Sunday, July 7, 2019

Democratic Leadership Is The Problem

     I'm going to take a moment to say that the Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party really sucks. That's my firmly held opinion and I stand by it. They're to blame for much of their own inability to properly deal with President Trump. They're to blame, in many ways, for his election in the first place. They've gotten us into this fine mess.

     Yes, I know, the last piece I wrote for this blog was about how the United States of America is already well into the constitutional crisis starting our slide toward fascism. I stand by it. Resistance is about a lot more than simply defeating Donald Trump and installing a Democratic President. Resistance is about fighting those fascist tendencies in society, in business and in politics. This is a much bigger project than any one President or party and it's unfair to a host of other American villains to place all the blame on Donald Trump's broad shoulders. The usual suspects of the Bush Administration should not escape our rage just because so many of them have been given new respectability as Never Trumpers. Nor should we forget that President Obama chose not to prosecute them and, indeed, gave important jobs to several war criminals.

     Yet it's very important to remind everyone that none of this lets Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer off the hook. It makes their guilt that much worse. They knew what had happened under Bush. Nancy Pelosi had been given the heads up on the CIA torture program in 2002. In 2006, when she became Speaker for the first time, she declined to impeach George W. Bush for crimes she knew he had committed. In 2006 we didn't know that she had been aware of the CIA torture program for four years. Now that we do know, what does that say about her refusal to take the necessary Constitutional steps to address those crimes?

     Steny Hoyer is guilty of his own complicity. Where Pelosi at least voted against the Iraq War in the first place, Hoyer voted for it. In 2007 he still had no regrets and thought it had been the right vote. To call Steny Hoyer anything other than a nakedly imperialist stooge for Republicans, as it relates to the Iraq War or the War on Terror, would be a lie. I don't want to lie to my readers. It sets a bad precedent. So: Steny Hoyer was a nakedly imperialist stooge for Republicans during the Iraq War. He's still way too supportive of the Israeli military's brutal repression of the Palestinians.

     Can we really say that the One Who Kept The Secrets and the Warmonger are progressive when it comes to foreign policy? I think we can safely toss any such ideas out the window. They're RINOs on this shit when it really matters.

     When we take a look at domestic policy and more recent Democratic Party squabble the evidence only piles up that much higher. Nancy Pelosi is against impeaching Trump. She has absolutely no enthusiasm for the Green New Deal. She doesn't even support Medicare For All! What are Steny Hoyer's postions on impeachent, Medicare For All and the Green New Deal? Pretty much the same as Pelosi's at best!

     With Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer we don't even need Republicans to oppose us. Our own leaders will oppose us out of fear! This isn't really very good for our chances of actually winning on any of these issues, you know that?

Saturday, June 22, 2019

All This and Concentration Camps Too!

     I wrote on Wednesday about Rich Lowry's rather stupid decision to attack Rep. Alexandria Occasio-Cortez (D - NY) in a ridiculous little shit post on the magazine's website. The topic was whether or not temporary detention centers for asylum seekers coming to the United States from Central America qualify as "concentration camps." The definition is as follows: "a place where a large number of people, particularly political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or too await execution."

    Rep. Occasio-Cortez, naturally, came down on the side of rational common sense. We can all see how legal asylum seekers being treated as illegal aliens qualify as "political prisoners." The only reason they are being imprisoned at all is because the Trump Justice Department made the entirely political decision to lock them up! The idea that Rep. Liz Cheney (R - WY) chose to take issue with AOC's description was anything other than shit-posting is pretty silly. Yet Rich Lowry chose to double down despite the facts. Masha Gessen, of the New Yorker, chose instead to get to the real heart of the problem: that conservative denials of the facts are a gas-lighting of history that renders real atrocities as something unimaginable and unique instead of things that happen all the time.

     Nor are concentration camps the only ongoing assault on our liberties. As Chris Hedges wrote for Truthdig, the ongoing political persecution of Julian Assange by the Trump Justice Department is a very real attack on the fundamental underpinnings of our so-called Constitution. The fact that there is no powerful free speech movement in the streets, protesting in Assange's defense, is proof of how well the Ministry of Propaganda of the United States of Authoritarianism has successfully twisted our perceptions of Assange. This brutality towards the free press is only magnified by what is happening to journalists on the US-Mexico border. What will happen to reporters covering the concentration camps if Assange is convicted? If you have ever read Stephen King's "The Stand," you have seen images of the narrow line between committing atrocities and committing new atrocities against those who expose them. Will the reporters try to tell us the truth about those concentration camps end up the next people sent to them?

     I hear you shouting about alarmism, conspiracy theories and tin-foil hats. No one is more critical of the "Illuminati" model of political opposition than I am. I would say that conspiracy theories end up serving the robber barons a lot more than they help us defeat them. The Illuminati are both all-powerful and totally incompetent so all we have to do is eradicate the conspiracy. Do you see how that plays right into the hands of someone like Trump rather than helping us? I definitely don't believe in the Illuminati; but not believing in ridiculous conspiracies about secret governments doesn't mean that I don't understand how the government we have works.

     Much of the legitimate Resistance's time has been wasted by Russia conspiracy theories without a lot of clear facts to back them up instead of the obvious targets: one of the most corrupt and incompetent administrations in history. Have any of those allegedly criminal cabinet secretaries been brought to justice yet or have the Congressional authorities bothered to refer Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke for prosecution? Has the Trump Justice Department begun to prosecute them? It's easy to see why at least one CNN writer thinks Trump's administration is succeeding beneath the utter shit-show. Can we really argue with his logic?

     We've got a massive lack of accountability for corruption and public fraud going back to the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations.Trump's cabinet shit-show is just one symptom. The way former Bush supporters all guilty of lying us into war with Iraq have been rehabilitated by the opposition media is another symptom and we can't blame it on Trump. Nor can we blame the way past Democratic congressional criminals like Jane Harman are treated by the opposition media on Trump. The Obama Justice Department never prosecuted the grifters and war criminals of the Bush Administration and Obama-friendly media has washed them clean of their sins.

     With all this, the concentration camps are really just the cherry on top of the sundae. Our freedom is at stake. We have never had much of it but we have the opportunity to win more now!

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Rich Lowry Is A Tool

Rich Lowry is the editor of the National Review. Why does this matter?
It matters for a few reasons. The first is that the Review is still considered the creme de la crème of intelligent conservative writing. The second is that the National Review is still a major mouthpiece for conservative thought in this country. With the many conflicts of Trumpism, libertarianism and traditional conservatism going on right now one would expect a flowering of debate, ideas and moral conflict on the right!
That's not happening. Why?
That brings us to the third reason it matters that Rich Lowry is the Editory of the National Review.
Congresswoman Alexandria Occasio-Cortez rightfully accused the Orange Troll of operating concentration camps on the US-Mexico border. Was this language inflammatory? Absolutely and I'm very glad that Congresswoman Occasio-Cortez is willing to be inflammatory! Her willingngess to put herself out there like this allows us to see what the enemy really thinks.
Rich Lowry has been kind enough to show us what he really thinks. We should believe him. He’s an intellectually dishonest Nazi apologist who is willing to split hairs in order to score political points with an uneducated audience that prefers owning the libs to facts or truth.
All the internal conflicts brewing in his own bedroom and Rich Lowry is using a nationally read platform to troll a Congresswoman he doesn't like!?
That's right. What's more is he is stepping into this fight knowing that it's a loser. The simple fact is that there was a distinct difference between the phrases “concentration camp” (which can be used to describe everything from a PLO refugee camp in Lebanon in the 1970s to the German internment camp at Crystal River, TX during WWII) and a “death camp.”
Has Rich Lowry never seen Conspiracy? It was kind of a big deal when it came out. He might want to go back and watch it.
I will raise the stakes. Not only are we building concentration camps on the border but we put our citizens in actual gulags and set them to forced labor to enrich corporations! How will Rich defend gulags?

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Original Sins: White Supremacy in America

          This weekend I’m writing about America’s original sin. Everyone knows about it. Black people, Native Americans and Latinx people deal with it on a daily basis. Asian-Americans face it less brutally, but no less real, in a variety of stereotypes that have become cultural tropes. Most white people either actively participate in it or perpetuate it by trying to ignore it. Every white person in this country benefits from it in some way. This sin touches everything in the United States in some way. Until we face it, confess it and atone for it we will never be a free land of free people.
            It’s called white supremacy and it has been the engine that drives America from the very beginning. In the very first report that Columbus sent back to the Spanish Court he said that he thought the Arawak natives of the Bahamas, Virgin Islands, Jamaica and Hispaniola would be excellent slaves. He took advantage of the Arawak’s hospitality, murdered several of their citizens, took more hostage in attempt to extort gold from them and left an armed band behind on San Salvador when he returned to Spain. When he came back he found that his armed party had angered the Arawaks by raiding and had been killed to a man by a unified Native force.
            Rather than stay on San Salvador he instead established himself as Governor of Hispaniola and set about trying to prove his hypothesis that the Arawak would be excellent slaves. Unfortunately for the Arawak it turned out they had no immunity to communicable European diseases. So the slaves died a lot. Columbus was forced to raid for new slaves almost constantly, which killed more Arawak in the fighting. Eventually it was so hard to find slaves that Columbus forced Spanish colonists to do the work the slaves had been doing. So they fired his ass immediately. Treating white people like “Indians” was monstrous!
            The downfall of the first would-be American emperor came from the same white supremacy that had motivated his imperialism in the first place. His successors would solve the labor shortage by buying African slaves from the Portuguese in exchange for Caribbean sugar. The lesson from this is that we can’t treat the Native American genocide and the Pan-Atlantic Slave Trade as isolated historical events resting in their own beds until checked upon. Columbus intended to create a slave society from the very beginning. The Native Americans died faster than they could be replaced. The white Spaniards did not want to work. African captives were purchased instead. The empire began to flourish.
            America was built on this foundation of white supremacy and imperialism. When the first Spanish colonists settled Florida they brought slavery with them and drove the native Seminoles away from their settlements. When the first English and Dutch colonists arrived in what are now Virginia, New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, they bought slaves from the Portuguese and the Spanish. They couldn’t enslave entire Native American populations but they could and did enslave the prisoners they took and didn’t simply massacre.
            Slavery and Native American displacement became the story of the original expansion of the Thirteen Colonies and the catalyst for independence. The number one resentment against the British government by wealthy Colonists of property was that the British crown had placed limits on their westward expansion by virtue of agreement with Native allies. It was easy for them to use the propaganda of opening new western lands for poor farmers to form a power bloc with poor white tenant farmers and indentured servants who might otherwise be more sympathetic to their fellow oppressed, the slaves.
            It could be argued with some credibility that white supremacy and imperialism, in this specific form, were the real catalyst for American independence. 
            During the fight for independence white supremacy was only strengthened by the British promise to American slaves that they could have their freedom if they joined the British Army or Navy to fight their masters. The first black Canadians were Loyalist soldiers who couldn’t stay in the newly independent United States without being returned to their masters. The Treaty of Paris included a clause (never fulfilled by the British, because the king believed slavery was morally wrong) to compensate Americans for “stolen property.” This didn’t mean the Redcoats were looters. It meant Thomas Jefferson wanted to be paid for slaves who had run away and joined the British army.
            Once independence was won imperialistic white supremacy was soon enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The Battle of Fallen Timbers and the Louisiana Purchase vastly increased the size of the United States of America. All of this meant that Native Americans died. All of this meant a greater need for black slaves. Even after the Trans-Atlantic Trade ended, there were still plenty of surplus slaves available from Virginia, North Carolina and the Caribbean. Soon the Southern slave-owning class became the unofficial aristocracy of the nation. Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor owned slaves. Washington, Jackson, Polk and Taylor largely became wealthy(-ier) by the selling of slaves. Jefferson used the selling of slaves to keep himself out of debt.
            Whether or not the active conspiracy imagined by many Northerners ever existed it is not inaccurate to refer to the American political class of the time as the “Slave Power.” The Slave Power certainly drove the Mexican War during the Polk administration. It was pushed upon the country by a largely pro-Slavery Democratic Party that wanted to channel immigrants into the army to “Americanize” them while carving out new lands for slave-holders. The (very weakly) anti-slavery Whig Party opposed the war and then consistently opposed appropriations for spending for the war. This opposition cost them their Congressional majority and sowed the seeds for the death of the party.
            It’s very important to understand that both the Slave Power and the government of Mexico saw this as a war for imperial might. The difference was that what we now call the US/Mexican border was then a largely rural mestizo society ruled by creoles who saw themselves as “white” but who were seen as “Mexicans” by the Anglo-Americans who still formed the dominant U.S. culture. For this reason, in addition to slavery (which Mexico had already abolished and the U.S. hoped to expand), the notion of fighting heathens who were not quite truly white people added a strong element of white supremacy to the Mexican War.
            There were two consequences of American victory that created opportunities for the U.S. to begin to throw off its basis in white supremacy. The first was an alliance between the U.S. Army and the caballero class in Texas and California that insured these territories were conquered with a minimum of actual fighting compared to the rest of the war. Anglo-Americans in the new territories had married into these families and purchased land from them even before the war. This should have created a sense of common clan that admitted at least the Mexican upper classes into “polite society” in the United States. That’s not what happened.
            The second was the Northern opposition to the Slave Power that would lead to the Civil War. These included genuine moral abolitionists and even a small number of genuine antiracists. It also included a general theory among Northern businessmen that slavery was ultimately bad for capitalism by making the stakeholder class lazy and arrogant. This united rich and poor against the Slave Power and allowed them to forget their problems with each other. This faction of the Antislavery Opposition was no less racist than the Slave Power and often attempted to exclude even free black people from “free soil.” Capitalists have always used white supremacy to unite white people against black people and prevent poor white people from naturally siding with black people against the stakeholders. The Civil War, Emancipation and Reconstruction presented a bold chance to make amends for black slavery. That’s not what happened.
            Instead a double tragedy occurred. First the Latinx people of California and Texas were largely dispossessed of their lands and properties by a combination of legal action and direct violence. A prime example of the former was Mariano Vallejo, who went bankrupt fending off lawsuits claiming title to his family lands. He had to sell the land to pay his legal debts and the Anglo developers won. An example of the latter is legendary California outlaw Joaquin Murrieta, who engaged in retaliatory killings and robberies against Anglo-Americans until his death at the hands of the California Rangers after his wife and brother were killed by land-grabbers who accused his brother of stealing a mule.  The unfortunate antihero’s head allegedly ended up pickled in a jar. Whether or not it is a true story it certainly captures the white supremacy that changed Murrieta’s life and then ended it.
In the words of our president, he was an animal and was treated like one.
Black people were no more fortunate than Latinx people. Reconstruction offered some efforts at enforced equality in the South but fell due to Southern opposition and a lack of real Northern commitment to racial equality. Though President Rutherford B. Hayes spent the rest of his life, after his single term, trying to get the vote for black men his ascent to the presidency destroyed Reconstruction and any hope of racial justice at the time. The freed slaves and their children were terrorized and brutalized until they fled the South in large numbers. In the South, Jim Crow laws and work permits continued slavery. Worse, penal slavery revived it in the North.
There is a lot more for which I don’t have space. The Chinese Exclusion act, the imposition of quotas on immigration from Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic countries in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe, the imperialism of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine War and the internment of the Japanese during WWII all figure prominently. So does the shameful treatment of the people of Puerto Rico by the US government since the end of the Spanish-American War.
It’s very important to understand that this white supremacy is not just something from the past. It’s not a series of historical incidents that we have put behind us. The Native American genocide is still ongoing. The state of Massachusetts recently declared the Wampanoag Council extinct despite the fact that its members are still alive. DNA tests showed they weren’t “really Native American.” Is it any wonder some Cherokee intellectuals are so angry at Elizabeth Warren right now?
Black slavery is still ongoing in its own way as well. The police violence that terrorizes much of the black community is a descendant of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Southern slave patrol. The prison-industrial complex and prison slavery have taken the place of chattel slavery. They are no less important to the economy now than chattel slavery was in its own day. The words “tough on crime” are particularly weighted against black people and in favor of these forces that hold many poor black people in a form of de facto slavery.
Likewise, the white-washing of the American Southwest continues in a very obvious way in the administration of President Donald Trump. The Orange Troll has ascribed all the stereotypes to Latinx immigrants that were ascribed after the Mexican War to ethnically cleanse many portions of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. ICE attacks immigrants and deports them in a fashion clearly designed to send Latinx (and other non-white immigrants) people back to their countries of origin.
When you understand how central white supremacy is to every political and economic fiber of this country you will begin to understand the problem we face. Solutions for these problems have to be found if we wish to overthrow our stakeholder democracy and achieve social democracy. Frederick Douglas said it best, at the United States’ 100th birthday. Reconstruction had ended and white reconciliation had begun between North and South.
“What will peace among the whites bring?”
            Defeating white supremacy means accepting a simple motto and really learning to live bit. Solidarity with the oppressed and no peace among the whites.

Monday, February 18, 2019

Politics and Democracy

            What is politics?
            Didn’t expect that one to be so hard did you?
            Merriam-Webster offers a variety of definitions for the word. The ones that matter to us are “the art or science of winning and holding control over a government,” “political affairs or business, especially: competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership” and “the total complex of relations between people living in society.” But if we really tighten our definition up a little we can discard the first. Then we can combine the two that remain and strive for a bit of universality.
            Let’s call politics “the total complex of power relations between people living in society.” Then we make it very clear. Politics is about who has power, how they use it and who benefits from it.
            We talk a lot about democracy when we talk about politics these days. We assume we have democracy and we assume it’s under threat. The media tells us that it’s under threat by Donald Trump and his supporters. The Democrats tell us it’s under threat by Republicans in general. Everyone takes it for granted that we know what democracy is too.
            So what is democracy?
            Back to our good friend Merriam-Webster we go. Once again we’re given a few choices but one of them really appears to apply to us: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people (emphasis mine) and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” It’s even clear and doesn’t require a lot of alteration or mashing together to be clear and universal.
            A democracy is a government in which “the people” have the power. Politicians run for office, everyone votes and the winners of elections take power. It sounds pretty fair and above board. Majority rule may have its drawbacks and folks may have to compromise a lot, but the people will get to decide what happens in their society. The trouble is how to decide who “the people” are. We hear this in our elections as people talk about “the real America” and “real Americans” with a clear view that these are the people.
            The US government was formed by a gentleman’s agreement between political and economic elites. It didn’t represent the whole of the people so much as it represented the interests and views of those who considered themselves the natural leaders of the people. They put their stamp on the constitution that created our system of politics and government. Their system was democratic but it very carefully defined who “the people” allowed to participate were. Our Constitution was written for people who saw themselves as major stakeholders in the country. It was written for people like them.
            What are some features of this stakeholder democracy? Capitalism is the most obvious. The crushing stress of capitalism is used to force us to do what the capitalists want because we need money. Actual violence isn’t usually necessary. When political violence does happen it’s very easy to see who benefits. Our stakeholder democracy uses the rule of law to support capitalism. This leads to the second feature of stakeholder democracy: the state’s power to decide whether violence is justified and whom it is justified to use violence against.
            The immediate alternative to stakeholder democracy is social democracy. This requires a reorientation of the state from the interests of those with significant property to the political equality and economic welfare of the society as a whole. This doesn’t necessarily mean state ownership of industry. It could mean strong labor protections and a robust welfare state. It does mean shifting power away from capitalists and toward the working class. This will rebuild the middle class that decades of corporate piracy have hollowed out.
            The problem is that “resistance” is more than just getting rid of President Trump. The Republican Party will still be there. Even if the Democrats take the presidency in 2020, they don’t exactly have a track record of rejecting capitalist stakeholders do they? Resistance is something that doesn’t stop until we have taken back our power. The political elite are scared of that. That’s why you see and feel so much pressure to fall behind the best candidate, no matter what.
            Falling in behind the leader someone tells you to follow is not resistance. Real resistance means fighting to change our political system for the better.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Everybody is Spartacus: Solidarity is a Weapon

           During the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, Joe Scarborough and many of his guests referred to various Democratic Senators’ “I am Spartacus” moments. It was clear they meant a chance to stand up and be the hero. They pictured a moment where the spotlight shone solely on the “star politician” seizing that moment to ask something impressive. It shows how liberals totally fail to understand the point of that scene in the movie and the book it was based on.
            The point was to protect the real Spartacus from Roman vengeance and humiliation. “I am Spartacus” was not a declaration of heroic victory but a willing to share the bloody price of defeat in the place of another. It’s not about individual heroism. It’s about solidarity. If everyone claims to be Spartacus then Rome is denied the proof of their triumph over the true Spartacus. It’s about standing together in crisis.
            So what is solidarity anyway?
            My online dictionary says that solidarity is “unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group.” It also says something about a labor union in Poland. While related, we’re going with the definition I quoted above. That’s pretty much exactly how I mean it. It’s the single most important word on the left right now. It’s more important than “resistance,” “impeachment” or even “2020.”
            We live in a world that makes it very easy to feel lonely. Whether it’s work, travel, or taking care of the necessities of subsistence much of our life is reduced to temporary and transactional relationships. I work in an industry where my personal role is literally to make the person on the other end of the phone so happy with me they forget about their problems. I experience transactional relationships on a constant basis at work. I sit at a desk and tend to be isolated from everyone but those transactional relationships while doing my job. It’s a very lonely feeling and it makes me feel like a machine; not a person. I’ve had anxiety disorders in the past and I experience depression periodically now.
            Does that sound familiar to you? Will you take it personally if I take a stab in the dark that you feel this way at least some of the time? Our jobs are designed to make our lives about nothing but work for a set period of time each day. They pay just enough for us to meet our basic needs but we can never escape the worry that an extra $400 will derail our entire lives. Our loved ones (or ourselves) have spent time in the hospital and we are struggling to pay those medical bils. It grinds us down. We feel like we are alone in a constant struggle against meaninglessness.
            This leads to anxiety and depression like I have experienced. It leads to suicide when we feel as if we have failed. We are trapped in a mechanized life that supports our own subsistence and those of a family we see less often and argue with more because of life’s stress and conflict. We feel isolated. No one understands us. We are alone with our pain.
            Solidarity is knowing someone understands. Someone knows that our interests are one with theirs and they will fight for us. It’s the satisfaction of knowing you’re not alone anymore. It’s the comfort of reaching out to offer someone else help and receiving help in return. We are stronger when we aren’t alone. If we support each other we all have a better chance of emerging from life’s struggles victorious.
            So now you’re looking at me and asking, “Don’t you usually write about politics? Aren’t you just talking about a group hug?”
            No. I’m not.
            President Trump’s government shutdown ended because the air traffic controllers didn’t come into work. The flight attendants soon made noises that they supported the air traffice controllers and wouldn’t come into work either. I know you heard a lot about the political prowess of Nancy Pelosi (and it’s fair to acknowledge that solidarity would not have had the chance to win the day if she had not remained firm throughout) but it really comes down to the flight attendants supporting the air traffic controllers.
            In another important recent example of labor solidarity, the LA Teachers’ Union when they won their strike because the LA County Firefighters’ union threatened to strike in support of the teachers. That broke the bosses’ backs. So solidarity isn’t just a comfort. It’s also a weapon. We’re all stronger when we stand together against an authority that wants to crush our diverse individuality. We help each other to be ourselves instead of who the system wants us to be by standing together in solidarity.
            The stakeholders who control daily life in our society understand this. That’s why they isolate us at work. It’s why they take away our public spaces to isolate us at home or in our booths at restaurants. It’s why they demonize immigrants and glorify military adventures abroad. All these things keep us apart and prevent us from achieving solidarity. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s how the system is designed to work for the stakeholders.
            It’s also why conservative Democrats make politics about the identities of many of these marginalized groups. By keeping the black, white and Latinx members of the working class fighting at cross purposes on cultural and social issues they sustain the status quo that empowers the stakeholders over us. The scandals that divide us are often designed to fit into the cultural wedges. So are the issues that our politicians run on. Dividing people is good for the status quo.
            We overcome this by understanding what solidarity means. The interests of white feminists can’t sacrifice the interests of black feminists or LGBTQ feminists. The interests of black and Latinx people can’t be sacrificed for one another. The interests of the working class are the interests of all the working class. Solidarity is the weapon the landlord and the boss can’t overcome. When the firefighters stood with the teachers, when the flight attendants stood with the air traffic controllers, the good guys won.
            That’s the point. We’re all Spartacus.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Howie Schultz and Mikie Bloomberg are not your friends!

   It's pretty clear that Howard Schultz's nascent presidential campaign is headed for a trip down the toilet of history pretty fast. If you clicked that link you know even Michael Bloomberg doesn't want him to run! Though Bloomberg might run himself as a Democrat if the party doesn't get its act together...

  That's a lot to unpack isn't it? I'll do it as plainly as I can. Based on his appearance on Morning Joe today (during which he humiliated himself repeatedly, including not knowing the cost of a box of Cheerios) Howard Schultz likes the Trump tax cuts and doesn't want the Democrats to reverse them. So he's thinking about running for president as an independent. As illustrated by the previous links, Michael Bloomberg thinks that's a bad idea but agrees with Schultz about the Trump tax cuts and may run for president himself to save them! He's just smart enough to understand you have to have a major party nomination to mount a successful political campaign in today's American and being an asshole to Schultz about it.

   But what do we care about a couple of billionaires who are clearly so out of touch with the grass roots of even the most NIMBY liberal corners of the Democratic Party? Frankly it's because these kind of "common sense" business candidates are dangerous. Wendell Wilkie was motivated to seek and win the Republican nomination because, fundamentally, of his fear of the empowering of labor unions by the New Deal. Wilkie was in favor of 99% of the New Deal. The one part of Roosevelt's platform he really disagreed with was unions. A millionaire businessman wanted to protect his cost margins to maximize his profits so he ran for president. Wilkie lost but he arguably pushed Roosevelt to the right on labor after the election by making a deal to transform his supporters into the core of what would become the WWII "Republican for Roosevelt" movement. H. Ross Perot ran as a spoiler to insure a business friendly Democrat's victory because he was mad at George H.W. Bush for raising taxes above the levels of Reagan's tax reform deal with Tip O'Neil.

   Indeed we are already seeing tangible results of Howie and Mikie having a temper tantrum. Before Howie humiliated himself on Morning Joe, Kamala Harris appeared to back off her previous commitment to Medicare for All at a CNN Town Hall on Monday. As several Twitter friends and I decided in an impromptu discussion Tuesday evening, if it's not "Medicare" and it's not "For All" then how can it be "Medicare For all?"The simple answer is that it cannot possibly be "Medicare For All" under these conditions. So we have to wonder why Medicare For All suddenly became a slogan instead of a policy to Kamala Harris.

   The answer lends itself to a magic word used by both Howie and Mikie to describe Kamala Harris's current leading rival for Democratic front runner status, Elizabeth Warren. What was the word? It was "socialist" of course. Howie spent a significant amount of time on Morning Joe bashing 70% marginal income tax rates (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's idea) and Elizabeth Warren's Wealth Tax. Both ideas "will never pass" because "Americans don't want socialism." Mikie had very nearly identical words on both topics and both singled out Warren as what they believed to be the "mainstream of the Democratic Party." It's fairly clear that a Bloomberg Democratic nomination campaign and a Schultz independent campaign would primarily be "Stop Warren" or "Stop Sanders" campaigns rather than serious projects bringing real policy ideas to the table.

   So Kamala Harris tacked right to align herself with the billionaires and not with us. If neither Bernie Sanders nor a genuine progressive candidate from the African-American portion of the Democratic Party establishment (opposed to Kamala Harris on the issues of penal slavery and police brutality) enters the race then we have a clear choice. Howie/Mikie/Kamala or Elizabeth Warren, which do you trust more?