining of this debacle. Up until the votes came in, much of the world didn’t see President-Elect Donald Trump coming. Come 2018 into 2020, though, the shoe may just be on the other foot. For the sake of our country and perhaps even the world, I can only hope that’s the case.
Mere days before the U.S. presidential election—one that will decide which rich, arrogant white person voters really don’t seem to like gets to be our next Commander-in-Chief—I can’t help but think about another recent vote overseas which garnered a lot of attention. Like with the anticipated margin of victory/defeat in the American general election, the results of this referendum vote were nail-bitingly close. And as is distinctly possible with our choices in the ol’ U-S-of-A, a majority of the participating constituents, as slim as that majority may have been, made a very dumb decision.
By now, you probably realize I am alluding to the so-called Brexit referendum vote in the United Kingdom, in which voters, deceived into believing false promises made by the party about steering 350 million pounds a week to the UK’s National Health Service, or otherwise exploited for their concerns about greater control over the country’s economy and borders, opted for Britain to leave the European Union. The exact mechanics of the United Kingdom’s jettisoning itself from the EU are still being discussed/litigated, in particular, when exactly the change occurs. The extent of the damage, as it likely will bear out, is also up in the air. When the news broke, one specific aspect of the Brexit vote and its immediate aftermath was striking to me. No, not that Boris Johnson looks like the human version of a Muppet, or that Nigel Farage is a weasel-faced liar, though both are indeed applicable.
What struck me is that a good number of UK voters did not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the circumstances behind the referendum vote, or otherwise failed to comprehend exactly what was at stake. In the wake of the bombshell news that the United Kingdom opted to Leave rather than Remain, as this Vox piece by Katie Hicks encapsulates, there was, for many, a quick turn to regret, especially among those who voted to Leave as a sort of “protest vote” while thinking all the while that the Remain side would prevail. The natural response of many hearing this was, “Um, are you f**king kidding me?” Of course, a number of these armchair detractors may not have even voted, so take this criticism for what it’s worth. Perhaps even more confounding, though, after polls had closed following the Brexit vote, Google searches for “What is the EU?” spiked precipitously. The natural response of many was to curl into the fetal position, rock gently back and forth, and weep trying to remember a time when their fellow man or countryman could be trusted to do a lick of research before voting. In these Internet surfers’ defense, I realize the average person’s hours are at a premium, and that many people do not have much time to look things up alongside working and trying to raise a family or whatnot. BUT SERIOUSLY, IF YOU WERE VOTING TO LEAVE THE EU, YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE F**K IT IS. JUST A BIT.
As Samantha Bee quipped about the relationship between Brexit and the state of American politics shortly after the UK’s fateful decision, the parallels between the rise of nationalism in Britain and Trump’s ascendancy to the Republican Party presidential nomination are so obvious a “brain-damaged baboon” could see them. Indeed, the comparisons to be made herein are pretty stark. The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza—decidedly smarter than a brain-damaged baboon, mind you—plotted the similarities between the Brexit movement and a Trumpian undercurrent that has been building largely within white America for some time now. In fact, the strength of Donald Trump’s “anti-establishment” support is such that the undercurrent has since risen to the level of full-on current. Disaffected prospective voters are chanting “Lock her up!” at the mention of “Crooked Hillary” Clinton’s political scandals, alongside the white supremacists feeling perfectly comfortable in, say, punching black protestors at Trump rallies, or burning historically black churches and writing “Vote Trump” on them. You stay classy, racists of Mississippi.
So, what parallels does Cillizza identify? Broadly speaking, he points to three areas of similitude:
Immigration is “out of control”
Obviously, xenophobic sentiment in the United Kingdom has little to do with worry about Mexicans crossing illegally across the border. Such is a uniquely American concern. That said, with migrants from over 20 European Union nations able to move freely across borders, there is at least superficial reason to understand why Team Leave was able to pull off the upset win, as some might see it. It’s the fear of outsiders. The fear of loss of cultural and national identity. The fear something could be taken away. Those same feelings of fear and worry about loss are pervasive among Donald Trump’s supporters, who express genuine enthusiasm about the concept of building a wall at the country’s southern border or favor a ban on Muslims under the vague notion this will keep us safe. Make America Great Again. “Take back control.” Either way, the idea is about going back to a better, more prosperous, simpler time. Such a time may not actually exist, mind you, or at least not as those looking through rose-colored glasses may see things, but you can’t fault voters too much for latching onto a candidate who not only professes to know what is truly ailing the United States, but exactly how to fix it.
Political leaders are “clueless and corrupt”
As Chris Cillizza explains, Brits have had a long-standing issue with rules and standards being dictated to them from European Union headquarters based in Brussels, Belgium. Add to that flagging confidence in pre-Brexit-vote UK prime minister David Cameron, and it’s no wonder the Leave vote had the kind of support it did on this dimension. In the United States, meanwhile, faith in institutions has declined in recent years pretty much across the board, and Congress, for one, is no exception to this rule. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has been given a lot of ammunition in this regard, including but not limited to his political rival, Hillary Clinton, whose various political scandals have dogged her throughout her campaign. It’s worth saying that Trump himself has proven woefully clueless at points in the past year, and umpteen reports have hinted at his own malfeasances. The difference is “the Donald” seems more capable of shrugging off accusations of impropriety, while Hillary’s wrongdoing has stuck to her like glue. This disparity might just be enough to sway the election, at that.
Consequences are “overrated”
Just how bad could a Brexit prove? Even in advance of the referendum vote, as Cillizza notes, experts were warning a break with the EU could not only send the UK into recession, but it could lead to further secession from the European Union, as well as Scotland to just say, “The f**k with ye!” and secede in its own right from the United Kingdom (Scotland, for its part, overwhelmingly voted to Remain, which Donald Trump somewhat infamously failed to recognize after the smoke had cleared). And yet, a majority of voting Brits opted to Leave anyway. Recession, shmecession, am I right?
In terms of Donald Trump’s intended policies—as poorly-defined as they are—his supporters have also damned the potential fallout from his winning the presidency and exacting such measures, defying the predictions of many, myself included. After Trump’s whopper of a speech announcing his intentions to run for President of these United States, I imagined he would find some way to torpedo his campaign, if this didn’t manage to achieve that effect to begin with. Seeing the frustration with establishment politics from the progressive angle, meanwhile, I admittedly underestimated initially just how fed up everyday Americans are with “politics as usual” and the state of affairs in the country today. Chris Cillizza closes his piece on the Brexit-Trump with these thoughts, which sound like a warning more than anything:
We are in the midst of a worldwide sea change regarding how people view themselves, their government and their countries. The Brexit vote and the rise of Trump — while separated by thousands of miles and an ocean — are both manifestations of that change. There will be more.
“There will be more.” Sounds ominous. Like, “there will be blood.” Only Donald Trump is Daniel Plainview. And he’s about to drink all our milkshakes.
Like I said, I, at first, underestimated just how afraid and angry average Americans are, and how they might be willing to look past what many of Donald Trump’s critics see as detestable incompetence. Not to mention dude’s a first-rate asshole. He lies. He deceives. He cheats. He lies some more. And he belittles, bullies or sues anyone who runs afoul of him—which is not hard to do either because the man’s got the emotional maturity of a second-grader. Yet for all his shortcomings, those who intend to vote for him see a greater danger in letting Hillary Clinton get to the White House. I think an essential element of this is that with Trump, there is at least the perception that what you see is what you get. It may not be true, but by saying so much crazy shit over the past year and change, people get the sense he is being forthright with you—even when he’s off-color or off the mark completely.
With Clinton, though, the name of the game is secrecy, built on a mistrust of the press and a fundamental misunderstanding of the electorate. True, she possesses a vague feminist appeal in that she would become the first female POTUS (her suffragette white pantsuit has also played to female voters), as well as the notion she appears to genuinely care about the rights of women and children in particular. She also has received the support of progressive figures like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore and Robert Reich, who have tried to make it seem as though Hillary is the greatest political candidate to ever grace a ballot—if for no other reason than she would be a vastly more rational leader than Donald J. Trump. If not connecting with voters based on a sense of historical achievement or pragmatism, though, she’s pretty much swinging and missing on an emotional front. Trump at least makes his supporters feel like he cares about the average Joe. With Hillary Clinton, however? She is so far removed emotionally from John and Jane Q. Public it’s scary—and I think the Democrats, in general, are too. To a certain extent, so are establishment Republicans. Going back to the Cillizza article, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were cited as figures who believed Americans would “come to their senses” eventually. They were right, but not in the way they meant it. Americans are coming to their senses—but in the form of realization than neither of the major parties really get why so many of us are pissed off. Especially for Hillary’s and the Democrats’ sake, who have been celebrating her likely inauguration before she started running, it might just take a loss to Donald Trump for that aforementioned “sea change” in global politics to sink in and for the party to make meaningful changes.
The question is, then: what are the odds Trump could actually pull off his own Brexit-like reversal of expectations? As it always seems to be the case, the mainstream media and liberal news publications highlight favorable national polling numbers for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, albeit less favorable than they were, say, a month ago. As we know, though, this is not how presidential elections are decided in this country—electoral votes are tallied on a state-by-state basis with the winner needing to get to 270 votes. And the most recent updates are not exactly good for the would-be Madam President. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight indicates Trump is polling well in key swing states. Moreover, CNN’s most recent electoral map projection puts Clinton two electoral votes short of the necessary 270, with 66 votes up for grab in “battleground” states and blue-leaning states like Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin anything but sure bets. Of course, Hillary Clinton is yet the odds-on favorite to win on November 8, but, to borrow a phrase you will likely hear quite often this coming Tuesday, the race is still “too close to call.”
In other words, Donald Trump could conceivably win this whole g-d thing. Bringing back the conversation full circle, much as people voting Leave in the Brexit referendum vote may have regretted their choice, believing Remain would carry the day, if you’re voting Trump but really thinking Clinton will win, don’t. Just don’t. Also, much in the way people were mystifyingly Googling “What is the EU?” after voting, you need to understand what it as stake if Donald Trump wins. Mark Kleiman, public policy professor at NYU Marron Institute of Public Management, enumerated the “damage” a Trump presidency could entail, either with the stroke of a pen or with the sanction of a Republican-led Congress. Read it. The whole list. If you’re still riding the Trump Train after all these points, that’s fine. But if you don’t understand the scope of who or what you’re voting for prior to casting your ballot, you probably shouldn’t even be voting.
I am likely preaching to the choir with a lot of my sentiments in this piece and in this closing. I realize that. Still, it deserves to be said, and as such, I’ll make my own final plea: don’t vote for Donald Trump. Again, just don’t. This is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Far from it. I’m not voting for her, after all. But I’m not voting for Trump either, because he is clearly the wrong choice. Sure, it’s a free country, and you can vote for whomever you want. Just remember, however, that all votes are final, and that lasting consequences may result whichever way you choose.
Though it likely means very little in the grand scheme of things—including to her campaign—I am endorsing Jill Stein for President of the United States. If you know me personally, this may not surprise you, though you’re probably thinking you didn’t imagine me to be so impractical, nor did you consider me to be that interested in politics. Up until recently, though, I wasn’t really that interested in U.S. politics. (On the “impractical” front, meanwhile, I’ve always kind of been that way. Oh, well.) Like so many Americans, I was disgusted with the doings of lawmakers and other politicians. I still am, mind you, and this current slog of a presidential race has perhaps only increased that sickened feeling, but nevertheless, I think it’s important to know where this country is headed, and who’s leading it. Especially if it’s headed to “the shitter,” as some might term it, and it’s being led by a bunch of idiots and children professing to call themselves “adults.”
I may be in my 30’s, and thus have a limited frame of reference for matters of domestic and foreign policy, but seeing a bunch of jokers twice my age do what I would judge to be a poor job of steering our country in the right direction, I figure I might as well do what I can to equip myself and others with knowledge, or at least a different viewpoint in relation to today’s events. People have even made offhand references to me running for President someday, or if I were to run, that they would vote for me. At present, this is merely very flattering to me, but who knows—the ol’ US of A might need someone like me in the future.
But I digress. I imagine a number of you reading and others if they knew are/would be upset at my announcement of my intention to vote for Jill Stein. Accordingly, I have prepared responses as part of an imaginary Q&A. It’s like participating in a debate, only with myself, and thus, if anyone interrupts me, I literally only have myself to blame. So, here goes nothing:
Good evening, Mr. Mangano. Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer some questions.
Well, thank you for having me, and a special thanks to everyone reading.
Sure thing. They’ve already probably started skimming, so let’s not waste too much time, shall we? About your decision to support and vote for Dr. Jill Stein in the upcoming presidential election—
Um, don’t mean to be a dick and all, but you know she can’t win, right?
Well, yeah, I understand that.
So, you’re OK with wasting your vote?
I mean, if you consider it a waste of my vote, then yes. Though I might submit that if Hillary Clinton beats Donald Trump by, say, a million votes in the general election, then barring a situation in which Trump wins the presidency based on electoral math despite having lost the popular vote, 999,999 people casting their vote for the GOP might be considered to be wasting their votes as well.
Listen, don’t get cute. If you want to go ahead and make a “protest vote,” why not just go whole hog and vote for Donald Trump?
Um, are you serious?
What exactly am I “protesting” by voting for Donald J. Trump? Equal treatment of women and people with brown skin? Decency? Having a functioning brain in one’s head? There are so many reasons why voting for Trump is a bad idea, including but not limited to his childishness, his hard-on for Vladimir Putin, his lack of concrete policy ideas, his litigiousness, his racism, his sexism, his vendetta against the mainstream media, his xenophobia, and that he’s a cheat, a fraud, a liar, poor businessman, and potential rapist. And the notion of voting for him because the DNC “screwed” Bernie or that Hillary is part of the “establishment” and he’s an “outsider” is just plain dumb. He’s not “one of us.” He’s a spoiled rich brat who has enjoyed tax breaks and other privileges that were only available to him because of the name his daddy created. I would rather trust a pack of wolves with watching my steak dinner than give Donald Trump the keys to the country.
What I’m hearing is a lot of reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, well, that seems to be many people’s stance, but I don’t feel the same way.
Oh, great. You’re one of those folks who’s going to help independents “Nader” this election.
Ugh. I assume you’re referring to the assertion Ralph Nader “lost” Al Gore the 2000 election, that he played “spoiler” to his hopes. This is a narrative the media has spun about the results of that presidential election which I find wholly disingenuous. First of all, let me point out the fact Gore did not even win his home state of Tennessee in that election. So right then and there, this says something about the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) behind his candidacy. This notwithstanding, there were an awful lot of shenanigans surrounding hanging chads and recounts in the state of Florida, besides the idea thousands of Democrats in the Sunshine State voted for George W. Bush. With all this in mind, suggesting Gary Johnson and Jill Stein could collectively “Nader” this election is a whole lot of misdirection. If Hillary Clinton doesn’t become the first female President of the United States following the results of the vote in November, it won’t be because Bernie Sanders or Johnson or Stein ruined it for her, it’ll be because she lost and she didn’t make a compelling enough case to voters, especially Democrats.
I’m invoking Ralph Nader himself here, but to even refer to someone as a “spoiler” in this context is to be politically bigoted. After all, what are the scores of people who are voting for Hillary Clinton because she’s not Donald Trump and vice-versa doing but playing spoiler to someone else’s vote? In a sense, we’re all playing spoiler by voting, and even those who can vote and don’t plan to come out—who deserve to be admonished, by the way—are making a choice by “not making a choice.” If we’re blaming anyone after Election Day, let it be those who, without irony, cast their ballots for the Republican Party nominee. They’d be the ones “Brexit-ing” this election.
Fine. No excuses for Hillary Clinton if she doesn’t win. Even though she’s trying to single-handedly break through the glass ceiling and deal with centuries of patriarchal oppression.
Right, yes, if she’s playing the “woman card,” then “deal her in.” She’s used that line quite a few times. Though I would like to note Jill Stein is, herself, a woman—
And she’s immensely qualified for the office of President, perhaps more so than any other candidate in American history.
Yes. We know. First Lady and U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. Lots of qualifications—
She’s fighting for us!
We’re stronger together!
Love trumps hate!
Would you quit it with all the campaign slogans?
Sorry. It’s just she inspires so many people. I mean, all these Hollywood endorsements can’t be wrong, can they? Why aren’t you “with her?” Why aren’t you on the side of a progressive who gets things done?
Whoa. Let me stop you right there. Don’t get me wrong—I want Hillary Clinton to win this election. As with the number of voters out there who are behind HRC to foil Donald Trump, I pray Gropey McOrange-Face never holds any public office, let alone President of these United States. Moreover, I don’t wish to rain on the parade the Clinton campaign and women of all ages are envisioning should Hillary win. There’s something to be said for giving young girls, in particular, hope that one day they can rise to the same heights, afforded opportunities the women who came before them never dreamed of. Pardon the expression, but it’s a yuuuuuuge deal.
Going back to Trump, meanwhile, there is a real danger in the prospect of seeing him potentially filling the upcoming vacancy in the Oval Office, and I’m not even talking about the damage he could do with the stroke of a pen or at the behest of a Republican-led Congress, as well as the injury he could inflict on America’s credibility among the nations of the world, which already has taken a hit as a result of him merely becoming a major-party nominee. I’m talking about the sense of empowerment a Donald Trump presidency stands to give stupid racist assholes like himself—that they are justified in their hate and wanting to somehow “take their country back.” No, f**k-wads. You’re taking our country backwards. Our country. Not yours. As Jon Stewart so correctly put it, you don’t own the United States, and you don’t own patriotism. Trump can’t fix America. Trump can’t give you back the nation you think you remember. And Trump can’t “make America great again.” It could be better, sure, but it already is great—and far better than the third-world country he makes it out to be to gin up your anger and fear in trying to get your vote.
But Hillary Clinton, a progressive? No way, José. Before we even get to her exact position on the political spectrum, let’s first consider her track record of, ahem, getting things done. As First Lady? The Clinton health care initiative spearheaded by Hillary and designed to bring the U.S. closer to a universal health care system went down in flames, and HRC was criticized and even litigated against for her part in the apparent secrecy of developments within her Health Care Task Force. As U.S. Senator? Her legacy of bills that she sponsored passing the Senate in two terms? Three became law: one to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site, one to rename a post office, and one to rename a highway. And let’s not forget her vote for the Iraq War. How about her role as Secretary of State? I’ll grant you her work to secure the Iran nuclear deal, and possibly even her influence in the decision to take out Osama bin Laden, but let’s ask the people of Honduras and Libya about meddling in their countries’ affairs. Or mention the deal that sent 20% of America’s uranium stores to Russia. Or perhaps casually talk about her reckless use of E-mail and mobile devices, which may or may not have coincided with hiding sensitive information about the Clinton Foundation or drone strikes. Is this the kind of experience we’re touting?
No, Hillary Clinton is far too jaded from her years in politics to embrace the truly progressive spirit America needs. Universal health care? Pie-in-the-sky fodder! Let’s just keep pushing the Affordable Care Act no one seems to like! $15 minimum wage? Not conciliatory enough! Blame the big banks for their role in the 2007 financial crisis? But the banking industry knows what’s best for it! Free trade? Why not? Climate change? We need to fight it, but what the heck, let’s have some fracking while we’re at it! More military to fight ISIS? Done! Tim Kaine? He’s vanilla as they come, but that’s what we’re after! You see, Clinton hews too close to center on so many issues, and even when she professes to support a more progressive agenda, you can’t be confident she’ll actually live up to her promises. For instance, Hillary claims she’s against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but do you really feel comfortable in the notion she’d break ranks with Barack Obama and move against the agreement should it fail to pass in the lame-duck session? I sure as hell don’t.
As Obama’s ascension to the presidency was a symbol of progress for African-Americans, so too would Hillary Clinton as POTUS signify a breakthrough for women. But is this enough? Both Obama and Clinton seem to favor incremental change rather than bold ideas, and neither has called for the requisite amount of reform of the financial sector in the wake of the credit crisis of a decade ago, which could see a reprise with Wells Fargo and other “too big to fail” institutions playing fast and loose with ethics and our money. Hillary may be a better candidate than Donald Trump, but this doesn’t necessarily make her a good one. She’s a moderate in progressive’s clothing, a warmonger, and not for nothing, pretty damn arrogant. Not as much as Trump, again, but still. She and the rest of the Democratic Party appear content to ride out the “we’re not Trump” strategy up until the election, convinced he’ll self-destruct or that we’ll vote for them anyway. By choosing the “lesser of two evils,” that’s exactly what we’re doing—and giving them every reason to think they can pander to us and put us into boxes. See? There’s danger in electing Hillary Clinton too.
Wow, you really don’t like Hillary, do you?
Not too much. I think there was a time when Hillary Clinton was perhaps more idealistic, and I do feel she genuinely cares about certain issues, namely children’s and women’s rights. Somewhere along the way, though, I believe she decided that politics is a dirty game which should be played to win, and that the acquisition of funds by whatever means necessary is justifiable. In this respect, I suppose HRC is, in part, a byproduct of the money machines known as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and the conflation of politics and business. But this does not completely exonerate her.
OK. Let’s recap real quick. Donald Trump is a scumbag, so you’re not voting for him.
Yup. I mean, you heard about the Trump Tapes, right?
Shit, those were awful. I feel dirty just thinking about them. And Hillary Clinton is a phony in expensive designer clothing, so you’re not voting for her either.
Uh-huh. And it sounds like she’ll be pretty cozy with Wall Street if elected based on the latest leak from Wikileaks.
Yes, yes, Bernie supporter. We know. Wall Street is bad. Money is the root of all evil.
I’M NOT SAYING THAT! THAT’S NOT EVEN THE REAL QUOTE! IT’S “THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!” MONEY IS A USEFUL MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE!
Hey, hey! Stop yelling at me! I’m just a figment of your imagination!
Sorry. I just get upset when people take things out of context.
Yeah, I noticed. All right. Where were we? Ah, yes—your third-party vote. Or fourth-party vote. What is the technical term for your choice?
How about the Green Party vote?
Fine. Whatever. Don’t you think you’re suffering from a serious case of white privilege in refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Donald Trump? After all, dude wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out and ban Muslims from entering the U.S. You’re in a better position to suffer through a Trump presidency than minority groups are.
I don’t deny I am white and privileged. Let me stress—I don’t want Donald Trump to win. Again, though, I feel like it’s unfair to say to people, “Hey, you need to get out there and vote. Don’t f**k this up for the rest of us.” Already, the Hillary apologists and other people fearing a Trump presidency are creating a scapegoat, when it should be incumbent upon the candidate to convince the people to vote for him or her, and not just vote against the alternative. Besides, what message does this send to new voters exercising their rights as citizens? Vote your conscience, but not this time. We know you don’t like either choice, but fall in line. Don’t think about the issues so much—there’s too much at stake to vote independent.
The rationale against Donald Trump is that he more or less is, you know, Hitler, but if both major-party candidates are as unlikable and untrustworthy as Donald and Hillary, and we’ve been voting for the lesser of two evils within the two-party system for this long, gosh darn it, maybe we’re doing it wrong. Maybe the Democrats and Republicans need a signal they’re not meeting the needs of the electorate, and of the planet at that. If we don’t tell them by voting outside the box, if you will, how are we going to ensure that they absorb this notion and produce better candidates for 2020? If not now, when?
Hmm, not even your boys Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich can sway your mind, can they?
I respect these guys immensely, especially Sanders for backing a candidate he campaigned against during the primary season. I also understand where they’re coming from, at least from an outsider’s perspective. Donald Trump. Adolf Hitler. If all people can say in the former’s defense is that he hasn’t called for ethnic cleansing or that he doesn’t have a mustache like the latter, that pretty much tells you all you need to know. Still, while I don’t wish for a Trump presidency, the damage his antics and rhetoric might do to down-ticket Republicans hoping for congressional bids might be quite a boon for the country. Regardless, I think we need to move beyond a mere red-or-blue paradigm, and I feel I need to be true to myself. So come November, I’m voting my conscience—and watching the election results with bated breath.
Wow. You’ve certainly given us a lot to bite off and chew.
Yeah, it’s what I do.
Maybe you should get out more.
Before you go, you talk about voting for a candidate as opposed to voting against another? So, what’s so great about this Jen Stein anyway?
It’s Jill Stein.
Sure, sure. Jill Stein.
She’s a doctor.
What, like, a real one?
No, she just plays one on TV. OF COURSE SHE’S A REAL DOCTOR!
Hey! What did I say about yelling?
OK, I’m sorry!
Ben Carson is a doctor. Why didn’t you support him?
Very funny. Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, not only is eminently qualified like Hillary, but also has a forthright plan to address the major issues facing the United States and the world today. As with Bernie Sanders, Stein believes in a people-powered solution to high poverty and unemployment rates, not to mention a sustainable economy for a sustainable world, and one that functions within a society built on respect for the rights and dignity of all people.
Among the key components of her agenda as the Green Party’s representative are cutting military spending, eliminating student debt, enacting a $15 minimum wage, ending police brutality and mass incarceration, ensuring the right to live and work comfortably for all people, establishing a single-payer public health care system, expanding women’s rights, moving away from corporate influence on politics, and, of course, transitioning America to renewable energy sources as a function of a commitment to protecting the Earth. Of the remaining presidential candidates, she appears to the most focused and genuine among them. And unlike certain people in this race, she knows where the heck Aleppo is.
I knew that was coming sooner or later.
Couldn’t help myself. Sorry.
Phew. That was a long one.
That’s what she said.
God, what are you: twelve?
I know you are, but what am I?
Sigh, I think we’re nearing the end of the road here. Any last words to you want to impart to the audience?
Sure. Thanks again to all for reading, and for more information on Jill Stein and her campaign, visit www.jill2016.com.
Great. Joseph Mangano, ladies and gentlemen! You realize they’re clapping for me, not you, right?
Economist Robert Reich, a man whose insights on matters of economics and public policy I respect dearly, and whom I’ve referenced numerous times on this blog, took to his own website to weigh on the refrain he’s heard from numerous Bernie Sanders supporters who see little difference between the two major-party candidates for President of the United States this election cycle. In a piece entitled “Why You Must Get Behind Hillary, Now,” Reich makes an impassioned plea to those voters contemplating a protest vote, whether based on the notion Hillary Clinton is no better than Donald Trump, that if she is better she’s still corrupt, or that the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve our vote owing to their shenanigans. His response to these justifications for choosing anyone but Hillary is threefold:
1. Trump is a crazy asshole.
Robert Reich here is not so much making a defense of Hillary Clinton, who he acknowledges is not perfect, as much as he is pointing out Donald Trump’s flaws. Namely that he’s dangerously unqualified, full of himself, and racist as all hell. Clinton, at the very least, is very qualified. As we’ve heard 10,000 times this campaign, HRC is supremely qualified.
2. Trump is an evil, crazy asshole.
Forget the “lesser of two evils,” says Reich. Trump may actually be pure evil. I’ve talked about how voting him into office is making a deal with the Devil, but this literally may be the case. In all seriousness, Robert Reich here is urging Bernie supporters to be “realistic and practical” in making their choice, insisting they are not abandoning their progressive principles or “selling out” by voting for Clinton. Even though that’s totally what it feels like.
3. I know you don’t want to reward the stupid Democratic Party for being stupid, but don’t potentially punish future generations because of it.
Here, Reich stresses again the need to advance progressive values in accordance with the formation of an economic and political system that adequately represents working Americans. The first priority, however, is beating Donald Trump. Without that, argues Robert Reich, the revolution can’t get started, and will only get set back further because of it.
Of course, I am paraphrasing Reich’s more tactful verbiage for (debatable) entertainment value. Creative license aside, I agree, broadly speaking, with the above points. Certainly, I submit to the assertion Trump does not deserve your vote, and assuming the lesser of two evils paradigm, Hillary wins on that count as well. As for voting for Donald Trump to stick it to Clinton and the other establishment Democrats, by punishing the DNC, you are by proxy rewarding a self-destructive Republican Party that should have never allowed Trump to rise so high in the first place. While voting for Hillary Clinton does not equal a vote for a true progressive, electing Donald Trump is moving even further from these ideals. To borrow an analogy I witnessed on Twitter, voting for Trump instead of Clinton after supporting Bernie Sanders is like ordering, because you can’t have the hot dogs you really want, a bowl of scorpions instead. Robert Reich closes his entry with this stark reminder:
There are just over seven weeks until Election Day. My request to those of you who still don’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton: please reconsider. It is no exaggeration to say the fate of the nation and the world are at stake.
Rather doom-and-gloom, no? Still, I believe Reich is only speaking in such a sobering way because of the gravity of the situation. Donald Trump should not be President of the United States, and if he does win the race, he will probably be a disaster in this role. There’s no need to mince words in this regard—not at this late hour.
Robert Reich is completely right to make this appeal to voters’ better judgment. That we’re less than two months away from the election in November, however, and he’s still having to try to convince Bernie supporters and other would-be protest voters there is a difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, does not bode well for his ability or anyone else’s, for that matter, to sway their opinions. Having far fewer Facebook subscribers to my name, I am in a yet worse position to change the minds of those in dissent. This notwithstanding, let’s review their charges as enumerated by Mr. Reich which may be key to understanding the depths of the #HillNo resistance:
1. Hillary Clinton is no better than Donald Trump.
As Matthew Berry of ESPN fantasy sports might say, “This is factually incorrect.” Hillary Clinton is certainly better than Donald Trump. Trump has not only built a campaign on a Mexican wall that is absurdly ill-advised and would be incredibly wasteful, but he has run on a platform of jingoistic hate speech. Clinton, for her part, has tried to capitalize on her primary competitor’s most offensive remarks, even busting out the slogan “love trumps hate” with obvious allusion to her Republican rival as part of this attempt to distinguish herself to independent and undecided voters. Of course, the concern with Hillary is that she has repressed genuine emotion for so long she can’t actually feel love anymore, much as an android might claim to express love for a pet cat, so that is its own issue. Regardless of her robo-feelings, Hillary Clinton is a better choice than Donald Trump. This does not necessarily mean she is good, mind you, just better than the major-party alternative.
2. Clinton is corrupt.
Um, yeah, but so is Trump. For all that has been said about Hillary Clinton, her E-mails and potential ethical and legal violations occurring with respect to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Victory Fund, Donald Trump still hasn’t released his tax returns, and has a history of cheating people out of money. In fact, it often seems, when they are not intentionally trying to lose the race by saying something stupid (especially Trump), some unsavory detail about their present situation or past misdeeds surfaces to make us wonder whether or not they have been purposely aiming to out-corrupt one another. In my mind, calling Hillary Clinton corrupt without indicting Donald Trump of the same is allowing a professional con man to fool you by deflecting or by using legal smoke and mirrors to hide his wrongdoing. Clinton’s no saint, but Trump very well may be going to Hell at the end of his story. You know, assuming he’s not Beelzebub to begin with.
3. The Democratic Party doesn’t deserve our vote.
This is probably true. Concordant with Robert Reich’s aforementioned arguments, however, neither does the backwards Republican Party, whose convention was eschewed by both Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow, and which Third Eye Blind—yes, “Semi-Charmed Life” playing Third Eye f**king Blind—performed at just to troll the attendees. The GOP has allowed itself to essentially become an enemy of homosexuals, minorities, sensible gun laws, science, women’s rights and the working class, among other groups. The Democratic establishment may not have done much to earn our vote, but much of the Republican establishment is an embarrassment to the American freedoms it claims to protect.
While perhaps unlikely, this thinking could become moot once the presidential debates begin and a yet larger segment of the population gets to witness how completely deficient Donald Trump is in the areas of domestic and foreign policy. Which is pretty much all the policy there is to discuss, so here’s hoping Trump can really put his proverbial foot in his mouth—and often. Still, less than 50 days away from the general election, if we’re still having to wax theoretical about whether the American public might comprehend how deeply unfit Donald Trump is for the highest office in the United States, perhaps we’re barking up the wrong tree. That is, even putting aside his incredible insensitivity toward blacks, the disabled, Jews, members of the media, Mexicans, Muslims, spouses of political rivals, veterans, victims of gun violence, women, and probably scores more groups I can’t immediately bring to mind—admittedly a tough ask, by the way—that the man has nothing developed to his political credit beyond a very costly plan for immigration reform which will only alienate the international community, and that voters don’t see through this fatal flaw, gives many among us pause and makes us wonder why they don’t get this. Unless they do grasp this much, and support him anyway, which, I submit, is ten times worse. If they can’t appreciate this simple truth, then appeals to logic along the lines of Robert Reich’s probably won’t make much of an impact either. For his avid supporters, Trump and his “truthiness” tends to win over more objective measures.
Knowing this, from a campaign strategy perspective, how do we pursue the necessary votes to keep Donald Trump from the White House? As per the usual, the results of polls may vary, but despite her best efforts, Hillary Clinton is still ahead nationally by a slim margin of about 5%. Of course, if we’re familiar with our old friend the electoral college, we know that presidential races are not won based on overall votes, but owing to performance in individual states, necessitating the elaboration of convoluted what-if scenarios and giving John King another chance to satisfy his apparent touch-screen map fetish. With this in mind, on the state-by-state front, other polls would indicate that the race is more or less neck-and-neck in key battleground/swing states, and with Hillary possibly galvanizing the cause for Trump among his potential supporters with her “basket of deplorables” comment, the presidential race may be even closer than most of us think. Taking this all into account, let’s finally talk turkey on how to address the looming specter of a Donald Trump presidency:
1. Look to recent history to demonstrate that Donald Trump could totally f**king win.
For all the doomsday bluster about Donald Trump possibly winning the presidency that I’ve seen contained in the litany of E-mails I currently receive because of my affiliation as a registered Democrat (which only came about because I wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders in my state primary), as well as my contributions to charitable causes and political campaigns, Democrats, on the whole, don’t seem to be taking this whole voting thing as seriously as the Republican base is, or at least not seriously enough to inspire any real sense of confidence heading into November.
By now, we should understand that if there’s one thing cranky old whites—or COWs, as I call them—like to do: it’s vote. (Presumably, this is second among their favorite things next to telling kids to get off their lawn.) In recent American history, the 2010 mid-term elections were a shellacking of Democratic Party candidates, likely at the hands of voters who were either already disenfranchised with President Obama’s policies, or never wanted a black president in the first place. This occurred, in part, to an overall low voter turnout rate. In international history, but even more recently, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. It still feels weird to say. Turnout was higher in this referendum vote, and the victory for Team Leave was much less decisive than in the 2010 U.S. mid-terms, but on the strength of—you guessed it, herd-mentality COWs scared about Muslims and convinced by unrealistic economic processes—pro-Brexit forces were able to win the day, and as many submit, endanger Britain’s economic future. (Good job, lords and ladies!) The parallels to this presidential election are, by now, obvious. If nothing else, Democrats who avidly support Hillary Clinton need to vote to cancel out the likely-more-committed GOP voters. You wanted her—now you have to elect her.
2. Stop treating Hillary as more than the alternative to Trump.
This is perhaps a microcosm of the race as a whole, and if nothing else, is telling as to where we are in the seemingly never-ending 2016 presidential campaign. In explaining why he plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election at a public debate against Rep. David Jolly (R), former governor of Florida and Republican-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist said this of the potential Madam President: “The thing I like most about her is steady. I believe she is strong. I believe she is honest.” After that last bit, though, the crowd didn’t cheer or applaud. They laughed—and since there was no one to laugh with, they must have been laughing at her. See, here’s the thing: for all the people who think Hillary Clinton has been unfairly targeted by Republicans and has come out of all her trials by fire unburnt, there are as many people or more who just aren’t buying what the Clinton campaign and an army of Democratic supporters are selling. They don’t see her as a sound decision-maker, especially when considering her tenure as Secretary of State and her penchant for promoting regime change. They don’t view her as likely to keep her progressive promises if she makes it to the White House. They don’t reckon she is particularly strong, though this likely has something to do with presumed doubts about her physical health, something I feel should be off-limits, but tell that to her detractors. And most importantly, they don’t believe she is honest. Not in the slightest.
So, let’s dispense with the rhetoric for all but the bottiest of the Hillbots and the staunchest of the Democratic Party loyalists. If you’re voting for Hillary Clinton, there’s a strong likelihood you’re not voting for Hillary Clinton. You’re voting for cold neoliberal pragmatism. You’re voting for incremental progress. Perhaps you’re voting strictly to usher in the first female president, or to continue the legacy/precedent set by Barack Obama—whatever you think that entails. But you’re voting first and foremost to block Donald Trump. We don’t need any more than that.
3. Specifically for the woman herself, don’t try to be likable. (After all, it hasn’t really worked all that well anyway.)
This is akin to what Bill Maher was asking of Hillary Clinton a short while back when he told her to embrace her dark side and become the “Notorious HRC,” the “super-villain” Republicans and Bernie-or-Busters conceive of her to be. Hillary apologized after her “basket of deplorables” remark, but only on the aspect of calling “half” of Trump’s supporters by this term, and without a hint of irony, at that. While it was indeed an ill-advised comment by Clinton, for once, it would be refreshing if she would simply double-down on what many see as a gaffe by her, refuse to apologize—even though she didn’t really give a full apology to begin with—and do something to inspire her base of support. “You want me to say sorry for calling half of you ‘deplorables.” Well, I am sorry—sorry I didn’t call all of you that! My opponent is an asshole. If you like him, you’re probably one too! Don’t care for what I’m telling you? Want to call me a ‘bitch’ about it? Good. I’m the baddest bitch in these United States! Sorry—I ain’t sorry.”
In this way, Hillary Clinton could take a cue from Beyoncé, or perhaps even channel her inner Kelis. In the lead-in to her 2006 single “Bossy,” Kelis speaks, “You don’t have to love me/You don’t even have to like me/But you will respect me.” Why? Because she’s a motherf**king boss! That’s the kind of attitude that galvanizes your own base as much as it does the other side. That’s the Democratic Party representative we need! Show them who wears the pantsuits in this race, Hillary!
Suggestion #3 is obviously unlikely to be put into practice, even though, like Tyrion Lannister telling the witnesses to his trial he wishes he could be the monster they’ve made him out to be—and that he had enough poison to wipe out the lot of them—I’m sure a lot of people would love the chutzpah Hillary Clinton would demonstrate to tell millions of prospective voters she doesn’t care what they think about her and that she can run the country a hell of a lot better than stupid Donald Trump. Then, presumably, there would be a trial by combat or something. Maybe a head smashed in or two. Now that would be some sort of political process!
Unfortunately, we aren’t apt to see HRC throw shade on a sizable portion of the electorate, drop the mic, and walk away, nor is it conceivable we would observe Donald Trump being mutilated by a gargantuan man likened to a geological formation. Instead, though, arguably the best approach for the Clinton campaign would be to encourage the most fervent supporters to cast their vote, cut their losses with potential voters who can’t see past Trump’s more glaring flaws, and in general, give less of a shit about what people think outside of actual polling numbers. Hillary, you’ve been dancing with Trump and around the truth for months now. It’s time to punch him in the mouth and see if he has the glass jaw we imagine he does.
To me, Alt-Right sounds like some sort of keyboard shortcut that allows you to move to the next page in a Microsoft Word document or scroll across on a webpage or something. Unfortunately, speaking in political/social terms, the so-called “alt-right” movement is not a helpful keystroke, nor does it seem to be particular useful to society. In fact, from the recently-built consensus on this loose assortment of activists and theorists, the forces behind the alt-right might actually portend the coming of a battle against deleterious influences within the American electorate.
So, why the hubbub all of a sudden about this element, one for which I will readily admit I was not aware a name actually existed until recently? Well, a big reason likely lies in the fact Hillary Clinton just referenced the alt-right in a fiery speech denouncing its core motivations and tenets. Here’s a snippet from her latest anti-Donald Trump tirade in Reno, Nevada this past Thursday:
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, Breitbart embraces “ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas. Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas—all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the “Alt-Right.”
Alt-Right is short for “Alternative Right.” The Wall Street Journal describes it as a loosely organized movement, mostly online, that “rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.” The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the Alt-Right. A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.
This is part of a broader story—the rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world.
As I’ve made abundantly clear through my posts here, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but give the devil wearing Prada her due, she’s spot-on here, which partially explains why outlets like CNN were practically having an orgasm over how strong Clinton seemed in delivering this diatribe. The Republican Party, led by Trump and touched by crazies, has more or less been hijacked by this ilk, alienating high-ranking members, including past presidents, in the process. As for the rise of “hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world,” HRC is correct on this assertion as well. As we’ve seen throughout Europe, be it with Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France, Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party in Austria (jeez, these nationalists sure like their freedom, don’t they?) and, perhaps most notably, in the machinations of Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party resulting in the Brexit referendum and the eventual vote which decided the United Kingdom would leave the EU, rabid anti-immigrant nationalism and xenophobia are alive and well in places other than the United States of America. And while he claims no allegiance to or even knowledge of the alt-right, Donald Trump has seemingly embraced its kind and the same principles set forth by the know-nothings across the pond. In fact, Trump has even envisioned himself as some sort of “Mr. Brexit.” If by this, he means that, like the decision to exit the European Union, he is hated by young people and feared to destroy the country’s economy, then sure, Mr. Brexit it is.
Let’s go a little deeper into the nature of the alt-right in an attempt to further facilitate understanding, though. Sarah Posner, writing for Mother Jones, profiles Stephen Bannon, chairman of Breitbart Media and newly-enlisted head of the Donald Trump, as someone more unabashedly supportive of the alternative right and someone with yet more pronounced fingerprints on the movement’s origins. In doing so, she, as so many journalists have had to do in apparently scrambling to cover the abstract concept of the alt-right, pursues an operational definition of the term:
Exactly who and what defines the alt-right is hotly debated in conservative circles, but its most visible proponents—who tend to be young, white, and male—are united in a belief that traditional movement conservatism has failed. They often criticize immigration policies and a “globalist” agenda as examples of how the deck is stacked in favor of outsiders instead of “real Americans.” They bash social conservatives as ineffective sellouts to the GOP establishment, and rail against neo-conservative hawks for their embrace of Israel. They see themselves as a threat to the establishment, far bolder and edgier than Fox News. While often tapping into legitimate economic grievances, their social-media hashtags (such as #altright on Twitter) dredge up torrents of racist, sexist, and xenophobic memes.
Posner, like many, acknowledges that painting the alt-right with a broad brush, or at least panning it outright, as with most movements, has it perils. Establishment politics on both sides of the political aisle in the U.S. is being decried by more extreme factions within the Democratic and Republican Parties; on the blue side, Bernie Sanders and other more progressive candidates have taken Hillary Clinton and other mainstream Dems to task for abandoning working-class Americans and preserving a status quo characterized by massive income and wealth inequality. Trickle-down conservative economics are also well worthy of criticism, as is the country’s pandering to Israel’s agenda in Gaza and the West Bank at the expense of legitimate Palestinian claims and interests.
This notwithstanding, it is the methods of many self-identifying members of the alternative right that threaten to undermine any more cogent arguments to be made within. Sarah Posner speaks to recurrent themes of racism, sexism and xenophobia in alt-righters’ online communications, and along these lines, bullying, hate speech and targeted attacks have become a modus operandi of sorts for individuals like Milo Yiannopoulos and his followers, as the persistent harassment of Ghostbusters (2016) and Saturday Night Live star Leslie Jones serves to indicate. Not to mention there are additional policy stances held by the alt-right and mentioned by Posner in the above blurb that are not nearly as well-regarded by the national and international communities, chief among them the vehement antipathy toward immigrants and others perceived to be “outsiders” or otherwise not “real Americans.” Not only would some argue this is sentiment is decidedly un-American, especially since the backbone of this nation and the source of much of its character is immigration, but the sheer notion of what constitutes a “real American” and how elusively subjective that definition is further detracts from the alt-right’s credibility.
Concerning Stephen Bannon’s role in the promulgation of alt-right rhetoric, Sarah Posner gives salient examples of how his views and those of Breitbart readers coincide:
Bannon’s views often echo those of his devoted followers. He describes Islam as “a political ideology” and Sharia law as “like Nazism, fascism, and communism.” On his Sirius XM radio show, he heaped praise on Pamela Geller, whose American Freedom Defense Initiative has been labeled an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Bannon called her “one of the leading experts in the country, if not the world,” on Islam. And he basically endorsed House Speaker Paul Ryan’s primary challenger, businessman Paul Nehlen, who floated the idea of deporting all Muslims from the United States.
Posner also underscores how Bannon has utilized Breitbart Media as a mouthpiece against black activists, especially those identifying with Black Lives Matter, suggesting those killed by police brutality likely deserved it, and that certain people—he doesn’t say African-Americans, but you know he totally means it—are predisposed toward aggression and violence. And when Stephen Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and others aren’t being overtly bigoted, misogynistic or xenophobic, which seemingly doesn’t happen often, much of their behavior still qualifies as bullying. It’s as if followers of the alt-right know deep down that they can’t win on the strength of their viewpoints alone, so they gang up on people, aiming to badger or frighten them into submission, thereby winning on a technical knockout, if you will, rather than a convincing string of logical arguments delivered on respectful terms. Toward the end of her piece, Sarah Posner provides yet another illustration of the sort of corrosive, abusive language that appears to be a hallmark of the alt-right:
On Thursday, in the Washington Post, [former Breitbart editor-at-large Ben] Shapiro upped the ante, describing the alt-right as a “movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism,” and Breitbart News as “a party organ, a pathetic cog in the Trump-Media Complex and a gathering place for white nationalists.” The reception he and another conservative Jewish Breitbart critic, Bethany Mandel, have experienced in the Bannonosphere is revealing: In May, when Shapiro, who became editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire after leaving Breitbart, tweeted about the birth of his second child, he received a torrent of anti-Semitic tweets. “Into the gas chamber with all 4 of you,” one read. Another tweet depicted his family as lampshades. Mandel says she has been harassed on Twitter for months, “called a ‘slimy Jewess’ and told that I ‘deserve the oven.'”
After Shapiro called out the anti-Semitism, BreitbartNews published (under the byline of Pizza Party Ben) a post ridiculing Shapiro for “playing the victim on Twitter and throwing around allegations of anti-Semitism and racism, just like the people he used to mock.”
Back at the RNC, Bannon dismissed Shapiro as a “whiner…I don’t think that the alt-right is anti-Semitic at all,” he told me. “Are there anti-Semitic people involved in the alt-right? Absolutely. Are there racist people involved in the alt-right? Absolutely. But I don’t believe that the movement overall is anti-Semitic.”
Holocaust imagery. Demeaning foul language, and stubborn denial of the hate it encourages. Accusing others of falsely playing “the victim.” What passes as political discourse by much of the alt-right is a mix of puerile remarks and threatening epithets that in most cases amounts to nothing, but in a country like the United States replete with lethal weapons and even in nations with stricter gun laws, that one or more of these peddlers of death threats and threats of other bodily harm might actually seek to act on their anger and prejudices is enough that the rest of us can’t simply disregard the potential for tragedy. What’s more, while authorities may be able to intervene in time in the case of a telling social media post, in so many instances, the warning comes too quickly or not at all, such that someone may walk into a building or up to a person on the street and just start firing, with the target more or less completely unaware of the threat that looms. It’s scary, but this is the reality of life in 2016. Call it the “new normal,” if you must, but the possibility, however slim, statistically speaking, is ever-present.
If, perhaps, the alt-right’s most outspoken voices lack genuine conviction in their system of beliefs, it is their unshakable confidence in the inviolate permissiveness of free speech and their thinking that political correctness is a deleterious force in today’s domestic and foreign policy which are most striking. Before knowing full well of the extent of what the alternative right comprises, I wrote about Milo Yiannopoulos’ directed, targeted abuse at Leslie Jones that ended up getting him banned on Twitter. This is not merely to toot my own horn, I assure you, but to recall how Milo didn’t exactly take this perceived affront by Twitter et al lightly, and furthermore, framed his reaction with respect to what he and others like him envision as a larger conflict of ideals. From his response on—where else?—Breitbart:
Like all acts of the totalitarian regressive left, this will blow up in their faces, netting me more adoring fans. We’re winning the culture war, and Twitter just shot themselves in the foot.
This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.
Because we had so much fun the first time, let’s dissect this bold talk from everyone’s favorite British-Greek “journalist” once more, shall we?
Like all acts of the totalitarian regressive left, this will blow up in their faces, netting me more adoring fans.
Milo Yiannopoulos certainly doesn’t lack for high opinion for himself, does he? But he may be right on aspects of his rhetoric, in particular, the notion that permanent Twitter bans and bombastic Clintonian speeches lend legitimacy to the alt-right movement and give them free press. In fact, as Rebecca Harrington of Business Insiderreports, alt-right thinkers were “practically giddy” that Hillary had done their work for them, so there may be something to the “bashing us only drives up our ratings” claim.
The other points are more debatable. Certainly, the concept of the “totalitarian” left is not a new one, with articles like this one from The American Thinker slamming modern liberals as enthusiastic about diversity along demographic lines but not about diversity of opinions, and essentially being one step away from fascists. In Milo’s case, however, not only was he violating Twitter’s terms of service by encouraging Leslie Jones’s harassment at the hands (fingertips?) of his fans, but he afterwards made a false connection between an alleged instance of overreach by Twitter’s censorship and the supposed unmitigated sanctity of the First Amendment. As I suggested in my aforementioned earlier post, free speech is all well and good, but it doesn’t entitle you to be a complete and total asshole. There are limits, and you just cried about totalitarianism because Twitter refused to give in to you like a mother does to her spoiled-brat child.
As for the “regressive left” mantra, this also is not a new idea. Critics of liberal policymakers and thinkers have long considered, for instance, the refusal to use the term “radical Islam” as pandering to Muslims and diversity at the expense of America’s security. Like with the “totalitarian” charge, however, this characterization falls into a logical trap. Apparently, since America hasn’t closed the door on the War on Terror, and political correctness has marked much of the White House’s relationship with this initiative as a subset of relationships with the Muslim community in the United States, it must be that a more delicate, nuanced handling of the situation is ineffective. By this logic, once again, being an asshole is evidently the correct way to approach these matters, and measures such as banning Muslims are supposed to reverse our fortunes. Even though terrorism experts insist that this is having the exact opposite effect. But what would they know?
We’re winning the culture war, and Twitter just shot themselves in the foot.
The phrase “culture war” implies that there are two sides intent on the other’s destruction, and while this sentiment definitely applies for Breitbart and its readers, the reverse, I would argue, does not hold as true. Liberalism in the United States, broadly speaking, tends to focus on civil liberty and equality, and thus fighting for Americans as a whole, rather than fighting against someone or something, as in the amorphous notion of “the Left.” Moreover, while liberalism certainly can err on the side of failing to assign responsibility to groups or individuals for their role in economic, moral and social shortcomings, perhaps explaining in part the rise in popularity of the alt-right, to say that it is “winning” the culture war is a stretch, to say the least. After all, when media types find themselves writing articles about what the alt-right entails because they themselves don’t know what that is, let alone their readers, it’s hard to argue you’re winning anything, let alone making much of a dent in the national consciousness.
This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.
Like I said in my previous piece, Twitter seems to be doing just fine without you, Mr. Yiannopoulos. And speaking of the alt-right, if Donald Trump is seen as a key figure in this movement—whether he recognizes it or not—he, for one, has been given free reign to use social media as a soapbox, or to hit back at his detractors like the petulant child he is deep down. The fact of the matter is Twitter is a business, and unfortunately, it likely has to deal with the more unsavory aspects of some people’s behavior, or else ban them and risk seeming like the “totalitarian” institution alt-right sympathizers envision them to be. Again, though, I submit, it’s not a question of free speech—it’s that the alternative right’s bullying ways impinge upon the First Amendment rights of other users, namely those of wanting to have certain material remain private and of wishing to feel safe in the online environment. These wants are not unreasonable, and should not be negotiable, what’s more. So, Milo, when it comes down to it, it appears it’s just you and a select few other poor sports who are not welcome on Twitter. Congratulations on this dubious distinction.
Linda Stasi, writing for the New York Daily News and obviously taking Leslie Jones’ online harassment quite personally, recently clapped back at her would-be aggressors and others that seem to fit the alternative right mold:
Instead of doing anything to improve yourselves, you waste your lives online spewing hatred, misogyny and racism. How ’bout getting off your asses and doing something to improve the world?
You have declared open warfare on women like Jones because she’s black, a woman, accomplished. But you really hate her because you aren’t any of those things.
Because you aren’t, you instead insult women by calling them by body parts, and by using ugly sexual references.
You are such dimwits that you think it’s clever to post nonsense like telling women who’ve accomplished much in life to get a life. News flash: If their lives were any bigger, they’d explode. Meantime, you’re the ones writing hate mail to celebrities you’ve never met. Seriously, losers: Time you all got a life.
It may be a bit of an oversimplification to depict the anti-SJW crowd in this way—as jealous, lazy, sexually frustrated, whiny white guys who hide behind their keyboards. As is the nature of many stereotypes, though, they exist because more often than not, they are true. And while some delicacy might be warranted with members of the alt-right because of the remote possibility they might represent a physical or other danger to the people around them, this should not be taken as a sign of defeat. If anything, it might actually be advantageous to Hillary Clinton and those outside the alt-right to let them think they’ve won something, only to emerge more confident and determined in promoting progressive ideas in the future. So, no, in short, the alt-right isn’t alright, nor are they, in most cases, right. And until they, by and large, learn to express themselves in ways that command respect, they should not receive it.