Saturday, April 30, 2016
Friday, April 29, 2016
Mark Halperin Is The Biggest Hack Alive
Seriously, this guy makes as much sense as a Mad Lib written by a Howler Monkey.
Protesting
I'm admittedly ambivalent about the efficacy of protest. I think in certain cases it's essential and in others it's counterproductive. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to tell which is which.
This article highlights all the problems with protest culture. Ultimately, it's about moral imperatives rather than tactical and strategic vision and achievement. Protesters feel good about standing up to what they perceive as a moral failing. However, in an age of polarization, they can often force people to take the side they oppose out of partisan loyalty. Trump's biggest selling point seems to be his assault on "political correctness" (really, just not being an asshole), and the protesters can often reinforce that message and add to his strength.
However, ten years ago, I would have been telling marriage equality advocates to chill out, because they were pushing too hard, too fast. They made a moral case and won.
Trump could be in for an historic drubbing, but I wonder if "heightening the contradictions" will make that more or less likely. If the protests degenerate into violence that includes the protesters, that will only empower Trump, exactly the opposite of what should be their goal.
This article highlights all the problems with protest culture. Ultimately, it's about moral imperatives rather than tactical and strategic vision and achievement. Protesters feel good about standing up to what they perceive as a moral failing. However, in an age of polarization, they can often force people to take the side they oppose out of partisan loyalty. Trump's biggest selling point seems to be his assault on "political correctness" (really, just not being an asshole), and the protesters can often reinforce that message and add to his strength.
However, ten years ago, I would have been telling marriage equality advocates to chill out, because they were pushing too hard, too fast. They made a moral case and won.
Trump could be in for an historic drubbing, but I wonder if "heightening the contradictions" will make that more or less likely. If the protests degenerate into violence that includes the protesters, that will only empower Trump, exactly the opposite of what should be their goal.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
In Vino Veritas
John Boehner got liquored up and spilled the beans about what we already know to be true.
As the article notes, this gibes with Ornstein and Mann's critique of the GOP as an "insurgent outlier" that was so ideologically extreme, that it made governance impossible. They wrote this almost four years ago to the day, and nothing that has happened in the intervening years has done anything to soften this criticism. The GOP simply refuses to compromise out of ideological purity.
The prevailing fiction that exists within polite DC society is that "each side is to blame equally" for the country's dysfunction. Ornstein and Mann ripped this pretense to shreds, but it still surfaces in places like when Politico's founder starts babbling about a third party of technocrats ohmygodmakeitstop. Because "each side is to blame" the criticism - despite being coauthored by an American Enterprise Institute scholar - could be dismissed as a liberal hit piece.
As the Vox piece points out, Boehner basically confirms Ornstein and Mann's criticism from within the Conservative Movement.
The sad reality is that the GOP is fundamentally broken, and the ascension of Donaldus Magnus is a prime example of this. The party elites have been sending extreme messages to the Base - impeachment, Birtherism, ACA is the end of freedom - and now the Base have internalized that extremism and coughed up the living, breathing Id of their party.
I've expressed before my sympathy for Boehner, who I think wanted to govern, but was not allowed to by the caucus. However, we have reached a point where the GOP's ideological intransigence is threatening the well being of the Republic.
What is even scarier is that Trumpism is likely to become the default ideology of the GOP faithful. As Trump wins the nomination, the GOP will dutifully fall in line behind him, because that is how the GOP do. This could lead to more ideological polarization, and if the Democrats can't win back the Congress, a fundamental collapse in the ethos of separation and sharing of powers.
Shit IS fucked and broken. But only one side broke it.
As the article notes, this gibes with Ornstein and Mann's critique of the GOP as an "insurgent outlier" that was so ideologically extreme, that it made governance impossible. They wrote this almost four years ago to the day, and nothing that has happened in the intervening years has done anything to soften this criticism. The GOP simply refuses to compromise out of ideological purity.
The prevailing fiction that exists within polite DC society is that "each side is to blame equally" for the country's dysfunction. Ornstein and Mann ripped this pretense to shreds, but it still surfaces in places like when Politico's founder starts babbling about a third party of technocrats ohmygodmakeitstop. Because "each side is to blame" the criticism - despite being coauthored by an American Enterprise Institute scholar - could be dismissed as a liberal hit piece.
As the Vox piece points out, Boehner basically confirms Ornstein and Mann's criticism from within the Conservative Movement.
The sad reality is that the GOP is fundamentally broken, and the ascension of Donaldus Magnus is a prime example of this. The party elites have been sending extreme messages to the Base - impeachment, Birtherism, ACA is the end of freedom - and now the Base have internalized that extremism and coughed up the living, breathing Id of their party.
I've expressed before my sympathy for Boehner, who I think wanted to govern, but was not allowed to by the caucus. However, we have reached a point where the GOP's ideological intransigence is threatening the well being of the Republic.
What is even scarier is that Trumpism is likely to become the default ideology of the GOP faithful. As Trump wins the nomination, the GOP will dutifully fall in line behind him, because that is how the GOP do. This could lead to more ideological polarization, and if the Democrats can't win back the Congress, a fundamental collapse in the ethos of separation and sharing of powers.
Shit IS fucked and broken. But only one side broke it.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Good Read
I pretty much agree with these conclusions.
We need to break some bad patterns of behavior on the part of our "allies." We need to realize that they need us more than we need them.
We need to break some bad patterns of behavior on the part of our "allies." We need to realize that they need us more than we need them.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
#YeahPrettyMuchTrump
Trump moved from the hostile ground of Wisconsin and hit his home turf in the Northeast. He killed it tonight, sweeping the GOP primaries. He still probably won't get to the magic 50%+1 of delegates, but he honestly could.
Maybe...maybe...if Kasich or Cruz wasn't in the race, Trump could have been stopped. Kasich's continued presence in the race is such a mystery. I guess he's waiting for the convention. But that's not going to happen if he stays in the race. A Catch-22.
But if Trump builds momentum, maybe he could clinch in California.
Clinton wins Maryland and Delaware so far. I guess those are Southern and don't count.
Maybe...maybe...if Kasich or Cruz wasn't in the race, Trump could have been stopped. Kasich's continued presence in the race is such a mystery. I guess he's waiting for the convention. But that's not going to happen if he stays in the race. A Catch-22.
But if Trump builds momentum, maybe he could clinch in California.
Clinton wins Maryland and Delaware so far. I guess those are Southern and don't count.
Do What We Say, And No One Gets Hurt
Cleveland has to pay the family of Tamir Rice $6 million for shooting their 12 year old boy in a misplaced rush of adrenaline, testosterone, racism and idiocy. The head of the police union hopes they use that money to educate the "youth of Cleveland" that any child who wants to survive better not do anything provocative like play in the streets.
We live in a country where white assholes parade open carry long guns in Chipotles, but a 12 year old black kid gets a death sentence for playing in a park. And the police think it's the kid's fault.
This is an egregious incident of victim blaming that illustrates the fact that the police have become so insulated from the repercussions of their actions, that they are not only beyond the law, they have moved beyond basic morality.
Hey, Stephen Loomis? Your cop executed that kid for playing in a park. Until you realize that this is YOUR problem, nothing gets better.
We live in a country where white assholes parade open carry long guns in Chipotles, but a 12 year old black kid gets a death sentence for playing in a park. And the police think it's the kid's fault.
This is an egregious incident of victim blaming that illustrates the fact that the police have become so insulated from the repercussions of their actions, that they are not only beyond the law, they have moved beyond basic morality.
Hey, Stephen Loomis? Your cop executed that kid for playing in a park. Until you realize that this is YOUR problem, nothing gets better.
Monday, April 25, 2016
You're Adorable
Cruz and Kasich have banded together to...I'm not sure exactly. How, exactly, do Kasich voters in Indiana suddenly vote for Cruz? Or Cruz voters in New Mexico vote for Kasich?
This is the myth of tactics. Campaigns think they can make a masterful tactical move to save their campaign, when really it's about the bigger strategy. Tactically, all you can hope for is not to screw up.
This is the myth of tactics. Campaigns think they can make a masterful tactical move to save their campaign, when really it's about the bigger strategy. Tactically, all you can hope for is not to screw up.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Pride
I have to recommend the film, "Pride," about a group of gay rights activists who support the British coal miners' strike of 1984-85. It's a formulaic fish-out-of-water story, but it's so much better than it sounds. Yes, there's a formula, but it's so heartfelt and well done that's impossible not to get swept away.
Watch next weekend for May Day. Bread and Roses.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Trump Has No Etch-A-Sketch
Donaldus Magnus Trumpius recently made some sense, when asked about the stupid "bathroom bills" oozing out of the Bible Belt like so much pus. He sounded reasonable and stuff, and everyone was like, "Ooooooh, he's pivoting to the center for the general. Watch out Hillary!"
Eh, no.
Trump will no doubt try and pivot center, because everyone tries to pivot center. This is not a new tactic.
In the age of YouTube and camera phones, there is simply too much video evidence of Trump being a shitheel. And when people make up their mind about someone, they rarely change it. Donald Trump's unfavorables among Latinos is YUUUUGE. You don't pivot to the center and change those minds. Maybe you can change 87% unfavorable to 85% if you work at it. My guess is the same dynamic applies to female voters.
Donald Trump has defined himself in the minds of most Americans.
Martin Longman believes that the media will be complicit in this tactic, and I suppose they might be. If the media mattered anymore, Jeb! would be the Republican nominee and Clinton - whom they hate - would've been more battered than she is. So, while the media may allow Donaldus Magnus some latitude to redefine himself, he simply isn't going to be able to.
There is one group, however, that will likely buy this act: Republicans. They will spin the new Donald and the real Donald in order to justify their support. This, however, will have the effect of more firmly tying the GOP to Trump's form of misogynistic, race baiting demagoguery.
Go ahead and pivot, Trump. And bring the GOP down with you.
UPDATE: And of course, if he does pivot, he will upset his mouthbreathing base.
Eh, no.
Trump will no doubt try and pivot center, because everyone tries to pivot center. This is not a new tactic.
In the age of YouTube and camera phones, there is simply too much video evidence of Trump being a shitheel. And when people make up their mind about someone, they rarely change it. Donald Trump's unfavorables among Latinos is YUUUUGE. You don't pivot to the center and change those minds. Maybe you can change 87% unfavorable to 85% if you work at it. My guess is the same dynamic applies to female voters.
Donald Trump has defined himself in the minds of most Americans.
Martin Longman believes that the media will be complicit in this tactic, and I suppose they might be. If the media mattered anymore, Jeb! would be the Republican nominee and Clinton - whom they hate - would've been more battered than she is. So, while the media may allow Donaldus Magnus some latitude to redefine himself, he simply isn't going to be able to.
There is one group, however, that will likely buy this act: Republicans. They will spin the new Donald and the real Donald in order to justify their support. This, however, will have the effect of more firmly tying the GOP to Trump's form of misogynistic, race baiting demagoguery.
Go ahead and pivot, Trump. And bring the GOP down with you.
UPDATE: And of course, if he does pivot, he will upset his mouthbreathing base.
Friday, April 22, 2016
In Extremis
Volunteered tonight at a men's shelter. These are guys at the absolute bottom. What was interesting was how they had essentially created a community amongst themselves.
Even at the bottom we need each other.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
No, You're Dumb
This piece suggests that working class Americans abandoned liberalism, because liberals are smug. Honestly, I couldn't finish it.
Look, the working class abandoned liberalism because of race, though there were other factors. Yes, style probably had something to do with it, but a certain intellectual smugness has been a part of liberalism since it was invented. Liberalism as a movement relies on informed reason. What does the evidence say? What does precedent show?
Once working class whites began to leave the Democratic party over issues of race and culture, that may have removed some ballast from the party that represents liberals, but just because the Daily Show is smug does not account for why Kansas is dark red despite poor governance.
Whatever truth exists in the argument that coastal liberals look down on heartland conservatives, that argument can also be precisely reversed. The conservative movement has nothing but contempt for liberals. They rode to power on the backs of guys like Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh and have now coalesced in Fox News.
And to argue that today's polarization is a product of liberals is to me the ultimate Slate-Pitch.
Look, the working class abandoned liberalism because of race, though there were other factors. Yes, style probably had something to do with it, but a certain intellectual smugness has been a part of liberalism since it was invented. Liberalism as a movement relies on informed reason. What does the evidence say? What does precedent show?
Once working class whites began to leave the Democratic party over issues of race and culture, that may have removed some ballast from the party that represents liberals, but just because the Daily Show is smug does not account for why Kansas is dark red despite poor governance.
Whatever truth exists in the argument that coastal liberals look down on heartland conservatives, that argument can also be precisely reversed. The conservative movement has nothing but contempt for liberals. They rode to power on the backs of guys like Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh and have now coalesced in Fox News.
And to argue that today's polarization is a product of liberals is to me the ultimate Slate-Pitch.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
I Literally Am Tearing Up
It's not just Harriet Tubman who will be on the new currency. Jack Lew, everybody:
One thing I love about our country is that it may take us a while, but we eventually do the right thing.
The new $10 will honor the story and the heroes of the women’s suffrage movement against the backdrop of the Treasury building. Treasury’s relationship with the suffrage movement dates back to the March of 1913, when advocates came together on the steps of the Treasury building to demonstrate for a woman’s right to vote, seven years prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment. The new $10 design will depict that historic march and honor Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul for their contributions to the suffrage movement. The front of the new $10 will continue to feature Alexander Hamilton, our nation’s first Treasury Secretary and the architect of our economic system.
The reverse of the new $5 will depict the historic events that have occurred at the Lincoln Memorial. In 1939, at a time when Washington’s concert halls were still segregated, world-renowned Opera singer Marian Anderson helped advance civil rights when, with the support of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, she performed at the Lincoln Memorial in front of 75,000 people. And in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his historic “I Have a Dream” speech at the same monument in front of hundreds of thousands. Honoring these figures will bring to life events at the Lincoln Memorial that helped to shape our history and our democracy. The front of the new $5 will continue to feature President Lincoln.
One thing I love about our country is that it may take us a while, but we eventually do the right thing.
Berned
The butthurt is strong in Sandersland this morning. My Facebook feed the morning was notable for Robert Reich saying, "Hey, calm down, Hillary is a pretty good candidate in November," and immediately being attacked by the raging Left for whom Hillary is really just Nixon in a pantsuit.
Matthew Yglesias makes the case that Sanders represents the future of the Democratic Party. His argument is demographic, in that Sanders is killing it with young voters. In fact, that's the only demographic that he leads in regardless of race or gender. It was either Aristotle or Whitney Houston who said, "I believe the children are our future." However, I was a Marxist in 7th grade. I grew up.
So will Sanders voters.
The aggravating thing about Sanders was his maddening tendency to talk in terms of moral purity when it came to issues of practical politics. As Barney Frank so venomously put it 25 years ago:
"Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness."
And more recently:
"I think Bernie Sanders tends to have the approach, 'Don't be pragmatic, state your ideals, state what you think is the right policy and be very wary of compromise and of accepting less than you want.' My view has been to fight hard for the leftward, most achievable results."
Sanders has run a campaign based around the theme that politics as we know it is - by its very definition - immoral and corrupt. As Clinton has said in her defense - accurately, I think - that by Sanders definition Obama is corrupt, Biden is corrupt, Elizabeth Warren is corrupt.
This argument makes sense if politics is new to you. If you're young and idealistic, then Sanders represents the cutting edge against forces that you feel are overwhelming you.
It's worth noting, however, that Hillary Clinton worked on George McGovern's campaign. She was once a part of the idealistic Left. She then grew up politically in Arkansas and matured in the maw of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. She has reached the pinnacle of her career in the dawn of the Obama Coalition.
Her career represents the fall and rise of modern Democratic Party politics.
For young people, they simply don't grasp that historical arc. Not because they're lazy or entitled or "Millenial." They simply haven't lived it. When my kid was two, he'd freak out over getting his hair and nails cut, because he wasn't sure they'd grow back. That makes sense, when you're experiencing things for the first time. The 20-something Sandernistas are going through this process for the first time.
Are New York primary laws absurd? Yeah. But they aren't arbitrary and they aren't fraudulent. Is Sanders more uncompromising in his beliefs? Yeah. But believing something is hardly the same as achieving something tangible.
Pragmatism is a weak contrast to idealism, especially when you are young. I made my piece with it years ago. Hopefully, the vast portion of the Bernie Or Bust movement will realize that losing the primary isn't the same thing as losing your soul.
But, if Yglesias is correct that these young voters are the future, then they will need to show commitment to more than rallies and bumperstickers and online flame wars. They will need to show up at midterm elections and build a left-wing political apparatus that can win state assembly seats.
The 2016 election is a holding action. It's 2020 when Democrats need to grab control of state governments for reapportionment.
You want a revolution? Sorry. It's going to require hard, mundane work. Day to day building of a movement to win elections that advance your agenda. Working within local, state and national structures to build an agenda from the ground up.
It's going to require doing the work that Hillary Clinton has been doing for 40 years.
Matthew Yglesias makes the case that Sanders represents the future of the Democratic Party. His argument is demographic, in that Sanders is killing it with young voters. In fact, that's the only demographic that he leads in regardless of race or gender. It was either Aristotle or Whitney Houston who said, "I believe the children are our future." However, I was a Marxist in 7th grade. I grew up.
So will Sanders voters.
The aggravating thing about Sanders was his maddening tendency to talk in terms of moral purity when it came to issues of practical politics. As Barney Frank so venomously put it 25 years ago:
"Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness."
And more recently:
"I think Bernie Sanders tends to have the approach, 'Don't be pragmatic, state your ideals, state what you think is the right policy and be very wary of compromise and of accepting less than you want.' My view has been to fight hard for the leftward, most achievable results."
Sanders has run a campaign based around the theme that politics as we know it is - by its very definition - immoral and corrupt. As Clinton has said in her defense - accurately, I think - that by Sanders definition Obama is corrupt, Biden is corrupt, Elizabeth Warren is corrupt.
This argument makes sense if politics is new to you. If you're young and idealistic, then Sanders represents the cutting edge against forces that you feel are overwhelming you.
It's worth noting, however, that Hillary Clinton worked on George McGovern's campaign. She was once a part of the idealistic Left. She then grew up politically in Arkansas and matured in the maw of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. She has reached the pinnacle of her career in the dawn of the Obama Coalition.
Her career represents the fall and rise of modern Democratic Party politics.
For young people, they simply don't grasp that historical arc. Not because they're lazy or entitled or "Millenial." They simply haven't lived it. When my kid was two, he'd freak out over getting his hair and nails cut, because he wasn't sure they'd grow back. That makes sense, when you're experiencing things for the first time. The 20-something Sandernistas are going through this process for the first time.
Are New York primary laws absurd? Yeah. But they aren't arbitrary and they aren't fraudulent. Is Sanders more uncompromising in his beliefs? Yeah. But believing something is hardly the same as achieving something tangible.
Pragmatism is a weak contrast to idealism, especially when you are young. I made my piece with it years ago. Hopefully, the vast portion of the Bernie Or Bust movement will realize that losing the primary isn't the same thing as losing your soul.
But, if Yglesias is correct that these young voters are the future, then they will need to show commitment to more than rallies and bumperstickers and online flame wars. They will need to show up at midterm elections and build a left-wing political apparatus that can win state assembly seats.
The 2016 election is a holding action. It's 2020 when Democrats need to grab control of state governments for reapportionment.
You want a revolution? Sorry. It's going to require hard, mundane work. Day to day building of a movement to win elections that advance your agenda. Working within local, state and national structures to build an agenda from the ground up.
It's going to require doing the work that Hillary Clinton has been doing for 40 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)