December 1, 2018

  • The Progressive Lens Monthly Round-up: November 2018

    Trump Era Days 651-680

     

    What was reported?

    • Late item from October 31st: The Trump Administration released a new EPA rule without publicizing for mass public review which indicates that states can increase their smog (ozone) pollution by 43% without consequences.
    • 250.000 jobs were created in October, unemployment remained at 3.7%, and wages increased by 0.2%
    • Trump announced that all sanctions on Iran were officially going to be reinstated.
    • President Trump – in his attempts to fire up the rabid rightwing base ahead of the election – had originally stated that U.S. troops deployed to the border could treat rocks thrown by migrants as shots fired from a gun and could respond in kind. He then backtracked a day later.
    • Despite an earlier draft of the 2020 census suggesting that their numbers would be counted, the LGBTQ community was outraged to find that the Trump administration had removed questions relative to sexual orientation and identity.
    • The French President advocated for the European Union to create its own military force to counter its adversaries, even counting the United States amongst possible threats.
    • Housing sales slowed to their worst pace in nearly two years, kicking off worries that we were on the verge of a crash in that particular market.
    • In the midst of the close election in Florida for Senate and Governor which triggered dual recounts, Senate Candidate and Current Florida Governor Rick Scott and President Trump attacked the recount process, claiming there was “fraud” involved in a supposed attempt to steal the elections for Democrats. Protests broke out near one of the locations responsible for counting the votes at the infamous BrowardCounty.
    • Despite Republican promises that their tax cuts late last year would produce job growth and an increase in wages, the business community has largely reduced benefits and handed out “breadcrumbs” while giving their top executives decent sized bonuses.
    • The development of “Smart ID” technology as proliferated by tech giants such as China’s ZTE poses a serious risk to privacy and empowers any despotic regime to track the citizenry and suppress dissent.
    • In off-the-cuff recorded remarks, A Republican Senator from Mississippistated that she felt it was a “great idea” to make it harder for liberals to vote.
    • Citing the need to restructure due to increased costs from the tariffs and a changing car market, GM announced that they will be cutting almost 15,000 jobs – including some managerial staff – and shutting down 3 plants.
    • The midterms had some mixed results – Trump himself called it a “tremendous success”, though his party was swept out of power in the House -, with much of the major developments happening at the state level, wherein Democrats took over 7 governorships and over 400 state legislative seats, setting the stage for a contentious battle when the next census comes around in 2020. Democrats also flipped a number of Republican Senate seats, with one being the seat in Arizona. Which effectively means the Republicans only gained a net of two seats.
    • In the wake of a midterm election wherein the Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives, President Trump had a bitter and heated spat with a CNN White Press Correspondent Jim Acosta wherein Trump yelled at Acosta, saying CNN should be ashamed to employ him, attempted to have his microphone forcefully removed, and then later briefly banned Acosta from the press corps. As part of the fight, Trump’s administration argued that the president has expansive authority to regulate press access to the oval office, including determining which correspondents can and can’t get a pass. In the end, though a Judge ruled that Acosta had to be reinstated the Judge also didn’t question the President’s authority to regulate access.
    • Trump’s administration finalized the administrative rule changes allowing employers to “opt-out” of providing no-cost women’s health coverage.
    • Almost 30 years after Congress mandated that all federal agencies must face an audit, the Pentagon was finally audited, and failed. Many – though, unspecified – discrepancies were found in the budget.
    • The President lauded his supposed role in the Republican Party’s net gain of two seats in the U.S. Senate despite sweeping Democratic gains elsewhere and subsequently asserted that any attempts by the incoming Democratic House to hold him accountable would spark a “war-like” situation.
    • Also in the wake of losing control of the House, Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replaced him with an “acting” Attorney General (with questionable constitutionality) named Matt Whitaker, a man whose past comments about the Russia probe leave much doubt as to his willingness to let the probe proceed unimpeded. The probe is now under Whitaker’s supervision.
    • In Texas, where 59 Republican judges were all swept out of office, one judge wholesale released 7 minors irrespective of their charges the day after he lost.
    • North Koreawas reportedly getting very anxious with Trump as his administration stalled negotiations. Neither side will offer concession first and it is increasing tensions.
    • Trump named a friend of his – handbag designer and a member of the Mara Lago Resort – named Lana Marks to be the Ambassador to South Africa.
    • The Trump Administration sided with Saudi Arabia and Sudan in a lawsuit relative to the deaths of the Al-Qaeda terror attack on the U.S.S. Cole in late-2000. The argument is that the lawsuit was served to an embassy instead of at Sudan’s capitol. This position about “wrong address” has been a long-standing position of the U.S. government as it fears that the U.S. government could be sued via one of its foreign embassies.
    • Visiting the wildfires in California, Trump blamed the increasing intensity and frequency of the fires on “forest management” and the lack of sufficient leaf raking, instead of climate change.
    • While the nation was distracted by the political fallout from the midterms, the lameduck Republican House voted in favor of removing gray wolves from the endangered species list.
    • After skipping a ceremony in France meant to honor the sacrifice of fallen Americans in the First World War – and blaming it on the weather and wanting to avert causing bad traffic -, Trump then subsequently skipped out on visiting Arlington Cemetery and claimed he didn’t visit because he was “busy” on the phone.
    • Claiming that CNN has “little competition” (eh, did he forget about Fox News and MSNBC?), Trump declared that we need a global news network run by the United States Government to counter CNN and to show the world how “GREAT” we are. Basically, he wants a propaganda media outlet (aside of Voice of America or even the de facto rightwing propaganda outlet known as Fox News) run by the state…like what we see with dictatorial regimes.
    • Trump issued an authorization for soldiers to use lethal force against the caravan of migrants largely seeking refuge from the turmoil in Central America.
    • Migrants attempting to enter the U.S. after the entry points were blockaded were met with tear gas – despite having children in their midst – after a number of those entering threw rocks at American border patrol officials.
    • The CIA confirmed that the Saudi Arabian government ordered the assassination of Washington Post journalist, U.S. resident, and Saudi-dissident, Jamal Khashoggi.
    • President Trump lashed out at a federal judge appointed by President Obama after said judge – who he called an “Obama judge” - ruled against his asylum policy. Then, Chief Justice Roberts – a George W. Bush appointee – shot back at Trump, saying that there are no “Obama judges” or judges of any other president past and present.
    • In the weeks after he won election as the next Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, Secretary of State Jon Husted ordered that the purge of voter resume of citizens whom had not voted since 2012 or responded to mailers seeking information pertinent to the voter.
    • Despite the fact that it came from his own administration – with the help of 13 agencies -, Trump insisted that he didn’t believe a disturbing climate change report which was intentionally buried in the news on Black Friday. Later on, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stated that the report wasn’t based on “data” or “facts”, but that it was based on a “model”.
    • Just as he did last year, at the UN event on climate change this year Trump plans on hosting an event of his own promoting coal.
    • Although the VA had promised Congress not long ago that they would reimburse Student veterans retroactively for underpayments made according to their educational benefits as per the “Forever GI Bill”, the VA recently revealed that they would basically ignore the law and their obligation to pay the veterans what they were owed.
    • Trump surprised everyone by announcing support for comprehensive criminal justice reform which would make it easier for returning citizens to find work after they serve their term, reduce mandatory minimums, and reform punishments under “three strikes” laws and for nonviolent offenders.
    • Trump idiotically revealed that he wants to cancel aid to Puerto Rico for the recovery from Hurricane Maria, because he believes – without proof – that Puerto Rico is using the aid to pay off their debts.
    • Sinclair Broadcasting forced 100 of its local stations around the country to air – within 48 hours – a commentary piece by its “Chief Political Analyst”, Boris Epshteyn – who had served as a staffer for President Trump previously – which offered a full-throated defense of the use of tear gas against the migrant “invaders”.
    • Trump blocked his CIA Director Gina Haspel from briefing Senators on the evidence available pertinent to Saudi Arabia’s role in murdering Journalist Jamal Khashoggi about a week after issuing an odd tweet wherein he nonsensically thanked Saudi Arabia for the gas prices in decline.
    • Despite losing control of the House, Republicans in the House are trying to use their lameduck session to compel Democrats to support funding for the Wall as part of a stop gap measure to continue funding the government.
    • Trump issued a threat to House Democrats, saying that if they “harass” him and his team that he will go out and declassify any document he can to “expose” the Democrats and the Mueller probe as being in cahoots with each other.
    • Trump’s former fixer/lawyer, Michael Cohen, plead guilty to lying to Congress about the period of talks between Trump and the Russians pertinent to a MoscowTrumpTower. Trump later angrily shot back, saying that Cohen is a liar, but that he did nothing wrong even if Cohen wasn’t lying, as he supposedly was allowed to run his business however he wanted during the campaign; including making arrangements with the Russian government.
    • The FBI raided the home and several other locations related to a former lawyer of Trump’s who represented him on tax matters.
    • German authorities raided Deutsch Bank headquarters, related to the infamous Panama Papers scandal and may implicated President Trump.
    • President George H.W. Bush passed away.

     

     

    Tonight’s Conclusion

     

                No one knows how long our economy will continue to remain strong, but it remains the one thing which could well save Trump come 2020. If we experience no recession between now and then his chances of getting reelected remain mild. Then again, if a recession does occur (and that is very likely considering the continuing rise of inflation as deficits explode as well as our trade tensions), Trump could well demonstrate his skills in faux-populism and manipulate the outrage about the decline to his benefit.

     

                Yes, Trump and the Republican Party experienced a very bad month in November 2018 (in fact, my election post is still waiting to be completed until all the results from the election are finalized). However, the Democratic Party would be naïve to conclude that this month of turmoil (an ever-worsening pattern throughout the Trump era) portends a great electoral apocalypse for the Republicans in two years. Nothing is guaranteed, least of which is political victory (just ask Secretary Clinton). The Republicans certainly NEVER take victory for granted, not even when they have everything. That is why they never stop thinking ahead about how they are going to win. It is how they have mastered the art of conquering American politics (even when they continue to slide into a near permanent minority in terms of popular support).

     

                As has been the case in each month since Inauguration Day 2017, the rule of law was tested like never before this month. We saw our president fire an Attorney General who recused himself from influencing an investigation into the president’s dealings with a foreign government only to hire an “acting” (and arguably illegal) Attorney General who will do his bidding. We saw more figures around the president fall or plunge further as the investigation inches closer to its conclusion. We saw the president call into question the legitimate democratic process when he didn’t like the prospect that continued vote counts and recounts could threaten his grip on power (foreshadowing, maybe?). We saw him challenge the access of the press to the seat of American power; and succeed in chipping away thereat. Then, we saw him engage (as he has before) in an assault on our judiciary…even including a direct public spat with a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

     

                We also saw this president thumbs his nose (as usual) at the world, our veterans, and the scientific community. He dismissed the legitimacy of a report by his administration about climate change while (again) planning to put on a show touting the lie that coal is good. His administration (briefly) refused to compensate student veterans for having been screwed out of student aid whilst also himself refusing to partake in ceremonies recognizing the sacrifice of fallen Americans in the First World War and other military actions. On top of all that, he offered a full-throated defense of a dictator who murdered a journalist resident of our country, celebrated the election of a new fascist to our South, and displayed his own love of domestic fascism in his continuing fearmongering and crimes against those seeking a better life from beyond our borders.

     

                It is truly overwhelming at times to fully encapsulate all that we have witnessed in a single month of this trying time for our Republic. The election of 2018 did not seal President Trump’s fate, but it certainly added a new twist. In the month to come we will see how these events will continue to play out and if they can pave the way forward as we seek the light at the end of our long, dark tunnel. Onward.

     

    #NotMeUs #OurRevolution #TheResistance #ImpeachTrump

     

    Purchase my manifesto, “The Pillars of Unitism”.

     

    Before I part, here are some articles which may interest you:

     

    • Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has been effectively undermining the student loan forgiveness program that he department is responsible for overseeing. She has made it so burdensome to receive the forgiveness that many may come to argue that it may be useless as roughly 99% of those applying for this program have been denied entry.

     

    Until next time…

     

    TAKE CARE

November 6, 2018

  • Election Day 2018: My Take and Coverage

    The day is finally here! The last election I covered through this blog was the 2012 Presidential Election. Before that, I had covered 2008 here,  but had live-updated statuses on Facebook during the 2o16 election. This will be the first Mid-Term that I analyze and cover via this blog because it truly is the most important election in the history of our country.

     

    I will be highlighting races from Congress to State and Local Level elections. EVERY ELECTION is important. It is vital that the Democrats (at the VERY LEAST) take control of the House of Representatives. Should they do so it will allow them to force Trump and Congressional Republicans to halt their radical agenda against democracy and the working class. However, if the Democrats fail to capture the House, Trump and his Congressional Republicans will proclaim that such represents a green light for them to push forward on that agenda.

     

    I will also be looking closely at the campaign for Senate control. Pundits expect Republicans to retain control there, but Democratic victory is crucial here as well to stop Trump and the Republicans from radically changing the balance of our Courts to fit the oligarchic agenda of the super wealthy. Winning the House means NOTHING in the fight for the Courts. It is all about the Senate here.

     

    Control of the State Governorships and Legislatures is key for the battle for our democracy and the working class as well. Most of the attacks on worker's rights and progressivism have been spearheaded at the State level (one of the reasons I don't trust Kasich, no matter how nice he looks on TV compared to Trump). The states have always been used as a factory for ideas tested before advancing them on the national level (think "Obamacare"/"Romneycare"). Moreover, since many states still permit the exploitation for political gain of their constitutional responsibility to redraw legislative district lines after the census, the state elections (including the legislature, Governor, and Secretary of State; the last of which is the chief elections officer of a state) are crucial to preserving and protecting our democracy.

     

    On local races, I will largely be looking at the county-level races here in my home county, but may remark on elections throughout the country. Too many people take for granted the importance of EVERY campaign up and down the ballot. I will do what I can to help point out why we have to care about every office up for grabs.

     

    After the coverage, I will be summarizing my thoughts in a traditional "Tonight's Conclusion" segment. Stay tuned!

     

    Coverage (Time of Update in parentheses and in EST):

    (6:45 PM) I will be live updating the progress as much as possible. There will be a brief period, though, where I will be unable to do so. I have to give my brother and his son a ride home and that will take about half an hour. I will catch up and summarize on whatever news breaks during that period.

     

    (7:01 PM) Bernie wins re-election! So does Tim Kaine. Obviously good news.

     

    (7:13 PM) Ohio and a few other states will see their polls close in 17 minutes. I will not be able to update at that point because I will be taking my brother and his son home.  If there is breaking news while I am out I will catch up once I get home.

     

    (8:07 PM) Just got back. A number of Democrats have won re-election in the Senate, including Senator Brown here in Ohio. Democrats have flipped 2 seats so far in the U.S. House. I will list the states won at the end of this post as a recap. All new victories I will cover here.

     

    (8:41 PM) Issue 1 in Ohio - reducing penalties for drug offenders and seeking to shift financing to treatment - has apparently gone down in flames. Probably wasn't the best decision to propose this as a State Constitutional Amendment.

     

    (9 PM) Indiana just ousted their Democratic Senator, Donnelley, for Mike Braun. It looks as though the hopes of a wave are dissipating while a number of contested Congressional seats are being called for Republicans. The loss of Indiana's Senate seat makes control of the Senate harder. Manchin wins reelection.

     

    (9:06 PM) Blackburn wins in Tennessee U.S. Senate race. Democrats are seeing their hopes of controlling the Senate slip away. There were a bunch more calls of predictable races, but I will list them at the bottom by the end of the night.

     

    (9:30 PM) I'm sure that my local paper has already called it, but the race for Licking County Commissioner here in Ohio seems to have gone to the incumbent, Rick Black. Shame, too, as Adam Rhodes was a damn good candidate.

     

    (9:33 PM) Note: I have decided to finish the tally below after all the results for the night are in. I can't possibly keep track of hundreds of races at once. I will reserve my updates for the biggest news; particularly news with respect to control over Congress, the Governorships, and Legislatures. Additionally, I am going to sadly predict that although the races are "too close to call" it looks as though Andrew Gillum - an amazing progressive candidate for Governor in Florida - will lose to the Trump-worshipping Ron DeSantis and that Senator Bill Nelson will lose to the Republican Governor Rick Scott.

     

    (9:37 PM) Congratulations to Colorado for electing the nation's first ever openly gay governor!

     

    (9:47 PM) Back to the races here in Ohio. All Democratic statewide candidates not named Sherrod Brown are having trouble as they are all behind. Meanwhile, control of the General Assembly is likely to remain in Republican hands with my friends Jeremy Blake and Tyler Shipley, as well as Melinda Miller all trailing their respective incumbent Republican incumbents.

     

    (9:49 PM) Silver lining in Ohio races is that it looks like all of the Democratic judicial nominees (at least those of which I was aware where I live) are winning.

     

    (9:59 PM) The vote-suppressing puppet of Trump from the fake commission on "Voter Fraud" and Secretary of State for Kansas, Kris Kobach has just went down in flames!!

     

    (10:08 PM) I will return shortly. Have a quick emergency errand to run. It looks like Democrats will come close to a majority of Governors, but will fall just short there and in the Senate. Also, the probability of a Democratic House has exponentially increased. I'll be back as soon as possible so that I may continue my coverage.

     

    (10:12 PM) Real quick, breaking news holds that Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp loses her seat in North Dakota thanks in part to voter suppression efforts by the Republican controlled state government whose actions kept many Native Americans from getting to the polls, which hurt Heitkamp more that the Republican. However, it doesn't help matters that Heitkamp has been more conservative than necessary in many respects except with one important vote (on Kavanaugh). Her vote on Kavanaugh may have helped cost her the race. Finally, Ted Cruz pulls off a squeaker victory over his flamboyant Democratic Challenger, Beto O'Rourke.

     

    (10:32 PM) With the aforementioned victory of Cruz, Republicans will retain the Senate, but as I returned I have just learned that Democrats have clinched the Senate and are inching closer to ousting some prominent Republicans from certain governor's mansions.

     

    (10:35 PM) Democrats have picked up a number of Governors' seats. I am curious as to what the makeup of state legislative seats will look like.

     

    (10:50 PM) In a call which was apparently made while I was out, Ohio has elected Mike DeWine to succeed Kasich and I am assuming that all of the other statewide Democrats were declared as the losers as well. Very tragic, but given the fact that Cordray lost to DeWine for Attorney General 4 years ago, this was predicted by a number of us back in the spring. Cordray would have been a decent governor, but this was a lost opportunity for sure.

     

    (11 PM) Although his race is still "too close to call", Gillum has conceded his race for Governor. Showing his character as a stand up guy. I am predicting that Democrats will lose their Senate seats in Florida (Nelson) and Missouri (McCaskill), which will at least result in a net-loss of one seat for the Democrats in the Senate.

     

    (11:48 PM) U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill has officially lost in Missouri. Nelson is still holding on to Rick Scott's heels. Democrats must win all remaining uncalled Senate races to avoid a net loss of seats in the Senate.

     

    (12:17 AM, November 7th) Beto was just giving a rousing concession speech. Was broadcast on national television telling his supporters "I'm so fucking proud of you!" Had to laugh out loud at that. Any Trump supporters who attack him for that are hypocrites...just saying. Anyways, the guy looked like an Obama-esque Presidential Candidate. He may even be way better than President Obama depending on his stance on the issues affecting the working class. Keep an eye on him for sure.

     

    (12:47 AM) Maine's Governorship has just flipped to the Democrats, and we are still waiting to see who wins the remaining races. I will stay up until 1:30 or 2 AM covering and analyzing this election. If no new developments come before then I will call it a night since I have to take my kids to school in the morning before heading to work. Any new developments after I awake will be reviewed once I get a chance tomorrow.

     

    (7:37 PM, November 12th) It has almost been a week since the election and we have yet to find out all the consequences of this election. It looks like the best Republicans will do is a net gain of two seats in the U.S. Senate, and even that could go down if Democrats pull off a miracle and flip the Mississippi Senate Seat which is going to a special election runoff later this month. If the recount in Florida manages to show that Nelson wins reelection, then flipping the Mississippi seat would result in a ZERO net gain for either party in the Senate. One can only hope. I will be back one more time when we have all the results so that I may give my complete election analysis.

     

    Tally (Update: This is to be completed by the end of the vote counts):

    SENATE

    Ohio - Brown Reelected!

    Virginia - Kaine Reelected!

    Maryland - Cardin Reelected!

    Delaware - Carper Reelected!

    Connecticut - Murphy Reelected!

    Rhode Island - Whitehouse Reelected!

    Massachusetts - Warren Reelected!

    Vermont - Bernie Reelected!

    New Jersey - Menendez Reelected!

    Indiana - Braun Elected (Gain for Republicans)

     

    HOUSE (Not going to list names, just the breakdown of which party has the most seats)

    Will provide number at end of election.

    (EDIT: 5/31/2019) As of this writing, one seat remains undecided in North Carolina following a scandal which involved a Republican Congressman paying a group to steal absentee ballots. A protracted debate culminated in a hearing wherein a new election was demanded and the Incumbent Republican bowed out of the race. The special election is now pending. Final analysis - complete with the much-delayed "Tonight's Conclusion" - to come following that race's decision.

     

    STATE LEGISLATURES (Special Emphasis on Ohio)

    Will provide numbers at end of election.

    (EDIT: 5/31/2019)

    Per Ballotpedia, Democrats had a net-gain of 309 seats across 86 state legistlative bodies. There are 99 in total and 87 of them held elections, but one was not a "regularly scheduled partisan election". In the process of flipping those seats, Democrats seized control of six chambers and Republicans gained none. Although, the Republicans lost their supermajority in North Carolina even as they managed to negotiate a shared-control agreement with Democrats in Alaska; where the Democrats had previously controlled it.

     

    GOVERNORS

    Pennsylvania - Wolf Reelected!

    Massachusetts - Baker Reelected

    Rhode Island - Raimondo Reelected!

    Illinois - Pritzker Elected!

    Arkansas - Hutchinson Reelected

    Tennessee - Lee Reelected

     

    OHIO LOCAL ELECTIONS

    Will provide figures at end of election.

    (EDIT: 5/31/2019)

    Per Ballotpedia, The Ohio Republicans gained a seat in their State Senate majority when they picked up a vacant seat to increase their majority to 24-9. In the State House, Democrats picked up 6 seats, with one victory being a vacated seat; numbers are now at 61-38 with the Republicans holding the advantage.

     

    Tonight's Conclusion

     

    Coming soon.

     

    TAKE CARE

November 2, 2018

  • The Progressive Lens Monthly Round-up: October 2018

    Trump Era Days 620-650

     

    What was reported?

    • The Jobs report showed that the economy added a mere 134,000 jobs, unemployment fell to 3.7%, and wages only grew by 2.8%.
    • In a special New York Times investigative report, it was revealed that President Trump’s family amassed their wealth by illegally using certain tricks to dodge hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes through the means by which Fred Trump passed on to his children their inheritance.
    • When the honor of his pick for the Supreme Court – Brett Kavanaugh – was questioned by a woman named Dr. Christine Ford who accused him of an attempted rape in the early-1980s, Trump took to a rally and happily mocked the accuser to loud cheers amongst his followers. Before another accuser had come out about a separate incident in college, texts from Kavanaugh to those around him suggested that he wanted to organize a refutation of such before the accuser came out. When the FBI investigated the accusations, Trump limited the scope thereof (confirmed by FBI Director Wray himself) and a number of possible witnesses were reportedly ignored. As expected, White House Counsel Don McGahn resigned following the confirmation.
    • Just as was the case when she became Speaker of the House after the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress, Pelosi is again taking impeachment off the table.
    • Trump’s Ambassador to the UN – Nikki Haley – resigned a day after an investigation was opened into her allegedly accepting illegal high-dollar gifts including free private jet rides.
    • It was discovered that the Republican candidate for Governor in Georgia – who also serves as the Secretary of State in George, which is the chief elections officer – has presided over the holding of thousands of voter registrations primarily for voters statistically most likely to vote for his opponent. Then, a bus taking black voters to the polls was forced to suspend helping people get to their ballots after an unknown caller complained.
    • In a rare good moment for the working class, Trump signed a bipartisan bill which permits pharmacists to tell their customers when they can pay less for the medication they need by circumventing medication covered by their insurance.
    • Claiming that they are trying to avert “cost” and “protect” the landmarks, Trump’s National Park Service announced intentions to severely restrict demonstrations all around the nation’s capitol with special emphasis on the areas around the White House, at the National Mall, and in front of Trump International Motel.
    • After a number of nations prevented the United States from being able to renegotiate rates which allows countries like China to send small packages to American consumers for a cheap price, the Trump Administration announced that they plan to withdraw the United States from the long-standing worldwide postal treaty.
    • Trump reached a deal with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to save NAFTA and effectively rename it as the “United States – Mexico – Canada - Agreement”. There were some improvements from expanded access for U.S. dairy exports to Canadian consumers and a requirement that a significant chunk of auto parts be manufactured in areas of the Continent paying a basic living wage.
    • The President threatened California Governor Brown with losing federal aid for firefighters if the state doesn’t clean out dead/rotting trees and curb the forest fires which are primarily getting worse due to climate change.
    • After a regional election in Germanyled her party to suffer with some setbacks, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to step down as her party’s leader and forego another bid for any post in the next national election. This came along with an equally shocking election in Brazil as part of a rightward, nationalist, authoritarian shift across the globe.
    • Trump revoked the visas of same-sex partners for diplomats, requiring that they must be married in order to receive a visa despite the fact that sexual orientation is not universally protected from persecution throughout the world.
    • Trump started holding rallies making things up out of thin air, claiming the Congressional Democrats were proposing an “open borders bill” and asserting that the Democrats were part of a “left wing mob”.
    • Despite claiming in 2016 that there was a supposed precedent against confirming new Justices in a presidential election year, Senate Majority Leader McConnell did not refuse to entertain confirming another justice should the opportunity arise in 2020.
    • After the turmoil over Kavanaugh, the Senate confirmed to the 8th Circuit Court a man rated by the American Bar Association to not be qualified for the job.
    • A climate report sponsored by the United Nations concluded that humanity has until 2030 to reduce carbon emissions by 40-50%.
    • Hurricane Michael obliterated much of Florida almost as a Category 5 storm which came almost out of nowhere as it rapidly strengthened over the very warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
    • In an attempt to offset part of the cost of his tax cut for the rich, Trump called for a 5% reduction in spending across the board for all agencies.
    • Claiming that the surging deficits are not the fault of recent Republican policies, Senate Majority Leader McConnell indicated that the blame lays squarely with the social safety net and that such will be targeted next to curb the debt.
    • In the days leading up to Saudi Arabia’s confession that they murdered Jamal Khashoggi a number of prominent conservatives started to suggest that he may have deserved to be killed largely by claiming he was tied to Islamic extremists.
    • As part of their ever-changing story – which was unsurprisingly defended by Trump – the Saudi went from outright denying any knowledge of what happened to U.S. resident journalist Jamal Khashoggi to confessing that he died after a “fight”.
    • It was announced that Trump will withdraw the U.S. from the cold war era Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty which has been instrumental in shielding Europe from housing nuclear weapons.
    • The Trump administration revealed its intentions to stop recognizing transgenders for legal purposes.
    • Following a scare wherein over a dozen bombs were sent through the mail to the Obamas, the Clintons, Soros, Robert De Niro, and several other high profile critics of Trump in addition to CNN by a Trump fan in Florida and after a handful of hate crime-based mass shootings, Trump took to the stage within hours of each for his divisive rallies and even returned to Twitter to again use violent rhetoric accusing the media of being the people’s “true enemy”.
    • Putting his view of the world in simple black and white terms of “globalists” versus “nationalists”, Trump proudly declared that he is a “nationalist”. Meanwhile, the people of Brazil elected a new fascist president of their own, named Jair Bolsonaro, whom has run on a message similar to Trump’s, applauded the prior fascist regime which fell in the 1980s and has even suggested an assault on minority populations.
    • Hours before the suspected bomb-mailing, Trump-loving terrorist was caught by the FBI, Trump lamented on twitter about the attention that the crisis had stolen via the mainstream media. He practically gave a wink to conspiracy theorists by using quotations around the word “bomb” which for some implied that these incidents may have been staged. Most of all, he was upset that the attention had been taken off the momentum his party seemed to enjoy from his fearmongering and the angst over how Kavanaugh was handled.
    • President Trump said that he was too busy to visit our servicemen and women overseas – despite all the rallies and other leisurely activities he takes time to enjoy -, saying that doing so wasn’t “necessary” or “important”.
    • Breaking with the standard of not deploying federal troops on American soil save for emergencies, Trump is sending thousands of soldiers to the border to prepare for the slow-moving caravan from Central America which will take possible months to traverse over a thousand miles here. This latest act of bravado comes after Trump spent weeks playing the fear game firing up his base with fear of the supposed foreign “invasion”, claiming they were organized by Democrats to come and steal our elections.
    • Trump floated the possibility of abolishing or altering birthright citizenship via executive order, despite the fact that such is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    • Trump is reportedly about to cancel the “Countering Violent Extremism Grant Program” which is geared towards curbing domestic terrorism with funding for preventive training and other measures. Before this signal of cancellation surfaced, one of the grants which was withheld by the Administration was money that had been previously reserved for an organization in Chicago led by former white supremacists who go around the country and talk to young people about the importance of tolerance.

     

     

    Tonight’s Conclusion

     

                The time has come. Two years of Trump world have led us to this pivotal moment. If we fail to stop the drift towards totalitarianism then we may not get another chance in the near future. Our system is being tested like never before and the ultimate test is for us: will we pump the brakes on this? It is a cliché to say this every election cycle but it is too true each time and even more so now; this is THE most important election in the history of our country. Get out and vote!

     

    #NotMeUs #OurRevolution #TheResistance #ImpeachTrump

     

    Purchase my manifesto, “The Pillars of Unitism”.

     

    Before I part, here are some articles which may interest you:

     

    • Scientists have observed peculiar behavior amongst chimpanzees being monitored via hidden cameras. It is thought that this behavior – wherein they are inexplicably compiling stones in odd locations – could indicate the primal stage of the evolution of a religion.

     

    Until next time…

     

    TAKE CARE

October 12, 2018

  • #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter and the politics of Cultural Backlash

              In the 1968 Presidential Election, we saw a new phenomenon in American politics: the cultural backlash. It is not as if cultural changes hadn’t been considered before or that our politicians hadn’t read the proverbial writing on the wall too gauge where the populace was on a particular issue. No, what happened in 1968 and then again in 1972 was that a truly opportunistic and amoral – that is to say, Machiavellian – politician saw the natural response to rapid cultural change as an opportunity for political exploitation and used that to catapult himself to the highest office in the land.

     

              The 1960s produced the most tumultuous cultural shift in American history: from the civil rights movement to the second wave of feminism, from the rejection of blind patriotism to an acceptance of concepts like “free love” and exploration of the “fruits of nature”. This was the era of rock and roll as the theme of rebellion against the system and of confronting our hyper-masculine prejudices which deceive us into believing that heterosexual life is the only natural lifestyle. We were changing for the better, but not everyone was on board with that.

     

              As the transformation unfolded at an ever-quicker pace, a number of the citizens watching these events became uneasy at first and then increasingly agitated. They didn’t like seeing this land that they loved and called their own being taken over by the “degenerates” they perceived. No, they saw the national leadership of the era – President Johnson and the Democrats – as failing to keep this change at bay. To them, this was a betrayal of the fabric of American culture as the riff-raff continued unabated with the inept donkeys doing nothing except to encourage our societal degradation.

     

              Then, like a savior descended from the skies came an old familiar face; a former Vice President from a by-gone era when everyone knew their place. He could have been president – many of the disgruntled no doubt thought to themselves -, and he could have certainly stopped all of this had he defeated Jack in 1960. Seduced by this deception of a culture under siege, the people were swayed by the cunning and extremely gifted political prowess of Richard Millhouse Nixon, who promised to return “law and order” and restore that seemingly lost sense of greatness to the American psyche.

     

              In a nutshell, this is more or less how Nixon did it. This is how he facilitated his relatively unique political comeback. Not many political experts at the time knew quite how to read and manipulate the cultural energy of a particular era like Nixon did, and he used this quasi-populist anger and resentment to his advantage. It was Nixon who pioneered the art of capitalizing on a cultural backlash for political gain, and he had the world in the palm of his hands as a result. To be more frank, he was very close to becoming an American despot if it weren’t for his ill-conceived tapes which exposed the abuses of power on his watch and at his direction.

     

              Others before and since Nixon have exploited the bully pulpit, the campaign, and the powers of the presidency for their own gain, but no one has ever mastered it like “Tricky Dick”. Well, his mastery of cultural backlash politics could soon be overshadowed by his successor, Donald John Trump. With a track record in being a con man as well as an entertainer, “the Donald” – like Nixon before him – has no devotion to morals, nor has he any compunction about exploiting an opportunity to improve his self image. Trump may have an entirely different background than Nixon, but they are most certainly cut from the same narcissistic cloth. For that reason, there is plenty to be alarmed about in the current era.

     

              Just as we saw in the 1960s, we are again witnessing a period of rapid cultural change. Also, as was the case with that earlier time, there are a number of citizens uncomfortable with the change. As a consequence – again, like before -, a backlash has been mounting. Yes, like with Nixon in 1968, we have Donald Trump ready, willing, and able to channel this angst and use it to fuel his insatiable lust for power.

     

              Interestingly, each of the segments of the culture shift in the 1960s is featured in a sequel of sorts today. For the civil rights movement, the descendants of that effort have coalesced on the message of #BlackLivesMatter. While there is still concern about protecting minorities from discriminatory policies in the workplace and the ballot box, another unresolved issue has been highlighted: the disparity in the application of justice. Exacerbated by the so-called “war on drugs” and “war on crime” wherein mandatory minimums became the norm, “stop and frisk” was adopted, and where possession of anything related to “drugs” has all exploded the minority population in our increasingly private prison system. Couple that with the fact that countless minorities have been killed at the hands of law enforcement and gun-wielding individuals proclaiming their right to “stand their ground” with practically no (except in a small handful of cases) accountability.

     

              When the black population started getting media attention as they conveyed their outrage about this with the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012, they initially had a president who could empathize. That president, America’s first of African descent, reached out and connected with the pain of this oppressed community. Some political experts considered it risky for Barack Obama to weigh in on the racially-sensitive topic – especially when he was up for reelection -, but Obama found an arguably appropriate way to discuss it and to try and help lead a national conversation about justice. The Republican Party saw an opportunity here and sought to subtly fan the flames of racial resentment in the hopes that it would curb Obama’s reelection.

     

              Ultimately, they failed to overcome Obama’s bid for a second term, but the resentment remained and actually grew. Within two years, the movement which seemed to have begun in the wake of Martin’s murder soon evolved into the “Black Lives Matter” cause shortly after the controversy surrounding the 2014 death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. At that moment, the push for equal justice only grew and enhanced the public’s focus on the body count of predominantly black citizens with no accountability. By 2016, this cultural shift had become somewhat mainstream and had inspired the decision of a football player named Colin Kaepernick to force a predominantly white audience to watch uncomfortably as he took a knee during the national anthem on national television.

     

              Meanwhile, the Republican Party and their allies in media – mostly Fox News, conservative websites, and talk radio – doubled down on the Napoleonic divisive rhetoric to capitalize on and exacerbate white anger  instead of inviting the essential conversation needed to unite the community. This portrayal of white people and police officers under siege by “radical” minority activists, the Democrats, and a Democratic President who just happened to be a minority helped to establish the groundswell for Nixon’s successor in cultural backlash politics; a supposed billionaire celebrity whose background included not only mainstreaming the racist birther movement questioning the legitimacy of our first black president but also a track record of discriminating against minorities in housing and in taking out multiple newspaper ads in the 1980s advocating for the death penalty for a group of young black men wrongfully accused of murder. This new figurehead, Donald Trump, did not care about the consequences of his racially-charged remarks and had never been bothered to ponder the suffering of anyone but himself. The apathetic candidate for president was the perfect embodiment of everything the Republican Party had become and what their impassioned base had long desired.

     

              As the world and the nation watched in horror and attempted to laugh off the threat, Trump used the divisions of the American people to plant the seeds for his rise to power. It was a path modeled after Nixon before him – as Trump, too, promised a return to “law and order” and a take no prisoners approach –, but it went further than Nixon in that Trump more overtly sought to stoke cultural division much like his fascist forefathers around the world in the twentieth century.

     

              Ultimately, the combination of his racial divisive rhetoric and false populist message (that is to say, fascist) promising justice for the working class all contributed to Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016. Yet, rather than using the end of a campaign to bring people together, Trump seized on the moment to inspire the continued idol worship by his devoted base after soon growing tired of the calm which typically accompanies a transition of power. When he took the oath of office, Trump proclaimed that the United States was living in dark times and that he was going to provide the light to help us escape. Since then, he has not hesitated to use his newfound position to publicly attack minority protesters and the mostly minority celebrity activists on and off the field.

     

             Likewise, he hasn’t skipped a beat in portraying as an assault on our values the cause which seeks to address the remnants of our racist past. Claiming that statues which give tribute to the Confederacy and the rebel flag are little more than historic landmarks, Trump has utilized the presidency to lend credence to the twisted logic that attempts to heal our community represent an attack on “heritage”. This is despite the fact that the Civil War was waged over the issue of slavery and the tragic fact that those symbols were used to justify the racist policies which followed the failure of Reconstruction. Perhaps the most telling moment of all to underscore his disinterest in uniting the people was his response to the racist demonstration which caused the murder of one counter-protester (named Heather Heyer) in Charlottesville where he suggested that the neo-Nazi demonstrators were good people and that the counter-protesters were equally to blame for the violence.

     

             The other leading sequel to the 1960s era of cultural change movements is the apparent rebirth of feminism via a third wave thereof. Many feminists were ready and determined to elect our first woman as president of the United States, and a majority of them were emboldened and inspired by the fact that Hillary Clinton – no matter what you think of her (and I am no fan of hers by any stretch of the imagination) – made history in becoming the first woman to be nominated by a major party for president. When these hardcore supporters of Secretary Clinton saw how Donald Trump talked about women and considered his extremely misogynistic past – including a number of sexual assault allegations - they were especially horrified. To be honest, it was quite fitting for Hillary Clinton to confront Donald Trump in this bid for president considering what each of them symbolized through the lens of feminism. For that reason, the fact that Trump wound up winning has been the most bitter pill to swallow and has had the effect of waking up the previously sleeping giant that is the potential for women to rise up.

     

             The day after Trump’s inauguration featured the largest single day demonstration in American history, and it was a march for women’s rights and to reject this new disgusting president. Trump’s response over the coming months was to mock those who demonstrated against him and the Republican Party helped to support his attacks on the women who fear what this presidency means for them…for all of us. Then, when 2017 was coming to a close, another chapter of this revived movement for sexual justice emerged when a series of sweeping sexual assault allegations against powerful men came to light and kept piling up. Refusing to be ignored in their pleas, the #MeToo movement was born.

     

             An historic number of women started to run for office earlier this year (meaning 2018), driven by this cultural awakening. To a number of white men, they saw a threat to their claim to power and began to feel uncomfortable with their previous misdeeds as the dominant force in our society up until now. For a time, Trump would do little more than express his disappointment in the news of one figure or another falling due to the accusations of impropriety. That was until a special election for Senate was held in Alabama to replace Jeff Sessions who he had appointed as Attorney General. When the accusations came out against the Republican nominee Roy Moore, Trump took to the helm to help push back a little, suggesting that he needed to see more evidence before determining whether Moore should be denied the seat or not and hinting that keeping the seat in Republican hands was more important.

     

             After Moore lost to Doug Jones, there was a foul taste in the mouths of the GOP. Many of them were frustrated that the more Trumpian candidate – Roy Moore – had won the primary regardless of his shady background and controversial past on other hot button issues. Then again, they were feeling trapped by the Trump-loving base they created. So, they chose to keep pushing forward with Trump’s agenda…even if it was having a hell of a time getting off the ground in terms of legislation. In the end, the Republican Party was more determined to maintain their power if – for no other reason – it meant packing the Supreme Court of the United States and the rest of the federal judiciary.

     

             Since taking office and with the help of his unchecked Republican-controlled Senate, Trump has seen more success in appointing new federal judges and justices than any of his predecessors. Most of this has been met with very little pushback as it didn’t involve national media attention unlike the battle over Scalia’s vacated seat on the Supreme Court which had been held open by the Senate Republicans for almost a year as they ignored Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. That battle culminated in a last ditch effort by Senate Democrats to filibuster the appointment of Neal Gorsuch but failed when Senate Republicans abolished the 60-vote cloture rule for all judicial nominees, thus paving the way for Gorsuch to get confirmed. As the clock continued to tick, there were mounting rumors that Justice Kennedy would step down soon, causing a dramatic shift in the ideological balance on the bench, and those rumors were confirmed when he did so this past summer.

     

             There was already a great deal of reasons for which to oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination before the allegations posed by Dr. Ford were leaked to the media in the final weeks of the confirmation battle. Yet, when Ford was forced to come forward and when additional allegations started spilling out against this high-stakes Supreme Court nominee, the Republican Party, Trump, and the entire rightwing machine beyond fought back like never before. While losing the Senate seat in Alabama was not good for the Republicans, the Supreme Court is the crown jewel of national politics, because it involves 9 justices appointed for life and those justices hold in their hands the power to overturn actions by the other two branches of government. This fight became the fight where Trump and Republicans decided that they were going to use the growing anxiety (almost entirely amongst men) with the “Me Too” movement to push back. Losing this Supreme Court seat was not acceptable to the Republican Party and especially not acceptable to their wealthy donors. It was the moment they had been waiting for and they were not prepared to let a handful of victims ruin it for them.

     

             What the Republicans did, as led by Trump, was cast the accusations as being a partisan witch hunt. Their allies in the multiple layers of media did the same and went further, attacking the veracity of the claims, and even suggesting that the accusers were in on the plot to stop Kavanaugh. Over the weeks which saw this fight boil over, public opinion started to get more and more divided. On the day where both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford was subjected to an assault on her character as a female prosecutor provided cover in the attempt to undermine Ford’s credibility for the cowardly all-male Republican delegation on that committee, and then that testimony was followed by Kavanaugh, who then opened with the most overtly partisan testimony by a judicial nominee in history. In Kavanaugh’s remarks, he lent credence to the notion that these allegations were part of a witch hunt against him and was fomented out of a sense of revenge “on behalf of the Clintons”, an obvious reference to the apparent politicization of the #MeToo Movement. When it was all said and done, and after the sham inquiry which was authorized and limited by Trump to provide political cover for the confirmation vote, Kavanaugh and his supporters won.

     

             Almost a year ago in a conversation with some friends, I had conveyed my growing concern about the potential for a political backlash to the “Me Too” movement. I feared that if Democrats overplayed their hand and attempted to co-opt this very important movement they would create the groundswell for Trump and the Republicans to seize yet another opportunity in their mastery of divide and conquer politics. I based this on what I was reading across social media, through listening to people in person, and watching on television the responses of average Americans to the movement’s perceived “casualties”. I recognized that many people who seem to be mostly disinterested in politics were growing tired of the constant stream of stories about a celebrity or political figure being the subject of more accusations. These people were increasingly showing signs of unrest with respect to the uncomfortably realistic danger of an angry mob abandoning the vital principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. In this collection of responses by the public I saw the threat of a new backlash emerging.

     

             In the heat of the battle over Kavanaugh, a battle with more consequences than just the fight over “Roe v. Wade” (which is, yes, still very important and relevant), Trump and the Republicans finally tapped into and unleashed the first stages of that backlash. If you think that it will stop with the failure to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation then you are sadly mistaken. A political backlash is a powerful force because anger drives people to the polls almost as strongly as hope does. Without an enduring message of hope which inspires a genuine populist surge of participation at the ballot box and beyond, the backlash could not only help stave off a politically cataclysmic “blue wave” for many Republican incumbents this year, but it could also help to save Trump’s presidency in 2020 in conjunction with the fascist (see “fake populist”) message that he will no doubt present again.

     

             Don’t just rest and assume that Trump and the Republicans will pay a political price for all that they have done. It is incumbent upon the opposition to make those consequences a reality, and that involves both confronting the madness of their agenda and offering a counter-message worthy of consideration by the people. Time is running out to get this right. More is at stake than just an election loss. We could be seeing the loss of our Republic and the democracy so many of us take for granted.

     

    Tonight’s Conclusion

     

              There are other aspects of this cultural backlash which I didn’t get to mention above, and one of them is the movement which is a continuation of the gay rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s. This movement hasn’t really had a chance to relax since it started, but a number of very important victories were achieved for them in the past near-20 years. In what culminated with the realization of the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality in 2015, the movement had seen a host of other vital victories from the growing protections in the workplace, shielding from prosecution thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas 2003, the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell at the hands of Obama and Congressional Democrats, and the integration of transgenders in the military as well as the introduction of the concept that transgenders can use whatever restroom they need to use.

     

              It can not be understated that the rightwing facilitated a backlash of sorts against this aspect of our rapid cultural change in the recent past. For many conservative voters, the anger in response to each of these was in the back of their minds as they pondered voting for Trump and Congressional Republicans so as to get a more favorable Supreme Court. Part of why I didn’t highlight it above is that Trump initially campaigned as a false weak ally of the LGBT movement, suggesting that he would respect the progress made. However, in his appeasement of the radical religious right he would – as president – attempt on numerous occasions to reverse the integration of transgenders in the military. This is part of how he continues to fuel the cultural backlash.

     

              Moreover, as an obvious extension of the racial/xenophobic side of backlash politics, Trump’s persistent insistence on tougher immigration policies and in pursuing a ban on Muslims entering the country most definitely is intent on dividing and conquering the hearts and minds of the people. His cruel policies of separating families captured at or near the border is an act of catering to our worst impulses, as is the case with any capitalization of this nature. Trump is the perpetual opportunist and is – as mentioned earlier – the perfect representative for the party which nominated and continues to serve him.

     

              This is how fascism works and how it succeeds. Do not be blinded by it and do not feed into it by helping to sew our divisions. Find where you have common ground with your neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers and build out from there. Only by way of exposing how we are united can we defeat the forces of division.

     

    Onward.

     

    #NotMeUs #OurRevolution #TheResistance #ImpeachTrump

     

    Purchase my manifesto, “The Pillars of Unitism”.

     

    Until next time…

     

    TAKE CARE

October 1, 2018

  • The Progressive Lens Monthly Round-up: September 2018

    Trump Era Days 590-619

     

    What was reported?

    • The Jobs Report for August was pretty robust. 201,000 jobs were created, unemployment remained at 3.9%, and wage growth jumped a little.
    • The Trump Administration announced that we will no longer contribute to the United Nations’ Palestinian refugee fund.
    • The Trump Administration joined with Putin and a few other nations to defeat a proposal in the United Nations which would have banned autonomous weapons controlled by artificial intelligence.
    • George Papadopoulos – former Trump campaign official – was sentenced to two weeks for his crimes.
    • In an interview by a Conservative organization following demonstrations at a hearing for his Supreme Court pick, Trump hinted at his belief that protesting certain government actions should possibly be prohibited.
    • Trump’s White House elected to withhold over 100,000 documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush team. Bush’s lawyers had previously prepared the documents for release only for them to be held back by Trump.
    • Judge Kavanaugh averted answering a direct yes-or-no question about whether he had ever discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone at a particular law firm – the law firm managed by a personal lawyer of the president – and instead of saying yes or no, he kept asking for clarification, saying things like “I need a roster” and suggesting that he couldn’t remember a specific conversation.
    • Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton laid out a list of threats against people and nations looking to pursue war crimes through the International Criminal Court if those charges affect Americans or the United States.
    • Republican Ohio Congressman Bob Gibbs announced a bill which would force voters to present proof of citizenship when registering to vote. This would require either a birth certificate or a passport, neither of which are universally possessed as many older, minority, disabled, and impoverished citizens have neither document.
    • After an anonymous member of the Trump Administration penned an editorial published in the New York Times which insisted that there was a shadow government protecting the people from Trump’s worst impulses, President Trump insisted that the source be turned over to the government in the interest of national security.
    • It was revealed that the Trump Administration rejected a report which had found that refugees were not a national security threat and had instead produced their own report – despite the concerns of veracity of our intelligence agencies – which claimed that 3/4ths of all terrorism here at home was from foreign-born criminals.
    • Kavanaugh’s past is concerning for a variety of reasons. One such reason is that his record as a federal judge and even as a member of the Bush team saw him express on a number of occasions that affirmative action is unconstitutional.
    • It was reported that in light of the slew of allegations of sexual assault levied at Judge Kavanaugh, the FBI’s investigation into the claims – which came about only after public pressure compelled a small number of Senate Republicans to demand such – made by his accusers were going to be limited by the Trump Administration. According to the report, the FBI was only allowed to interview a handful of witnesses handpicked by the administration and they were not allowed to subpoena the employment records of a supermarket that one of the assault witnesses was said to have worked at around the time of a key assault.
    • The Trump Administration announced a policy which will impact legal immigrants using assistance programs. It directs the pertinent agencies to consider the use of assistance as a “negative” impact on society. Basically, if you are a poor immigrant you will either need to risk starving or dying from a lack of healthcare or forget about becoming a citizen of this country.
    • It was found that the Trump Administration – in a move similar to what was seen in a plot twist from the hit series “House of Cards” – diverted Hurricane Relief funds in FEMA to ICE.
    • Trump tone-deafly asserted that his FEMA’s response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico was a “success”, despite the fact – which Trump disputes and blames on Democrats - that up to 3,000 Americans are believed to have died as a result of the poor response.
    • Trump suggested that Puerto Rico should not become a state until they dispense with political leaders such as the Mayor who has made a name for herself publicly criticizing his handling of Hurricane Maria.
    • Trump’s FEMA director – Brock Long – was under investigation for using taxpayer money to hitch a ride home and put aides in a hotel after driving him home.
    • Trump imposed further tariffs on China, amounting to 200 Billion dollars worth of items such as bikes and handbags.
    • In the latest round of tariffs imposed on China, car parts used by American Automakers will see a spike in cost, which could undoubtedly impact the price of buying a car.
    • The Supreme Court issued a swift ruling ordering that nonprofits involved in electioneering must disclose their donors, thus closing a long-time “dark money” loophole.
    • At a rally, Trump openly toyed with the idea of purging the Justice Department of its “lingering stench” as an apparent reference to figures like his Deputy Attorney General.
    • As we learn that Trump’s regime has detained more migrant children than ever before – largely due to them not releasing said kids to live with loved ones -, we hear that almost 1,500 migrant children were again lost by the federal government.
    • Trump suggested that Spain build a wall across the Saharan desert – which would require violating foreign boundaries – to deal with the immigration issue there.
    • As the rest of the nation was paying attention to the drama surrounding Brett Kavanaugh, House Republicans passed a sweeping tax cut which would contribute almost 4 trillion dollars to the national debt in just over a decade.

     

     

    Tonight’s Conclusion

     

                September 2018 is yet another month in the history of the Trump Era which has forever changed us as a nation. Looking at the list of events which occurred within the past month you can just catch a glimpse of what is happening. Each of these monthly updates is a snapshot in time. I’m effectively chronicling this era and I hope that I am not covering the beginning of our collapse. However, I see numerous warning signs of a speedy dissent into despotism. On the one hand, we are getting ever so comfortable with the state of our economy. Job creation remains steady – which is good -, but the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Couple this with the plethora of xenophobic policies enumerated above just in the month of September and you can see a pathway for a fascist leader to affix blame for the inevitable downturn on the “other” Moreover, the crisis in the Court nomination process threatens the balance of power, the rule of law, and the impartial role of the Supreme Court all in one fell swoop.

     

                Kavanaugh’s positions on worker’s right, the rule of law, presidential power, women’s rights, and civil rights measures should all give us pause. There is a reason why the Congressional Republicans and Trump want so desperately to see him confirmed. He will be a reliable vote for the Conservative ideology on the Court and his partisan tirade in the hearing where he contested the accusations levied against him demonstrated that he will be the most overtly partisan Justice in the history of the Court and as a consequence of his potential confirmation he will cause a tectonic shift towards the right-wing. He also acted the way he did to satisfy the president who nominated him; Donald Trump. Trump has a vetted interest in Kavanaugh’s confirmation for far more than just a claim to legacy. Trump needs this confirmation because of Kavanaugh’s apparent loyalty to him, their history wherein Kavanaugh favored Trump in a previous ruling over a dispute with organized labor, and the Judge’s philosophy on imperial presidential power. For these reasons, Trump absolutely feels that Kavanaugh is essential and that is why Trump is actively (as of this writing) attempting to interfere in the re-opened FBI investigation into the Judge.

     

                There’s one more thing. Numerous political experts have correctly pointed out the possible confirmation of Kavanaugh in light of all that we have come to learn and when you consider how that hearing on the assault allegations was handled and how all of this risks severely compromising the separation of powers and political independence of Congress; the Senate in particular. If the Senate – through the corruptive force of hyperpartisan politics – forces through a major action at the behest of the president then the president enjoys a gross usurpation of power. When Senators like Lindsey Graham take to using extreme political grandstanding to defend a presidential nominee – calling the process a “disgrace” and “hell” – and then pledges their unyielding support to said nominee despite whatever facts may come to light it upsets the balance of power. A number of people have speculated that Graham is auditioning for a position in Trump’s Administration and that could in and of itself signal another corruption of the Senate/Congress as it creates a motive for certain members to act in blind obedience to the president so as to gain a position of power later.

     

                Yes, September 2018 was a monumental month, indeed. In fact, its significance – for reasons herein listed in my closing commentary as well as for some other reasons noted above in the summarized stories - is comparable to November 2016 with respect to the possible consequences for our great nation.

     

    #NotMeUs #OurRevolution #TheResistance #ImpeachTrump

     

    Purchase my manifesto, “The Pillars of Unitism”.

     

    Before I part, here are some articles which may interest you:

     

    • A study came out which warned that run-away global warming will come if concrete actions are not taken before 2030.

     

    Until next time…

     

    TAKE CARE

September 20, 2018

  • From Liberty to Fascism: A Brief History of the Republican Party (Part Three of Three)

    Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, Donald Trump, and the Rise of Fascism

     

              When the 2008 campaign came around and as the economy began to crumble under the weight of neoliberalism, we saw the beginnings of the latest populist revolution. Panic swept the nation with the overwhelming majority of the pain being felt by the working class (as usual), and the Republicans were frightened about not only losing more seats in Congress – where they were already in the minority in both chambers – but the White House as well. So, their presidential nominee – John McCain – was encouraged by his party and campaign advisors to select as his running-mate a new up and coming governor who had developed a reputation for taking on the “old boys club” in her home state of Alaska. To McCain - though he wanted to go for a Lincoln-like unity ticket (also channeling Eisenhower’s intent of desiring a Democratic Vice President at first) by selecting Senator Joseph Lieberman – it came to seem like a natural decision to choose such a person willing to take on the establishment. After all, he was famous for going against his party and had long been called a “Maverick” for such. That is when the American people were introduced to Sarah Palin.

     

              While McCain had recently asserted in the sunset months/years of his life that he regrets choosing Palin – who was supposedly not vetted by the campaign -, the fact remains that he remained silent as she unleashed a fervent pseudo-populist rage upon the people. At campaign rallies, Palin infamously capitalized on the Democratic nominee’s name with its origins in a culture where Islam dominates. She stated repeatedly that Obama was “palling around with terrorists” – a reference to his loose association with William Ayers, whom had been a domestic terrorist earlier in life long before ever meeting Obama – and had permitted other speakers at rallies to emphasize the use of Obama’s middle name “Hussein”. By the time McCain was forced to publicly confront and dispute the plethora of rumors floating around about Obama and his supposed allegiances or origins, the damage was done. The one time he stood up for Barack Obama in the general election campaign was nowhere near enough to put out the flames.

     

             People were angry because they were scared. They were scared for numerous reasons. Number one, the economy was falling apart. Number two, the American people had been told for the better part of the previous decade to fear the presence of terrorists in every corner. Number three, the rightwing machine – from its propaganda artists in all forms of media to the Republican Party itself – had successfully told much of the white working class that their struggles were not the result of the wealthy exploiting our weak laws, resources, and labor, but rather that they were the result of affirmative action policies and weak immigration laws. This was the angst which Palin was tapping into and ultimately released out of the depths of hell.

     

             Making matters worse was that blank check bailout for the wealthy. Working class citizens across all spectrums were outraged by this, but the Republicans – with a lot of financial help from the oligarchs looking to upend our democracy - twisted the narrative and blamed it all primarily on the government. The bailout, to them, was an example of Reagan’s old belief that “government is the problem”. So, they highlighted the bailout for banks, the bailout for the auto industry – which actually helped working class citizens to an extent, but that didn’t matter -, they attacked the incentives for environmental action, they exploited the fact that a recession causes deficits to explode, and they fought tirelessly against the relatively weak stimulus bill. The genuine populist anger about the collapse of our economy and the real pain it was causing working class citizens was manipulated by the Republicans to turn at least half of the working class against the government for fear of an alleged turn to socialism as led by their supposed Muslim imposter-president who just happened to be of African descent. This is how the Tea Party Movement was born.

     

             As Obama sought to reform healthcare, the rightwing saw an opportunity. Just as they had with Clinton’s push for reform 16 years earlier they were determined to spread fear about some hidden Obama agenda to destroy our supposedly superb healthcare system. The unification of the conservative opposition drove thousands of “teabaggers” (as they once called themselves before liberals started mocking them for the hilarious sexual connotations thereof) to protest in the streets, takeover town halls, and otherwise oppose the actions of Congressional Democrats. When the Affordable Care Act was passed through Congress, the Republicans and their allies did not relent in attacking it. They had successfully branded the new law as “Obamacare”, which meant that the Republicans were hell-bent on ensuring that everything wrong with healthcare in America was now going to be associated with President Obama and the Democrats.

     

             The weak stimulus, the oligarch bailouts, “Obamacare”, the rising birther movement, and the intentional manipulation of racial animosity all contributed to the Republican wave which not only flipped control of the House of Representatives in 2010 but also saw the Republicans seize control of state legislatures and Governorships throughout the country. It had proved beneficial to the rightwing that the Supreme Court ruled in January of that year in favor of corporate personhood and free speech protections thereof through limitless spending of money via political action committees. With the oligarchs now empowered to snuff out popular opposition to their agenda by buying as much ad-time as their hearts’ desired and with the genius conservative plot – as hatched by “Red Map” - to super-focus political ad-buys in the cheaper state legislative races, the Democrats were caught off guard in an incredibly vital year not to be caught off guard: a census year.

     

             In 2011, those Republicans elected by their “red wave” in 2010 immediately got to work in states across the country and in Congress with one goal in mind: regaining power. At the federal level, Congressional Republicans used their gains in Congress to pump the brakes on President Obama’s agenda and did so in a way which virtually crippled the federal government. First, they seriously teased – on numerous occasions throughout the remainder of Obama’s tenure – the threat of a government default on our national debt; which would have triggered a global economic collapse and eventually caused the nation’s credit rating to be downgraded as a result. Then, they shut down the federal government in 2013 over repealing the healthcare law and de-funding Planned Parenthood. In the Senate, Republicans – who didn’t gain a majority there until after the next “wave” in 2014 – abused the archaic Senate’s procedural rules via the “filibuster” to block every piece of legislation supported by the president as well as holding judicial nominees hostage up until Senate Democrats finally eliminated the filibuster for lower federal courts shortly before they lost control of that body.

     

             At the state level, the assault on democracy was far more egregious. In fact, much of the Republican agenda in the states was derived from the plot supported by “Red Map”, funded by the Koch Brothers, and advanced by the corporate lobbying group: ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council). This multi-pronged assault included the attempts across the nation to target organized labor by stripping public unions of their right to collectively bargain or eliminating state funds for local governments as a backdoor means of weakening the clout of public unions in negotiating with their local elected officials. While some states saw the backlash successfully pushback against this, there were quite a few examples of where the unions were defeated. Additionally, some of these states adopted or strengthened laws which preempted progressive local actions – like increases in the minimum wage rate - or even nullified local governance altogether by appointing “emergency managers” to do the bidding of their corporate-beholden state governments.

     

             This says nothing about what the state-elected Republicans did with respect to how American democracy itself functions. The cornerstone of the “Red Map” plot was the desire to take gerrymandering – particularly as it had been exploited by former House Majority Leader Tom Delay when he spearheaded the redistricting in Texas ten years earlier – to a new extreme level so as to ensure an impenetrable red wall (if you will) Republican-favored at both the state and federal levels. When they were finished with the redistricting, they were successful in defending their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives despite losing the national popular vote for Congress. Then, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act which had prohibited discriminatory voting laws and had shielded the minority vote with an extra layer of scrutiny for states with a history of segregation. At that moment, the Republicans primarily in the South ratcheted up their purging of “inactive voters” and taking other actions – all supposedly aimed at confronting “voter fraud” – which disproportionately affected minority voters.

     

              It was also in 2011 that Donald Trump jumped aboard the birtherism train. Spending much of the year mainstreaming the myth that our then-president was somehow an agent of the greatest underdog organized coup in modern history, Trump soon assumed the position as the Republican base’s favorite newly-adopted son. He even went so far as to declare – falsely, of course – that he was paying private investigators to research the matter and regularly updated his social media fans about same said fake investigation supposedly unearthing earth-shattering details in their efforts that never were. When the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary race got underway, Trump quickly emerged as the top choice among those polled. Though he decided against running at the time, it was clear that Trump may well have been able to secure the nomination four years earlier than he did. In his stead, anti-establishment candidates like Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain briefly led the polls while devout libertarian Ron Paul commanded the most loyal following. The establishment-preferred choice of Mitt Romney won the nomination battle, but 2012 was a warning sign of the coming storm.

     

              By the end of that year’s presidential election, a number of events helped create the conditions for the crisis which befell us starting in 2016. For starters, Mitt Romney became the umpteenth establishment Republican – joining McCain, Dole, and Bush 41 - to lose to an otherwise seemingly weak Democrat in decades. This alone hardened the hearts of many Republican voters, as they saw any hint of moderation as an unacceptable trait. Their next nominee had to be uncompromising, at least in their presentation. Superstorm Sandy obliterated the East Coast, the aftermath of which led then-New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to accompany President Obama in numerous events – complete with photos -, and this became a turn of events which convinced many pundits (and a great deal more Republicans) to conclude that Christie had effectively helped reelect Obama; Christie never fully recovered from this perception of him being a traitor of sorts. Finally, the tragedy at Benghazi took place and immediately served as a partisan issue exploited by the Republicans over the next four years (which you obviously hear NOTHING about now) to try and nail down Obama and his preferred successor: Hillary Clinton.

     

              It was all-too clear to the Republican Party’s loyal supporters that the Party had failed them in attempting to oust the president whom the Republicans had long convinced them was a threat to the nation. The aforementioned shutdown in 2013 was partially a consequence of this rapidly growing rabid call for political blood in light of this electoral failure. Compromise meant political suicide for Republicans – just ask John Boehner, who was more or less compelled to step down as Speaker for even appearing to work with Obama - and the Party was increasingly powerless to tame the beast which they had nurtured not only for the duration of Obama’s time in office but which they had been training since even before the Reagan era. Although the Republican House had been leading a number of pointless investigations into Obama’s White House since 2011 those investigations multiplied many times over after he was reelected; with “BENGHAZI” leading the way. The admitted goal of that chief investigation for the terrorist incident in our Libyan Embassy was to destroy any hopes that Former Secretary Clinton – whose approval rating was rather high at the time in her post-service life - had of becoming president. More evident than ever before was the Party’s unyielding devotion to the pursuit of power.

     

              By the time Trump announced his bid for office and won over the base with his xenophobic, conspiracy theory-driven, and otherwise bigoted rhetoric how in the world could anyone of sound mind have been surprised by his rise to political prominence? Acting like a reactionary strongman from an authoritarian country didn’t frighten the Republican base, because it is what they have been conditioned to desire by decades of the rightwing machine mocking the liberals for representing the polar opposite example of politicking. Nor did they run away and “dump Trump” when he mocked John McCain’s POW status, or when he publicly berated Rosie O’Donnell’s looks on a debate stage, or when he mocked a disabled reporter at a rally, nor when he promised to pay the legal fees of supporters who may take it upon themselves to punish someone of the opposing viewpoint. No, the Republicans didn’t blink an eye.

     

              What the Republican base had railed against for Obama’s eight years is that he was “weak” and too concerned with gathering the facts before acting. This was not the characteristic that they had come to expect from a leader. Rather, they wanted a “decider” like ol’ Dubya again, but with more intestinal fortitude and far less compassion. After all, “compassion” was for the liberals and that was too much of a compromise this time around. They wanted someone who didn’t think twice before sticking it to the liberals – who the rightwing machine had long loved to troll at every chance they got in their various forms of “entertainment” - and the rest of the world, even if it meant making the Party establishment uneasy. Hell, especially if it meant making them uneasy.

     

              Leading up to the 2016 primary fight, many political experts/pundits had made a lot of noise about how Trump was hijacking the Republican Party. He wasn’t a “real Republican”, they would exclaim, because he was not a man with a devotion to any ideology. His values were supposedly not the same values as the Party which nominated him to become the 45th President. The truth is far more disturbing than the notion that a wealthy (?) conman had somehow snuck in and co-opted one of our major parties for his own gain.

     

              In reality, the Republican Party of today is the perfect political home for Donald John Trump. Like Trump, the Republican Party does not hesitate to attack the media, science, or facts in general as they openly question the trustworthiness thereof. Like Trump, the Republican Party is not concerned with the consequences of its actions or its rhetoric; no matter how harmful. Like Trump, the Republican Party gets a thrill out of antagonizing their adversaries at home and abroad – for they mastered the art of “trolling” before the word became a popular term -, as offending others is the primary objective for much of what they do. Like Trump, the Republican Party has no real loyalty to ideology, as the endgame is always self-empowerment.

     

              Considering all of this, it seems only natural that the initial establishment resistance to Trump’s nomination collapsed once his primary victory appeared inevitable. The Party’s leaders knew exactly what Trump was (and is) all about, yet they didn’t fight him when the moment came to put a stop to this madness at the convention. What they did instead was call for the party to unite behind their new leader. In 2015 the base fell in love with Trump and in 2016 the Party handed its keys over to him. These conditions were set years – even decades – before Trump ran for the nomination, which is why the acceptance of him and his agenda has come so easily for them.

     

              The last gasp of partial – and insincere - Party resistance to Trump came with the release of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, but that again succumbed to complete Republican unity behind the cause of attaining power once then-FBI Director James Comey revealed publicly that the FBI was reexamining certain emails related to Hillary Clinton just under two weeks from Election Day. At that moment, the Party recognized that they had a shot to reclaim the power they so desired…even with Trump. Trump - however – was on the right side of history and barely needed the assistance of Comey’s badly timed letter. Did that letter help? Yes, as it left a bad taste in people’s mouths just as they were heading to the polls, but the American people reportedly hated both major party nominees. Instead, the primary historical factor working for Trump was that he was a candidate who represented a radical change of direction at a time when the people largely desired a radical change from a system which had long forgotten them.

     

              In the past year and near-eight months of Trump’s presidency we have further witnessed just how far the Republican Party is willing to go in order to remain in power. Let’s be clear about this – once again – and point out that the Republicans could care less about Trump or whoever the public face of their Party may be. The ONLY thing they care about is power and Trump was only portrayed as objectionable by certain key Party members because he appeared to pose a threat to their ability to claim power. Now that he is in office - and is wildly popular with the Republican base - all of their actions (and inactions) since Inauguration Day 2017 has been meant to preserve that power.

     

              No matter what you think about the investigation into suspected Russian meddling in our election, the fact is that the Republican Party has stood idly by as Trump has taken numerous public actions to put a stop to and undermine the credibility of the FBI’s work. They have even taken it upon themselves in Congress as well as through their official Party functions to join Trump in attacking the investigation both in rhetoric and in abusing the power they hold in Congress. These are not actions to protect Trump but to protect the Party at all costs. Yet they are so desperate to exploit this opportunity to enjoy the power they now hold that we have seen Party leaders and other prominent members shift from publicly condemning Trump to begging him for an Administration post and/or ultimately serving within the new regime.

     

              Just as Bush 43 (Dubya) had appointed business allies to head parts of his administration (hint: Michael Brown as head of FEMA) as well as appointed others who would intentionally ignore the regulatory purpose of the agency or department to which they were assigned (as Coolidge had done almost a century ago), Trump followed this same pattern by choosing anti-government/pro-business interests to decimate much of the federal bureaucracy. Congressional Republicans were quite gleeful about Scott Pruitt heading the EPA despite his storied background as anything but an ally of the environment and while there was some resistance to the selection of private (online) school oligarch Betsy DeVos heading the Education Department, the Republican Party did everything it could to ensure her confirmation by the Senate in what became the first time ever that a cabinet position was decided by the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote.

     

              Let’s not forget that Trump was largely protected by the Republican Party in his bid for the presidency because of the twist of fate which threw the Supreme Court’s future in the air after the reliably-conservative Justice Scalia passed away. Senate Republicans refused to so much as even hold one hearing for Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia throughout all of 2016. No, the Constitution does not require that the Senate confirm whoever the president nominates, nor does it require a hearing for said nominees, but the Republicans broke both Senate precedent and Capitol decorum in this blatant power-grab so as to shield their claim to power over the least democratic and most consequential branch of our government. Tragically for the future of progressivism and democracy, their Supreme Court gamble worked and paved the way for Trump to appoint Gorsuch to replace Scalia after Republicans acted to eliminate all filibusters for Court nominees (an act of revenge, no doubt, for the Senate Democrats eliminating lower federal court filibusters). And with the replacement for the moderate/conservative-leaning Anthony Kennedy looming, Republicans will yet again rally the troops to ensure a smooth confirmation for Trump’s second Supreme Court pick in less than two years. When it comes to the Court, the Republicans know that the battle for such is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republic and that shaping the federal judiciary is the backdoor path to undoing all of the progress fought for through democracy by the working class. It is the primary means by which they serve the end game of their oligarch masters.

     

              This political need to maintain power is the reason why the Republican Party is willing to tolerate anything and everything Trump says and does. Trump is able to vilify whoever he wants and punish the same with impunity because the Republicans in Congress covet power more than they desire to protect the Republic. The base of support for the Republican Party has been warped into its current condition by the Party itself and their mainstream public advocates all so that the real constituents which matter to the Party – the Oligarch class – can achieve their ultimate objective of suppressing democracy and building a society completely subservient to their will.

     

              At what cost will this blind and selfish obedience to the interests of a few come? You can already see some previews of what to expect from the Party’s conduct since Trump’s nomination and election. The president’s atrocious policies – largely used to distract us from some other despicable actions and meant to appease the bigoted political descendants of those former Dixiecrats – on matters like immigration, refusing entry to refugees, banning Muslims, and his wag-the-dog use of military force on poorer nations (particularly with Muslim-majority populations) will continue and with a broad swath of support by the Party and especially their base. He will also continue to utilize the new emerging wedge issues such as the anthem-kneeling at sporting events to further fan the flames of civil resentment. In addition to the needless dropping of bombs on nations like Syria, the president will further please the neoconservatives by repeatedly flexing our military arm at others such as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and the like; again, with very little protest by his Party. Trump will also continue to advocate for – and could even succeed in promoting – proposals such as the elimination of the Johnson Amendment ban on churches participating in politics, as an obvious nod to the remnants of the so-called Moral Majority (a branch of the conservative coalition which he also pleases with his Supreme Court picks), and you will be hard pressed to find many Republicans standing opposed to him.

     

             Of course, pandering to the neoconservatives, the bigots, and the Religious Right are all meant to stifle broad and united public opposition to the agenda of wealthy interests like the Kochs, the Waltons, the Adelsons, and so forth. Remember that the ONLY significant piece of legislation that Trump and the Republicans made sure they passed by the end of their first year in total control of our government was a tax cut which was designed intentionally to reward the rich for their continued support. The President who campaigned saying things like our wages are “too high” and advocating for a national “Right to Work” law will take advantage of the Supreme Court’s Janus decision this past summer by continuing to push for weaker labor protections. Trust what recent events and our history has taught us: this is only the beginning. Our democracy is in genuine danger and it is time to recognize as much.

     

             It is no coincidence that the rise of Trump was preceded, accompanied, and followed by a coordinated assault on worker’s rights and on the rights to vote and speak freely. Nor is it a coincidence that the animus which exists in our culture has equally produced an increase in hate crimes and support for Trump’s divisive rhetoric and policies; as well as his election. Furthermore, as a fake populist (a.k.a., a fascist), Trump’s populist-style tariffs and the appearance of opposition to “free” trade are designed to satisfy the demands of the working class for economic justice even as the president himself is enriched by exploiting cheap labor at home and abroad and despite the fact that the president isn’t necessarily using his stated trade policies to improve the conditions of working people everywhere. Yes, the Republican Party has publicly abandoned defending unfettered trade for the benefit of the few (instead, choosing which of the few to enrich by way of said trading behavior) because the populism which dominates our politics at the moment threatens their grip on power if they defy the president affiliated with their organization. In this case, the Republicans have gone the extra step in endorsing nationalism beyond what they promoted during the Bush 43 or Reagan years.

     

             If the Democrats manage to retake the House of Representatives in November and even if they manage to capture the Senate as well, they will still require the cooperation of Senate Republicans to hold this president accountable. As of now, Congressional Democrats mostly show no intent of doing their job to employ their constitutionally-sanctioned tools to restrain the tyrannical impulses of a politician of any stripe (as they explain – just as they cowardly did back in 2006-2008 – that impeachment is just too divisive), but even if they were prepared to grow a spine and do their job there is absolutely no reason to believe that Congressional Republicans would turn on Trump when the time came to uphold the rule of law and thereby save the Republic. Betraying Trump is the same thing as betraying the Republican base so long as he maintains their overwhelming support and the Republican lust for power is so strong that it inhibits their ability to do what is in the best interest of all.

     

             When (and let’s be clear that I hope I am wrong here) Congress fails/refuses to do what it is supposed to do pursuant to the system of checks and balances, the shift from an already weak democracy to an authoritarian state could well turn into a quick slide. Let us remember that this is bigger than Trump and precedes him by decades, but Trump is the catalyst which has finally exposed just how broken our system really is. Trump isn’t even the first president to toy with fascism, as Dubya did before him to a degree as did a few others throughout the last century. Trump is merely a symptom of an economic system – as promoted by Conservatives and neoliberals alike - which has left most of us behind and a political system which has become corrupted and is nearing collapse.

     

             What is tragically clear here is that this Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln. In fact, it is no more the party of Teddy Roosevelt or even of Eisenhower. It has fallen quite a bit from the days when its forefathers advocated for the end of slavery and for civil rights. Gone are the days when progressivism held a comfortable place in Republican politics. No more will we see a Republican Party which warns against the dangers of for-profit wars corrupting the use of our military and infecting our politics. Hell, you will even be hard pressed to find a handful of Republicans willing to do the right thing and support genuine environmental reform.

     

             Of course, all of those good things about the Party’s past also cover up the small steps taken throughout the course of its history which set the stage for the mayhem now eclipsing every level of American government. Republicans have always entertained or tolerated some form of xenophobia. They sold out their first arguably loyal base – the freedmen – just so they could secure the White House back in 1876. Creating an American Empire became a rallying cry for them shortly after they started dominating the political scene. When populism first began to take hold, the Republicans aligned themselves with the wealthy – including adopting libertarian tax and regulation policies - in an attempt to retain power. Later on, Republicans helped perpetuate the Red Scare in both of its waves and then allowed the influence of conspiracy theories to corrode our political discourse.

     

             When it became politically expedient, Republicans completely abandoned their former mission of pursuing equality for all. They turned their backs on progressivism and attacked its accomplishments. Eventually, they became the greatest allies of the military industrial complex as they modernized the earlier love of imperialism. Attacking the patriotism of their adversaries and undermining the public’s trust in objective facts – whether scientific or reported by journalists – started early on and flourished as the last century closed. This party was not taken over by Trump or by fascists. Rather, it gradually became more fascist over time and opened its doors wide open to a figure like Donald Trump in the process.

     

             History teaches us what happens next in this uprising of fascism. We know not only from the examples of Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, but also from Pinochet’s Chile and Franco’s Spain. The past century was full of examples of fascist coup’s which toppled weak representative systems. The ability to speak or report the facts freely – two of the primary components of our core right to freedom of thought – is the first right which is typically undermined and which is currently under attack. Unimpeded, this is a path which leads to a much darker and deeper hole.

     

             One common thread which strings all fascist regimes together is the exploitation of those nations in their time of governmental crisis by the oligarch class. Oligarchs know that a functioning and strong democracy inhibits their ability to reap the rewards of economic progress. However, a society ridden with corruption is ripe for the taking and this is why Oligarchs are naturally inclined to try and topple a representative system for an authoritarian one, because an authoritarian system is ran by selfish figureheads looking to line their own pockets and are likewise willing to allow wealthier interests to raid their nation’s resources so long as they get a slice of the wealth produced thereby. Oligarchs are allied with fascists for a mutually beneficial relationship. They both benefit from suppressing democracy – in politics and in the workplace - and from stifling dissent in general. Exploitation commands absolute obedience from the exploited.

     

             It is imperative to recognize and react swiftly to this threat to our democracy as posed by a Republican Party which has finally devolved to its present state as an authoritarian organization. For our system to survive it is crucial that we genuinely resist this transition away from liberal democracy in a peaceful and democratic way. Not just at the ballot box, but in our persistent demonstrations and regular interactions with those who hold elective and appointed political office. Moreover, it’s crucial that this “resistance” consists of a united opposition – as mentioned in the prior post on the summarized history of the Democratic Party – which remains intact for the duration of the fight against fascism.

     

             Does that mean that a debate on the issues affecting the working class should be postponed until later? Absolutely not! In fact, as has been stated before, this dismissal of the working class’s needs is precisely what permitted fascism to become so amenable to much of the American people to begin with. Remember, that fascism is merely fake populism and populism is the product of a system which has failed the people. The only way to defeat a fascist is with a populist and the only way to curb the populist anger which makes fascism possible is by satisfying the needs of the people.

     

             It is by offering legitimate populist alternatives to the fascist message that we will be able to undermine and defeat Trump and his allies in the long term. The opposition – or, the Democratic Party in this case – must offer something tangible to the people while ALSO exposing the Republican Party for what they really are. The case must be made that the Republican Party has sold out the American people a long time ago and that their organization represents a clear and present danger to American liberty and the rule of law. In other words, the Republican Party MUST be defeated and extinguished into the history books the same way that the Whigs and the Federalists were vanquished.

     

             Once the American people can be assured that the danger of fascism is passed us, then the Democratic Party should itself be dissolved and the people of this country should move to erect the very system which our founding fathers first envisioned and designed our Constitution to uphold: a nonpartisan system where individual candidates seek to represent their respective constituents from the smallest town councils to Congress and the Presidency itself. It also wouldn’t hurt to use such a revolutionary moment to change our Constitution so as to – AT THE VERY LEAST - rid ourselves of the misguided notions that corporations are people, that money is speech, that Supreme Court justices should serve for life, and that the Electoral College has any use in modern representative democracy.

     

    What do you say? Are you ready?

September 19, 2018

  • From Liberty to Fascism: A Brief History of the Republican Party (Part Two of Three)

    The “Imperial Presidency”, the “Backlash”, and the “Reagan Revolution”

     

             When the Party was in its somewhat prolonged ideological transition it also gave rise to the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Under Nixon, the presidency became a vehicle for self-preservation where power was the endgame. Yes, there is a laundry list of progressive achievements under Richard Nixon – as passed by a Democratic Congress – from the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to the Clean Air Act. He was even a public supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment. Foreign policy wise, it is worth noting that he achieved some good with respect to opening diplomatic relations with China – as part of a multi-pronged strategy to compel the Soviets to ease tensions as well as to undermine Soviet and Chinese support for the Viet Cong and force them to negotiate a peace deal -, but looking purely through this lens only gives one a fraction of the story. Bear in mind that EVERYTHING Nixon – who was among the most calculating political figures in our history - did was meant to either increase his authority, protect himself, or to secure electoral success.

     

              Delving deeper into the details, we see that Nixon’s abuse of power and the expansion of the presidency’s authority beyond knew no bounds. Before he even took office, Nixon had interfered in the Paris peace talks facilitated by President Johnson, discouraging the Vietnamese from negotiating a peace – promising he would get better terms if he was elected – all so he could deprive the Democrats of an important victory before the election. As president, Nixon abused his power in numerous ways which were not addressed by Congress at the time or later on; from refusing to fund the Clean Water Act which passed with a veto override to authorizing the CIA to overthrow another democratically-elected leader (this time in Chile, replacing said leader with a fascist named Pinochet) as well as utilizing the FBI to watch and intimidate his adversaries, and even attempting to tear down media outlets which he saw as bothersome. Interestingly, during this period of time – perhaps culminating in the 1972 election with George McGovern’s predominantly antiwar campaign – many former hawkish members of the Democratic Party shifted their allegiance to the Republicans; which gave rise to the prominence of neoconservatism.

     

              One of Nixon’s most infamous crimes which contributed to the evolution of his party was his employment of the so-called “Southern Strategy”. He was aware of the fact that the South was teetering in their frustrations with the Democratic Party’s full-throated pursuit of civil rights. Nixon saw that 1964 and 1968 had each saw the former “Solid South” go to a candidate other than the Democratic nominee, and he took actions meant to move this bloc of support permanently towards the Republicans by fully embracing “states rights” as the answer to ending segregation – which he demonstrated his strategic support for with a task force in the South aimed at finding more localized solutions for segregation – and by attempting on a couple occasions to nominate Southerners to the Supreme Court. Whilst campaigning for president – including in his 1968 convention speech -, Nixon utilized what we now regard as “dog-whistle” rhetoric, by asserting that he was going to be our “law and order president” and then – as president – kicking off the long-failed “war on drugs”; which has since exponentially increased the prison population with a severely disproportionate number of the victims of injustice being minorities. In the end, his plan of riding the civil rights “backlash” worked as the South has since largely been a Republican bloc of support with the Dixiecrats joining the party in droves.

     

              With Gerald Ford, his contributions to the Republican Party’s evolution were mostly in spite of him. Since he was not elected to either the Vice Presidency or the Presidency, he was not indebted to the conservative base of his party. His sole appointment to the Supreme Court was of John Paul Stevens, who proved to be far more liberal than the base was willing to tolerate. Out of everything, his most damning decision was in his pardon of Richard Nixon, which effectively absolved his predecessor of being held accountable by the rule of law. Like Nixon before him, he supported the Equal Rights Amendment, but to no avail. Ford may arguably have been the last moderate Republican president, and the conservative revolution led by Ronald Reagan – as planted by Goldwater in 1964 – attempted to thwart his 1976 campaign. Furthermore, the appointment of Stevens coupled with the Roe v. Wade decision beforehand and even the push for an Equal Rights Amendment helped contribute to another growing force within the Republican Party: the “Moral Majority”.

     

              Together, the joining of these three major forces in the conservative movement - the “Moral Majority”, the neoconservatives, and the Dixiecrats – forged the powerful coalition which Ronald Reagan masterfully united with the libertarian wing championed by Barry Goldwater and reenergized by the so-called anti-tax “Reagan Revolution”. When liberals argue with conservatives about the fact that the Democratic Party and Republican Party switched sides on the political spectrum, it truly didn’t happen overnight. It took decades – as you’ve read so far -, and the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 signaled one of the key pivotal moments of that dual shift in ideologies. Prior to Reagan, there were – again, as we’ve covered thus far – numerous examples of progressivism in the Republican Party, but the gradual transformation into the modern Republican Party took a great leap in 1980.

     

              In fact, the era of Reagan is presently in the midst of winding down, giving way to an extended populist revolution. Previously, we highlighted the fact – in the piece on the Democratic Party – that neoliberalism’s first major champion in the White House may have actually been Jimmy Carter. With the “Great Communicator”, the intentionally weak defense of the working class by Carter served as an open invitation to go in for the kill. This was perfectly exemplified when the “Gipper” – a former president of the actors’ union, the Screen Actors Guild – decimated organized labor by firing striking members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization and subsequently decertifying same said union when they broke a federal ban on government unions striking. This single action served as a signal that employers throughout the nation could bust unions and have an ally in the White House.

     

    Reagan, as a creature of Hollywood, was a master of theatrics; thus pioneering the role of entertainment in politics. The man knew how to win over his audience and how to reset any narrative. He was most effective in his artful use of the camera and microphone when selling an agenda which proclaimed that “government is the problem” and that the solution to this problem was to gut the “welfare state”. The cornerstone of this message, of course, was his philosophy – inspired by the Republican Party experimentation in the 1920s with quasi-libertarianism – of cutting taxes, with the largest benefits going to the wealthiest among us. Over the course of his tenure, Reagan advocated for severe cuts to the safety net, cut taxes for the wealthy by levels not seen since the 1920s, eventually supported paying for the earlier tax cuts with tax increases on the lowest tax bracket (though these were offset for a significant portion of the poorest citizens by certain tax credits, deductions, and exemptions), appointed Alan Greenspan to the Federal Reserve, and even desired a freeze in the minimum wage standard at a time when it was less than $4 an hour. No, that is not a complete list of his attacks on the working people of this country.

     

              Yes, there was a significant piece of legislation dealing with immigration reform (including amnesty for 3 million people) under him, but the 40th President seized on the racial animosity and white working class paranoia which lingered after the “backlash” from the civil rights era. Whilst attacking the social safety net, Reagan made it a point to use the example of a woman – dubbed the “welfare queen” – whom supposedly exploited government assistance programs to live in luxury. Though it is certainly true that there are those who have abused the system which is designed to help the downtrodden, this infamous character has come with its own “dog whistles”, and has long fired up white working class men as they associate the imagery with a poor African American woman adorned in fancy accessories, paid for with stolen tax dollars. Additionally, the President – who was reluctant to support the renewal of civil rights laws, citing states’ rights, and who had to be equally compelled to support the creation of Martin Luther King Day – more aggressively pursued the “War on Drugs” initiated by Nixon and introduced mandatory minimum sentences; further exacerbating the plight of life as an African American.

     

              Part of how Ronald kept the coalition of support together was by convincing the people that our culture was under attack from within and promising to be the champion of morality. Throughout his time in office, he pledged to fight for restoring school prayer, even fiercely advocating for an amendment to the United States Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court ruling which had earlier ended the practice. In his Supreme Court picks, he chose Sandra Day O’Connor to satisfy the women’s vote and later on appointed the rather balanced (compared to nominees offered in the interim) Anthony Kennedy but then subsequently picked William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and added the extremely conservative Antonin Scalia.

     

              With Reagan’s foreign policy, our nation adopted a newfound love of using overt aggression or the threat thereof as a means to maintain a false peace. He sought to use fear tactics – such as a grossly bloated military budget, proposing what would be popularly known as the “Star Wars” (Strategic Defense Initiative) program, and building up forces and supplying weapons in strategic positions meant to antagonize the Soviets – to facilitate the collapse of our Soviet adversaries. Did he soften his tone with the rise of Gorbachev and help negotiate a series of important anti-nuclear agreements? Absolutely, but not before exploding the national debt with military spending not offset by taxes and lining the pockets of the businessmen leading the military industrial complex.

     

              On the covert end of the aggression spectrum, Reagan built upon the foundations laid out by his predecessors. While he launched interventions in Grenada - which was inspired by more myth than fact – and Lebanon (which proved to be a total disaster), the president was working to undermine governments throughout the world. The assistance provided to Bin Laden’s rebels in Afghanistan was openly supported and backfired on us years later, but the illegal aid for the Contra rebels (paid for with arms sold to the Iranians) fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua – for which he should have been removed from office – was the tip of another iceberg altogether. With the help of our covert forces such as the CIA and the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, the Reagan Administration set out to build a new world order where no weaker government would dare defy the agenda of the United States. In other words, even as Reagan called out the Soviets for being an “evil Empire”, he himself was preparing to expand our own.

     

              In the wake of Reagan’s presidency, we found ourselves still deeply immersed in the Reagan Era. Truthfully, this era is less defined by Reagan and more defined by the success of the all-out assault on reason, the working class, and democracy since its beginning. After Reagan, the myths surrounding him as a supposed champion of libertarianism gave rise to a Republican Party devoted to their misguided nostalgia and hyper-conservatism. It is during the decades following Reagan leaving the White House where we see the Bushs, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, and ultimately Donald Trump himself come to take over the Republican Party.

     

              When Reagan passed the political baton over to his Vice President George H.W. Bush, the desperation and determination of the man Reagan defeated and even humiliated in the 1980 Republican Primaries produced one of the nastiest presidential campaigns in recent memory. It can not and should not be forgotten that George H.W. Bush Senior won his presidential election in 1988 with the help of a campaign which employed racist undertones – capitalizing on white working class fear of black men in ads such as the attack on Michael Dukakis opposing capital punishment whilst using images of a black man who committed rape exploiting a prisoner furlough program in the home state of Governor Dukakis –, and did so with the help of Roger Ailes who later went on to preside over the creation of Fox News.

     

              As president, George H.W. Bush had to work with a Democratic Congress, but that didn’t stop him from trying to push things like school prayer and an overhaul of education. Nor did it prevent him from trying to secure more tax breaks for the wealthy. He even vetoed a civil rights bill because of the mandates that it had which he claimed would produce “racial quotas” in the workforce. Did he pass environmental legislation and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Yes, but he also spearheaded the negotiations for the greatest betrayal of the American working class in the past half-century: NAFTA.

     

              Let’s not forget that Bush “41” was a fan of foreign policy more than he was of domestic matters. He enjoyed the thrill of being hailed as a successful Commander in Chief and never hesitated to jump at every opportunity to throw our soldiers into combat; from deposing Noriega (a dictator whom we once supported) in Panama and intervening in Somalia’s civil war to invading Iraq (then led by yet another former American puppet dictator, Saddam) to force the invasion of Kuwait to end. Wars for resources were not new for America and neither were wars to meddle in foreign political affairs, but Bush 41 allowed the so-called neoconservatives (such as Dick Cheney) with their warhawk bloodthirst to seize control of our foreign policy.

     

              When Bush 41 lost to Bill Clinton, the perceived betrayal of Bush with respect to him reneging on his 1988 pledge to not raise taxes revitalized the anti-tax spirit of the Republican base. In fact, Bush’s downfall in 1992 triggered a complete collapse of reason within the Republican Party especially as talk radio became the source of misinformation for the same. When a radical congressman like Newt Gingrich rose to prominence in 1994 and became the House Speaker after that year’s midterms, the party took a leap from which they have never returned. Initially, when Clinton appeared to be a better politician and more amenable to conservative ideals than they expected, these Congressional Republicans seemed willing to work with the triangulation strategy of a Democratic President. Then again, they were cooperating with Clinton all the while launching a series of endless investigations of his behavior before and after taking office; which ultimately led to Clinton’s impeachment trial. Their cooperation also only came after forcing a set of government shutdowns in which they were attempting to compel the president to agree to significant cuts for the social safety net.

     

              Increasingly over the course of the 1990s the Republican Party was shifting towards a political party not concerned with the issues of the day, but with the sole issue of how to attain and retain power. This is why they were determined to logjam the government as led by a Democratic President and to impeach and remove said president on charges largely unrelated to the actual duties of the office. Their frothing at the mouth militant conservatism was only emboldened by the alternate reality being constructed and presented through their external mouthpieces in talk radio and via the newly-formed (at the time) Fox News Network. Compromise – the cornerstone of any modern democracy, and a concept heralded as chiefly important to the Framers – was fading away as an option for the Republican Party, because their goal was to regain the reins found in the Oval Office, the Halls of Congress, and on the bench of the Supreme Court.

     

              By the time George W. Bush stole the White House with the help of the unprecedented decision to interfere in a presidential election by our Supreme Court, the Republican base no longer cared that their democracy had been hijacked. So long as their guy was the one who came out victorious, the Supreme Court could decide all of our elections from that point forward. Of course, Bush “43” did not hesitate to please his wealthy fanbase as he secured an unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible tax cut which (again, of course) primarily benefited those in the upper class. Later on, Bush further pleased the oligarchs by taking a dagger and stabbing it into the heart of America’s educational system via the “No Child Left Behind Act” which crippled countless public school districts with unfunded mandates; motivated chiefly by the profit-driven standardized testing and the long-term agenda of antigovernment forces to destroy public education. He then threw his drooling supporters in the “Moral Majority” a bone by stripping any and all federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research and creating federally-funded “faith based initiatives” (he would soon further enhance their animated support by insisting on a Constitutional Amendment to thwart same sex marriages). If each sector of the Republican Coalition organized by the Reagan Revolution waited long enough, Bush was bound to satisfy all of them.

     

              When the terrorists attacked us on September 11th, 2001, the national outrage and near-unified determination to respond gave Bush the perfect opportunity to please and empower the foes of peace in his White House: the neoconservatives. At home, Bush – with Cheney providing most of the policy guidance – moved to start chipping away at the Constitution (a document to which he once referred as a “goddamn piece of paper”) first by forcing through the so-called USA PATRIOT ACT. Then, in an unprecedented attempt to expand his powers as Commander in Chief, he capitalized on the nation’s hunger for revenge and his resulting record high approval ratings to pass the extremely broad Authorization to Use Military Force measure which effectively gave him a “blank check” to wage an endless war against terrorism. Throughout his eight years in office – though primarily after 9/11 -, Bush used signing statements (which are written notes added to legislation upon signing such into law) to openly declare his intent to ignore certain provisions in the laws he signed as he claimed not to be bound thereby. Additionally, he made it a habit to try and ignore the Supreme Court and other federal courts when they attempted to put him in check.

     

              This “war on terror” permitted him to exacerbate and broaden the earlier-started (and still failing) “war on drugs”, but it also gave him a free pass of sorts to trample on many more constitutional protections. The Bush Regime suspended habeas corpus for prisoners of the “war” whom they deemed as “enemy combatants” so as to try and create a clever path to circumvent both the Geneva Convention and Constitutional protections afforded to humans captured in war or accused of committing a crime. They also used this permission slip to justify the use of torture – again, in direct violation of the Constitution and international law – and in promoting the real war that they wanted since Bush first took office: Iraq. After a little more than a year of campaigning across the nation and even the globe for action, the Administration cleverly used the looming 2002 midterms to compel weak Congressional Democrats into supporting the next “blank check” authorization which gave Bush the unconstitutional power to commit our military to a war of aggression – once more, in violation of American and international law - against a country which posed no threat to us.

     

              As Bush and his allies in and out of the White House sought to spread support for their imperialist cause, they justified even changes to immigration and policing policies as necessary for stopping terrorism. They sought a national ID, pursued and secured domestic surveillance, condemned dissent – even questioning the patriotism of political opponents -, and arguably committed treason by outing a CIA agent working in Iran as political retribution for the fact that same said agent’s husband had written an opinion piece arguing against the war in Iraq. With respect to the media, no one before or since had quite mastered the dissemination of information quite like the Bush White House. After 9/11 and leading up to the war in Iraq, Bush’s team proved very effective at recruiting the corporate-owned media – many of whose advertising dollars came from military contractors – to help stir up public support for war.

     

              Actually, the Bush Regime’s influence on media reporting was quite extensive well beyond what many today may remember. They fed propaganda to the media through a commentator named Armstrong Williams and further corrupted the flow of information with the use of a gay male prostitute named James Guckert whom they hired, gave White House press credentials under the pseudonym “Jeff Gannon”, and had him ask Bush and the Administration softball questions in press briefings. When the media wasn’t in the Administration’s back-pocket, the Bush team censored the spread of information and reverted – with help from talk radio, rightwing websites, and Fox News - to the Nixonian strategy of attacking the media for “liberal bias”.

     

              Moreover, Bush’s campaigns for national office pushed the proverbial envelope on negative campaigning. In 2000, Karl Rove – Bush’s infamous chief political adviser – orchestrated an effort to demonize John McCain in the South Carolina primary by spreading rumors that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child in what was undoubtedly a naked attempt to fire up the racist former Dixiecrat base. During the 2004 campaign, Rove similarly coordinated an equally underhanded assault on the military record of John Kerry by way of the misleading PAC called “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”. For Rove, victory – not truth – was the only thing which mattered.

     

              In the concluding years of Bush’s time in office, the corruption of the executive branch backfired on the American people. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the failure of New Orleans’s levies to survive the disaster, Bush’s appointee to head FEMA – a man named Michael Brown who had no prior history with disaster relief or managing a bureaucracy – proved completely incompetent in responding to the need for help, no doubt contributing to more suffering than what may have occurred otherwise. Then, as the economy came crashing down, Bush’s Wall Street-beholden treasury secretary – Henry Paulson – helped put together a three page “blank check” bailout for the major financial institutions whose abuse of the system undoubtedly caused the crash of 2007-2008. This final giveaway to the rich – yes, aided by far too many Democrats in Congress likewise subservient to the will of Wall Street – came with no strings attached and guaranteed that none of those wealthy modern robber barons would feel any pain for what they did to our economy.

     

              Bush’s willful compliance with the demands of the uber-rich to hand over working class taxdollars to save them from their abuses made perfect sense. After all, Bush had failed – just shy of four years earlier – to deliver on a pledge to the wealthy to privatize Social Security and Medicare by turning the former over to the stock market and the latter to a voucher program. Oh, the oligarchs – particularly the Koch Brothers – had desperately wanted Bush to succeed in his push for destroying the Safety Net, but they had again underestimated the determination and the unity of the people in stopping such. Thankfully they did fail, as the 2008 collapse of stocks would have wiped out all of those privatized social security dollars, leaving countless seniors out in the cold.

     

              He had also failed to do the bidding of his rich masters with respect to the 2007 immigration reform push. While xenophobia on the right largely contributed to the collapse of that bill – which helped set the stage for Trump 9 years later -, the left opposed it for a number of reasons as well. For one, organized labor opposed it because of the potential for labor exploitation (and we will get back to that in a moment). Secondly, many liberals were appalled by the provisions in the bill written for and probably by lobbyists of E-verify, fearing that it could pave the way for a national identification system enabling the federal government to keep a watchful eye on its citizens. The Administration later used bureaucratic directives to mandate the use of E-verify anyway.

     

              Back to the working class, Bush went out of his way to show his preference for the “haves” over the “have-nots”. He once joked that the “haves” weren’t merely the “elites”, but they were actually his “base”. While this remark may have been publicly made in jest, a litany of examples demonstrates that it may have been quite accurate. In Iraq, Bush pleased his preferred corporate masters – not coincidentally tied to Cheney – by offering no-bid contracts to Halliburton and contracting private mercenaries. In 2005, Bush gleefully signed into law an overhaul of bankruptcy laws which made it easier for the rich and harder for everyone else to file for bankruptcy.

     

              In terms of trade, Bush was unabashed in his support for trade agreements like NAFTA. He promoted and passed CAFTA, as well as free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea. Each of these was opposed by organized labor and each of them was rife with weaknesses in terms of environmental standards. Finally, after long opposing any proposed increase to the federal minimum wage standard, Dubya finally agreed to a minimal increase – which brought the rate to its current level – only when it was included in a resolution to fund the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     

    The legacy of the period in Republican politics from Nixon through Dubya is one of undermining the rule of law, expanding presidential power, firing up the worst angels of our nature, and undercutting the working class. These conditions set the stage for what was to come next: the Era of Trump.

     

              In our concluding segment, we will pick up with the rise of the “Tea Party” and finish with the current threat now posed by the Republican Party.

September 18, 2018

  • From Liberty to Fascism: A Brief History of the Republican Party (Part One of Three)

    “Better Angels of Our Nature” to “Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice”

     

              How did we get to this point where one of the two major parties in this country came to bow before the agenda of Donald John Trump? At what point did such a vile and obscene human being become acceptable to the Republican Party? Why has the base of the Party become so enchanted by him? Where can we expect them and this great country of ours to go from here?

     

              The truth is that the Republican Party did not just become the Party of Trump overnight back in 2016. Everything that he represents originates from their core. This is why the “base” has seemingly fallen in love with his message and in-your-face behavior. For decades – and even some of the last 164 years -, the “Grand Ole Party” has pursued power by any means necessary and has consciously done so by taking a Napoleonic style approach to politics. As we look forward into the future, the history of a party with no fealty to democracy – which means, it has no devotion to the people – suggests that its destiny is an authoritarian one; a destiny that anyone dedicated to liberty should be resolved to stop.

     

              Truth is, the Republicans didn’t begin their journey with an objective to overturn what the Founders created. At the outset of the Civil War, with the debate over slavery dividing the populace and pushing this nation towards the bloodiest conflict in its history, this new rival to the Democratic Party – which had outlasted two prior rivals (the Federalists and then the Whigs) – emerged. Six years after its founding, the Republican Party was thrust into the mainstream when it capitalized on a fractured Democratic Party and elected Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. This event became a pivotal moment in triggering the wave of state secessions from the Union and ultimately culminated in a war which almost brought down a young nation.

     

              Initially, the Republican Party began as a truly “big tent” party. Disaffected Democrats, former Free Soilers, a number of Know-Nothings, and former Whigs all came together to form this organization. Primarily, it was led by the ambition to end slavery – or, at the very least, stop its spread into new territories -, and was likewise inclined to support more progressive policies such as expanding civil liberties and the political franchise, reforming the bureaucracy to root out corruption, adopting generous pensions for military veterans, establishing centralized banking, creating a national railroad, using high tariffs to protect American workers (though, this is more complex for reasons we will soon highlight), imposing anti-Trust measures to thwart monopolies, and facilitating societal modernization. They were also strongly in favor of the gold standard – which wasn’t necessarily a progressive/working class position -, for they perceived silver as prone to promote inflation as well as using federal income taxes to pay for national action such as conducting the Civil War.

     

              It is worthwhile to highlight that the involvement of a segment of Know-Nothings may have established the foundations for the xenophobia which has since overtaken the Party’s soul. The Know-Nothings – officially called the “American Party” – was chiefly motivated by a suspicion of Catholics and all things and people not native to this country. This may also help to explain the original populism which made the Party so receptive to average working people in the beginning and might have also motivated the enthusiasm for tariffs during the Nineteenth Century.

     

              While the fairy tale of a progressive or populist Republican Party is fun to tell, it isn’t entirely true. By the end of the Nineteenth Century, the Party had asserted itself as the party of big business; siding time and time again with the oligarchs of the time, popularly known then as the “Robber Barons”. Were the Democrats blameless in this rise of power amongst the few? No, but the Republican Party made it clear during the last couple decades of the 1800s that theirs was the place to call home for the “haves”.

     

              But why would this party which had largely been formed to champion liberty for the enslaved come to side with those very interests who had countenanced slavery so as to maintain their profits? This is primarily understood by looking at how the party’s immediate experience with near-total control of the Federal Government in the Civil War and Reconstruction era instilled in them an addiction which has stood to the present date. Following the Lincoln Administration and the tumultuous near-four years of the Democratic President Andrew Johnson which succeeded Lincoln after the assassination, the Republican Party’s lust for power was planted and quickly began to grow. During the Administration of President Grant, the Republican Party’s leadership increasingly became comfortable with the corrupted spoils system created under Jackson. It led to a divide within the Party, but the pro-reform faction (in favor of a merit-based system) only won out after the corruption served as a key factor in the assassination of President Garfield.

     

              Now, the assassination of Garfield and the subsequent progressive-esque reform of the bureaucracy was preceded by the first major event signifying the Party’s prioritization of power over service to the people; the premature conclusion of Reconstruction. Up until the 1876 Election, Republicans could be reasonably portrayed as the advocates of justice for the former slaves. They were far from perfect, but it was a clear choice for freedmen everywhere in this country as to which major party stood with them in their fight for equality. Not only did the Republicans pass the first Civil Rights act and push for the so-called Civil War Amendments to the Constitution, but they also used the power of the federal government to crackdown on Southern attempts at segregation. The goal was to rebuild this nation as one that everyone could proudly call home and wherein they could be judged by the “content of their character.”

     

              Granted, the era of Reconstruction was rife with its own problems. Northerners – as led by the Republicans – sometimes acted too harshly and imposed generalized punishments on the region. Moreover, it didn’t help the nation heal having the visible presence of armed federal troops occupying Southern states and almost forcing the South to accept their new – and growing – representation in Congress by the formerly enslaved.  Of course, this was also a period when carpetbagging – that is, the practice of candidates moving into a district or state so as to run and win an election there – became a major scandal. Southerners rightfully saw this as an anti-democratic injustice, even if the policies produced by these perceived invaders were beneficial in terms of producing a more equitable system. In a way, the entirety of the policies and practices of the Reconstruction Era helped to solidify the Republican Party’s grip on the reins of power as much as (if not more than) it helped attain justice for all.

     

    In 1876, what happened that year forever changed the relationship between the Republican Party and the cause of justice. To think, it all boiled down to a close election for the presidency; which was still a relatively weak office in the grand scheme of things. When the votes were counted in the Presidential Election of 1876, Samuel Tilden – the Democratic Candidate – had won the popular vote, but the Electoral College was up in the air when 20 Electoral College votes from four states remained undecided due to controversy; including voter intimidation and a brief scandal involving an elector. In the end, the Republicans sought to secure the presidency by a single electoral vote to Rutherford B. Hayes in exchange for a deal with the Democrats wherein they would bring an end to Reconstruction through ending federal troop presence in the South. While the politics of the times are rather complicated and the threat of renewed hostilities over the ordeal was real, this marked the moment when the Republican Party openly displayed their preference for power over the cause of justice. Yes, the Republicans retained the presidency and control over the national agenda, but their decision to “win” a single election also allowed the oppression of black southerners to commence and fester unabated for almost a century.

     

    Now, one can reasonable deduce that Tilden’s victory would have ensured the end of Reconstruction anyway as a Democratic President at the time would have undoubtedly withdrawn federal troops from the South and willingly would have ignored the atrocities of Jim Crow and the Black Codes. Yet, the Republicans could have at least gone down fighting and would have had the higher moral ground having defended their cause for justice to the bitter end. Instead, they chose power over principle. Reconstruction was full of terrible mistakes which often made matters worse than they would have otherwise been, but the cause of rebuilding the nation so that it would work for everyone was worthy of defending.

     

              As the Party shifted its focus farther away from the concerns and needs of African Americans – abandoning the South with a few exceptions -, whilst eventually permitting the cause for equality to die in Congress as elected Republicans buried it in the tabled agenda to focus more on what was more politically expedient, they increasingly pandered to our more xenophobic sentiments. It was a Republican president who signed into law the Chinese Exclusion Act. Republicans also presided over the disaster at Wounded Knee and the tragic decline and near extinction of Native lands as they legalized the selling thereof to non-Native speculators. Even the aggressive Republican policy on Hawaii was driven by xenophobia as the proponents of the acquisition and annexation thereof wanted to thwart what they saw as the corruption of the islands and its economy by the growing Japanese population therein.

     

              In terms of the working person, Republican presidents of the late-1800s used the military to crush worker rebellions (yes, Democratic President Grover Cleveland did this too, but we covered that when we discussed the Democratic Party’s history last time around). Their preference and near-unified promotion of the gold standard was contrary to the interests of the working class, most of whom could not afford to buy and trade in gold. As for the tariffs, these policies may have given American workers an apparent advantage in competing with workers around the world, but the real beneficiaries for these policies in a world largely defined by confrontational trade were the robber barons, as it inflated the worth of their product and lined their deep pockets. Additionally, even the imperialist policies which grew through the turn of the century were guided by the preferences of big business.

     

              With the election of William McKinley in 1896, the Party solidified its position as the party of big business – which soon paved the way for their eventual transition to being the party explicitly owned by the oligarchs -, after the nation’s business leaders (primarily the bankers) worked hard and contributed what would have been billions in today’s dollars to elect McKinley over William Jennings Bryan (whom they regarded as a radical stirring the pot of a class war). The tenure of McKinley likewise propelled the nation into a new era of overt and unapologetic imperialism beyond the North American continent; see the wars with Spain over Cuba (which McKinley used to impose an American occupation over the island) and in the Philippines as well as the underhanded tactics employed to annex Hawaii. Furthermore, it was during McKinley’s presidency that the Supreme Court upheld segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, to which he offered no real reaction, which made sense when considering that he couldn’t be bothered to speak boldly as president against racist acts and policies whilst courting the Southern White Vote, and lacking a spine in appointing African Americans to meaningful positions.

     

              From the presidency of Abraham Lincoln through to William McKinley’s presidency, the Republican Party gradually did its part to begin the expansion of presidential power well beyond what the Founding Fathers intended. When Theodore Roosevelt took office after McKinley’s assassination, he transformed the presidency more radically than any of his predecessors. He established the concept of the “bully pulpit” – utilizing his role as president to pressure Congressional support for his agenda by inspiring the public to demand action - as he openly advocated for the bellicose imperialism that prior presidents had only publicly hinted at and he employed the use of executive orders more than most of his predecessors combined. Granted, Theodore Roosevelt was very progressive on domestic matters – as he aggressively fought “bad trusts” (though he was still comfortable with big businesses overall), helped negotiate the end to a key labor dispute which wound up helping the workers, promoted environmental conservation, effectively created the modern network of regulatory agencies to protect citizens, workers, and consumers, and even improved relations with the press by giving them their own press briefing room and a direct line to the presidency -, but his foreign policies were unabashedly in favor of building an American Empire for the purpose of making certain parts of the world more “civilized”.

     

              Together, whether it was a set of policies favorable to the working class, to the wealthy, or to the imperialists, Theodore Roosevelt’s conscious expansion of presidential power permanently disturbed the balance of power in this country. Even his decision to create a direct line between the press and the president had lasting effects on the balance of power, as it made the presidency more important than Congress in the eyes of the public. His relentless use of executive orders established a dangerous precedent which has since persisted and which asserts that the president doesn’t need Congress to change the law. He even once turned on the press when they criticized him and a family member in a way that he did not approve, so he openly called for the Justice Department to prosecute those responsible for the critical reports (sounds familiar, eh?).

     

              If it weren’t for Theodore Roosevelt’s consistent and swift actions to stifle corruption in his own ranks, he would have had all the makings of a possible dictator in the making. He had the profound love of the working class, the fear of the businesses, the loyalty of the press (to an extent), the support for his militarism, and the ability to use his power more liberally than anyone preceding him in the office. He was a genuine populist for the most part, but he was close enough to being a fascist to cause some alarm. Without Roosevelt’s example, the rise of authoritarianism in America would have been next to impossible.

     

              During the so-called “Roaring Twenties” the three Republican presidents and their allies in Congress adopted a series of policies which laid the foundation for the “trickle down”/supply-side economics of the Republican hero Ronald Reagan later on. Under Harding, the aggressive approach to seriously reducing taxes for the wealthy took center stage, as the Party promoted reductions for the top marginal rate by 50 percentage points – much like what Reagan did 60 years later -, and there were even calls to eliminate altogether a tax on corporate “excess profits”. During this period, individualism was heralded above everything, as each citizen was seen as responsible for their own well-being. It even became a policy position among these presidents to suggest that minority populations had to take some personal responsibility to improve their conditions; though, each of them asserted that they believed in equality (while also gradually backing away from fighting for said equality as their predecessors had). Additionally, there was even reluctance to sign into law – and then later deliver on – a bonus program for veterans of the First World War (a decision which eventually produced the mass protest by the “bonus army” demanding their compensation, a demonstration which President Hoover used the military to crush).

     

              An adamant opposition to any form of government intervention and a preference for deregulation also became staples of the Republican Party during this period; Calvin Coolidge even went as far as to intentionally appoint people who would purposely do a bad job running their respective regulatory agencies (sound familiar, too?). Coolidge stood in opposition to aid for natural disaster relief – feeling that local and state governments as well as property owners should be responsible -, Hoover resisted almost to the bitter end any and all calls for federal government assistance as the Depression began to unfold (for he felt that banks needed to be strengthened), and each of the three believed that the answer to economic ills was to go through business interests and empower them as much as possible. Harding – who suspected the intentions of unions - through Hoover continued the transition towards an aggressive stance against organized labor. When the economy was tanking, to offset the boosted spending by the federal government forced upon him, Hoover insisted that taxes be raised across the board – including a major increase on the wealthy (an unheard of approach in the Republican Party since the age of Reagan) and their inheritances -, but the tax increase on the working class proved disastrous as it PREDICTABLY limited the flow of money through the economy.

     

              In terms of civil rights and immigration, the Republican Party was still in their extended transition from their founding principle of equality for all to their modern tolerance of outright xenophobia and racism. Early in the period, the Republicans adopted severe restrictions on immigration even as they argued for civil rights (again, with slightly less enthusiasm than before) as well as officially making all Native Americans citizens of this country. Surprisingly, the Party even made history by nominating and successfully electing the first Native American as Vice President on the ticket with Coolidge in 1924. Even so, as the Depression got underway the Party took a turn for the worse in this respect – in a way that would make Trump proud – as President Hoover placed blame for the economic plunge on Mexican workers and initiated the deportation of millions of people – the overwhelming majority of whom were actually naturally-born Americans – which continued well into Roosevelt’s first term.

     

              After 20 years shut out of the White House – following Roosevelt’s 12 whole years and Truman’s 8 -, the Republican Party as a whole was a fractured mess. The Republicans fiercely advocated for and secured an anti-democratic Amendment to the Constitution to ensure that the people would never again be able to shut them out of the White House with a single candidate for more than eight years. This was no doubt a reaction to overwhelming popularity of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his progressive, pro-working class policies. A growing segment within the Party was becoming increasingly driven by their obsession over battling imagined communists in every closet, and the old-Progressive spirit stemming back to Theodore Roosevelt was steadily becoming a dying breed. When President Eisenhower came to power, he was largely hands-off on the direction of his party. A man who associated himself with the then-recent progressive past of Republican politics, Eisenhower was concerned about the rightward shift observed in emerging leaders like Joseph McCarthy and his own Vice President; Richard Nixon.

     

              Domestically speaking, there wasn’t a whole lot to complain about regarding Eisenhower. He maintained and even expanded some of the achievements of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Additionally, he fulfilled a progressive dream – which had been born 30 years earlier and partially implemented under FDR – to construct a national highway (though, there is more to that story; which we will discuss at a later time). He continued and accelerated Truman’s desegregation of the military. While he later reportedly opined that his selection of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a mistake – supposedly in connection to Warren’s role with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling -, Eisenhower found the political courage to enforce the Warren Court’s rulings to help tear down racial segregation. He even signed into law a number of civil rights laws to further aid minorities in the fight against discrimination.

     

              Something which may seem counterintuitive in our modern simplistic way of understanding life is the fact that Eisenhower – a man with a rich military background – was a man who preferred peace over war. His hardliner advisers wanted him to threaten brutality more often than he ever did, but his heart was at least always geared towards preserving peace. This spirit of avoiding conflict was most famously symbolized in Eisenhower’s classic warnings against the rise of our “military industrial complex”. Still, despite all of these wonderful things that progressives can correctly celebrate about “Ike”, there are other facts about his time in office which must be acknowledged for the consequences they’ve wrought.

     

              Eisenhower may have insisted that the party not abandon its progressive supporters – lest they lose his support -, but he certainly did not speak out enough against the most infamous political witch hunt of modern times: McCarthyism. During Eisenhower’s tenure, the boogeyman search which slightly preceded his arrival and then spread like wildfire when he took office was permitted to rage on unabated. Even as McCarthy needlessly ruined the lives of numerous citizens, Eisenhower felt no need to stand up for decency and the truth. Instead, he simply sat back and hoped that the crusade would leave him out of it.

     

    Over time, the consequences of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s terrorizing of the American psyche were the sewing of the seeds of societal division. Yes, McCarthy came crashing down and was dismissed as a pariah almost as fast as he skyrocketed to national prominence, but the damage had been done. He and conspiracy theorist organizations like the John Birch Society created a groundswell for the distrust which now flourishes between citizens and their government and even amongst the citizenry itself. Eisenhower did little to stifle this assault on reason in its infancy.

     

              It was only when McCarthy and the emerging extreme right wing came after him that Eisenhower responded, and it wasn’t in a way which protected or served us all. Rather, in response to McCarthy’s efforts to purge our government of homosexuals, Eisenhower’s administration assisted in those efforts. When McCarthy attempted to subpoena information from Eisenhower’s administration, the president responded by claiming that it wasn’t in the country’s best interest for him to abide. That response by the president became the initial invocation of a precedent since labeled “executive privilege”. Though Eisenhower was looking for self-preservation here to shield himself from the witch hunt, his actions instead had the effect of expanding presidential authority – as Congress, which largely dismissed McCarthy, did not press the issue – and establishing that there were limits to Congressional authority in holding the office accountable.

     

              With respect to foreign policy, while Eisenhower maintained a public pursuit of peace, his conduct beyond his rhetoric conveyed something different. He – on more than one occasion – threatened to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese while he directed the military to further explore our options in fine tuning our nuclear arsenal. Under his leadership, we began the mission creep into Vietnam’s civil war. Bowing to the pressure of oil interests, he authorized the CIA to overthrow a democratically-elected prime minister in Iran. This last part is the most important, as Eisenhower greatly expanded the role of the CIA in international politics, subverting unruly democracies, and otherwise containing the spread of ideologies perceived to be a threat to the capitalist order.

     

              Eisenhower’s last great political sin came about when he endorsed and campaigned for Senator Barry Goldwater. Despite the fact that Goldwater stood in opposition to much of what Eisenhower claimed to believe – chiefly relative to his supposed “progressivism” in domestic policy -, or Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it required businesses to serve ALL customers as well as the mandates aimed at the states, or the Senator’s refusal to support the Senate censure of Joseph McCarthy, or even that Goldwater was openly willing to nuke Vietnam, despite these facts; Eisenhower was prepared to hand the reins of the nation over to this man whom infamously said that “extremism, in defense of liberty, is no vice”. Eisenhower’s excuse for selling out his supposed beliefs which had favored progressivism was simply that he had to support his party. Of course, Goldwater’s disastrous run for president set the stage for numerous transformations in the Republican Party and the country overall.

     

              Senator Barry Goldwater’s message of “states’ rights” reinvigorated the conservative base, and gave them a cause to champion moving forward. Had it not been for Goldwater and his appeasement of the frustrations of Southern States in their angst over segregation’s forced collapse, the Republican Party may not have had a path cleared to siphon Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party’s so-called “Solid South” bloc (the original “blue wall”, if you will) which later contributed to Nixon’s monstrous landslide in 1972. Also, 1964’s campaign laid the foundation for a certain B-rated actor/spokesman for General Electric to jump into politics and build upon the unyielding conservatism that Goldwater so boastfully promoted. Together with other conservative figureheads like William F. Buckley, Goldwater chipped away at the tolerance amongst Republican voters for those once proud “progressive Republicans”. Yes, Goldwater was politically reduced to rubble when President Johnson defeated him in 1964, but his ultimate victory was felt over the passage of time.

     

              In the next section, we will pick up with the Presidency of Richard Nixon and follow through to the George W. Bush years.

     

  • Democratic Party Myth and Preserving the Revolution

    Originally published on “The Bern Report”, July 1st, 2018. By Daniel Crawford.

    The world is on fire and the Democrats want you to believe that they are the only ones empowered to extinguish the flames. In a bipolar political structure such as what we Americans have been cursed with there is some legitimacy to the claim that we really only have two viable options. However, the primary problem with this false choice is that it permits both sides to escape accountability for dismissing the needs of the people, whilst serving their own selfish desires. Yes, the Republican Party is rotten to the core, and they absolutely must be defeated for the sake of the Republic and for a prosperous future to be possible. Still, letting the Democratic Party solely fill the vacuum created by outlasting yet another foe would be a terrible injustice to the countless working people it has long betrayed…and consistently so.

    I’m not suggesting that defeating the Republican Party isn’t important or that it shouldn’t take precedent. It absolutely should, because the threat increasingly posed by that party to our democracy can not be ignored. Poll after poll consistently shows that the Republican Party represents a shrinking minority of the populace, yet they continue to thrive in electoral politics. On the one hand, this is because the “opposition” is itself divided – and we will get to that later -, and on the other hand the Republicans have mastered their messaging in successfully seducing the working class to abandon their interests in lieu of a perceivable and unquestionable champion in the Democrats.

    This, naturally, forces one to ask themselves why the working people of this nation doubt the sincerity of Democrats being their allies in the first place. It can’t simply be because the Republicans have managed to brainwash the masses with wedge issues and effective messaging. No, it isn’t as cut and dried as that. Truth is, while the G.O.P. most certainly planted a seed for distrust, the Democratic Party prepared the proverbial soil for implantation.

    We’ve highlighted much of the Democratic Party’s betrayals in recent articles, but those betrayals were made possible by the fact that the Party never really felt a sense of duty to the working class to begin with. In essence, the betrayal was preceded by a grander myth that the Democratic Party was ever really the party of the working class. For us to understand the willingness of these pure partisans to undercut and sell out their so-called base supporters we have to recognize that they have never felt it was important to prioritize the people first. Their ambition for power isn’t as naked and ruthless as that of the Republicans, but they are still seduced by the allure of holding the reins to the point where their purpose is lost in the fog of political war.

    From the very beginning of the two party system in America, the Democratic Party – well, as it was originally called: the “Democratic-Republicans” or Jeffersonian “Republicans” – emerged out of a war of egos led by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Back then, in the late-1700s and early-1800s, the initial battle between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans had little to nothing to do with the needs of the working class. Instead, it was a feud dealing with the question of the federal government’s power.

    Truth be told, it wasn’t until 1828 when Andrew Jackson transformed the Democratic Party – as it was permanently rechristened – and ushered in the popular vote for the presidency that we saw America’s first populist president. Even then, Jackson’s promises were mostly empty as he was a vile, vain, and murderous human being who exploited the fear and angst of the populace for his own gain, led countless Native Americans to their deaths, and left behind the extremely corrupt spoils system (though, this last part may have had good intentions, because the original intent was supposedly to put common citizens in charge of the government).

    After Jackson, Democratic Presidents for the remainder of the Nineteenth Century had a similar knack for bloodshed, bigotry, and even betrayal. For example, President Polk’s unnecessary and unprovoked war against Mexico to expand the empire, President Andrew Johnson’s desire to return freed slaves to their former chains, and President Cleveland’s decision to sell out the working class by using the military to break up strikes to appease the robber barons. Those are just a few highlights of the facts about the Democratic Party’s beginnings. To be pro-war, anti-inclusion, and anti-labor is to be incompatible with the notion that you stand for the working class.

    In the Twentieth Century, the waters got a bit muddied. Our nation’s first progressive president was a Republican – funny enough -, but Theodore Roosevelt was still very much pro-war and anti-inclusion. His progressive successor, President Wilson, allowed the Democrats to hijack progressivism from that point onward, but Wilson – like Teddy before him – retained the resentment of the people against the “other” as he embraced war and bigotry. Still, through all of this, the working class struggled to get clear representation from either major party even as the Republicans increasingly did the bidding of the oligarchs. With the Democrats, they had flirted with populism in the late-1800s and the first decade of the 1900s as they twice ran William Jennings Bryan to undercut the socialist and populist movements, but they were still uncomfortable fully adopting a working class agenda.

    When the nation collapsed into the Great Depression and the First Gilded Age came crashing down once and for all, the working class revolted against the established order and demanded that the newly elected president – Franklin Delano Roosevelt – seize the moment to guarantee us some concrete protections against the worst consequences of capitalism. No, Franklin Roosevelt – who was quite wealthy at the time – didn’t take on the corruption in our economic system all on his own volition. His actions were compelled by the masses and he proved to be the first leader in America’s history to be truly receptive to the people’s demands. Unfortunately, despite all of the accomplishments reaped by the working class through their impressive leverage in FDR’s administration, his own openness to bigotry (think about his treatment of African American Olympian Jesse Owens as well as the internment of Japanese Americans) and to war offsets the notion that he was a sincere working class president.

    Of course, no president can change the path of America’s history alone. So, FDR absolutely deserves credit for his receptiveness to the needs of working people. In this respect he was a pioneer and remains to this day as a model president in regards to serving the working class at least in terms of social democracy. What’s frustrating, though, is that when FDR ran for a fourth term and knew that his life was fading he wanted to pick a progressive named Henry Wallace as his last Vice President. Yet, the Democratic Party was more conservative than the then-President and was not comfortable with Wallace carrying FDR’s progressive domestic agenda onward when he inevitably died in office. So, they forced him to settle with Truman.

    Truman’s legacy with labor was a mixed bag, but it was nowhere near as beneficial as was the case with Roosevelt. He fought – albeit unsuccessfully – the Republican Congress’s effort to weaken unions, and he became the first president to advocate for a universal healthcare program, and ordered the integration of our military, but he also busted striking workers by threatening to use the army against them. Truman was also a giddy participant in becoming the first and only world leader in human history to order the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy nation. Remember, to be pro-war is to be anti-working class, as the primary victims of war are the working class and their domestic policy objectives. None of this can or should be forgotten.

    John F. Kennedy was another wealthy Democrat, but his agenda was not a populist one. He hedged on promoting an aggressively progressive agenda to lift the country up from the bowels of Eisenhower’s recession. Yes, he promoted pay equity for women, affirmative action, civil rights (not without pressure), and Medicare, but he was convinced that spending on behalf of the working class like FDR before him would not be politically expedient. Instead, he pressed for tax cuts across the board, including tax cuts for corporations. For him – and I realize this will be a hard pill to swallow for JFK’s many fans -, political calculation took precedent over the needs of working people.

    When Kennedy was assassinated, his successor Lyndon Baines Johnson came in promising a “great society”. His agenda was far more progressive and aggressively so and his domestic policies featured such accomplishments as the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, a plethora of safety and environmental achievements, the creation of HUD, expanding Social Security as well as the minimum wage standard, getting rid of immigration racist quotas, creating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, establishing educational grants, and creating the Head Start program (to name a few of his most well-known accomplishments). Yet, LBJ betrayed organized labor, was an ally of big oil, refused to pursue a jobs program to promote living wage work, and allowed a proposed repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act’s provision allowing states to enact “right to work” – for which he had voted as a member of Congress – to die without even fighting for its passage. So, no, his warmongering and the lies he used to trick us into a needless conflict did not kill the “Great Society” alone, his own willingness to sidestep the working class when it counted did.

    In Carter, we had a president who wanted to reform welfare and who deregulated the airline industry as well as a number of other sections of our economy. He was also lukewarm on a pledge to deal with coal miners and their “black lung”. Likewise, Carter exhibited his openness to conservative policies in dealing with inflation and prioritized such over fighting for a weak version of a union-supported bill to guarantee full employment; which is why even the weak version didn’t succeed. Although Carter’s post-presidency has been admirable and consists of a rich history of serving the needy, his presidency signaled the beginning of the end of the working class’s clout – through organized labor – in a Democratic White House.

    We’ve previously highlighted the betrayals of the Clinton and Obama presidencies for the working class and we – for the sake of not repeating ourselves here – will not rehash those events entirely here. In retelling this summarized history of the Democratic Party and the working class the objective was to underline that the Party itself was NEVER the party of working people. With few exceptions, it always served its primary purpose of electoral victory. Is that to be expected from a political party? To a degree, but the reality is that the Democratic Party has long exploited the needs of the working class for its own gain.

    Between Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter there was an uneasy alliance between the working class and influential members of the Democratic Party. For that period of time this alliance was rather productive to an extent. Still, through close examination one finds that the Party seemingly more closely aligned with our collective interests has only been interested in itself all along. Indeed, we compelled the Party to adopt pieces of our agenda at the peak of our influence, but their refusal to acknowledge that these accomplishments were insufficient and that the Party was too close to the powerful interests really holding the reins of power all contributed to the collapse of organized labor and the rise of neoliberalism.

    Neoliberalism was born under the guidance of President Jimmy Carter, which is depressing to learn for someone who later learned about him from history books and research and grew up admiring the man. Truth is, Carter was not really betraying anyone. He was merely the first Democratic President to act in accordance with how the Party itself truly felt about organized labor and the working class. To them, as well as to their successors in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the working class is not a valued base of supporters. Rather, the men and women who endure daily hard work to build this nation’s economy are nothing more than chess pieces on a political board game.

    Bill Clinton promoted NAFTA, China’s permanent normal trade relations, advocated for and passed welfare reform, and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall because he was thinking about winning. Barack Obama signed weak regulations on Wall Street, championed an economic stimulus with a pitiful excuse for a jobs program, freely offered serious cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and empowered the insurance lobby to write the healthcare law for the same reason. Both men ignored pleas from organized labor to protect and strengthen unions at least by signing the Employee Free Choice Act into law. Neither of them was prioritizing the best interests of the working class because the best interest of the working class is not a priority for the Democratic Party and it NEVER has been.

    So, what do we as members of the working class do? Do we start a Populist Party? A Labor Party? A Progressive Party? Do we join the Green Party? Which party do we join?

    Here’s where the lessons of history and the depressing political reality clash with our ambitions. As tempting as it is to do one or all of the above, the truth is that our political system is rigged in favor of the two party system. In other words, it is not possible to defeat both the Democratic and the Republican parties in a national election. Yes, it can be done locally and even in some statewide races, but it is virtually impossible nationwide.

    For that you can attribute blame to the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and to the initial war between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. No, there isn’t a single political party mentioned – much less explicitly protected – by our nation’s founding document. Instead, the problem is that the framework established by Madison and the gang was designed to support a nonpartisan electoral system by, of, and for the elites. As you likely know, the Framers strongly distrusted the will of the people for they were students of Hobbes and Machiavelli – neither of whom believed that power should come from the people and both of whom entertained the thought that power concentrated into oppressive hands was preferable -, and they were also witnesses to Napoleon’s rise to power made possible by his own direct popular election in France. This – in addition to their fear of a powerful and detached central government as fueled from their former colonization by the distant British – is why they conceived the Electoral College as a check on central government and presidential power.

    Additionally, this nonpartisan intent and distrust of the central government is why allocating and subsequently redrawing Congressional districts – as well as determining the rights of and circumstances for voters – was left to the states. In the 231 years (as of September 17th) since the Constitution was drafted, the emergence of the two party system and the political wars which followed produced uniquely American anomalies of gerrymandering, voter restrictions, closed primaries, and even laws explicitly favoring the Democratic and Republican parties while intentionally making it difficult for third parties to gain traction.

    Now, there have been moments in American history wherein “third parties” have been competitive, but each of those moments was only made possible when one of the major parties was fractured. Even so, the ONLY election wherein a third party successfully elected a president was in 1860 when the Republican Party’s nominee won, giving us our first president from that party; Abraham Lincoln. That was made possible by two key factors: 1) the Democratic Party was split in two, and 2) the national coalition which made the Republican Party possible and viable.

    Unless a third party succeeds in nominating a radiant personality with a vibrant and bipartisan (or even nonpartisan) base of support in an election wherein both the Democrats and Republicans are fractured there is no pathway to victory for anyone not nominated by those two parties. A formidable coalition must exist for national victory to occur and a party must have a ground-level infrastructure complete with an army of local and state elected officials under the party’s banner. There is no third party with those credentials and – quite honestly – it would take too much time to build this infrastructure in time to save the Republic; which brings me to my closing argument.

    Our nation and our democracy are at a serious turning point in history. We face a crucial series of decisions which require swift action if we are to preserve what hope we have left to see the working class finally take hold of the steering wheel. Not only that, but this pivotal moment in the often romanticized American experiment also poses a risk of failure which could well spell the end of our already weak democracy. Basically, we will either utilize and strengthen our democracy beyond what any of our ancestors ever realized or we will lose it forever.

    Here’s the dilemma: the Republican Party which was propelled into the mainstream with the election of Lincoln and sold its soul to the oligarchs within four decades after that moment has now devolved – for reasons I will cover in my next entry – into a fascist party hell-bent on destroying democracy so as to secure a permanent grip on power. This drift into authoritarianism occurred gradually over the course of the last century and has been topped off with the rise of their latest president. What I’m saying is that the problem isn’t that Trump was elected, it’s that the Republican Party rolled out the proverbial carpet for oppression long ago. Trump has merely taken the walk down said carpet.

    Well, this is where my lengthy outline of the Democratic Party’s summarized history becomes relevant. I’m just going to say it straight: the working class will never have an ally so long as these two parties stand in our way. Nor can we find a workable ally in one of the numerous and ineffective third party options. The only choice we have if we want to survive the immediate threat posed to democracy (and liberty, for that matter) and then to claim the reins of power for the working class is to first unite to defeat the Republican Party and send it to the dust bin of history and then to work towards overtaking the establishment forces subservient to the oligarchs within the Democratic Party.

    The goal – in both steps – should involve the working class seizing control of the Party which has long deceived us into thinking that it represents us (and many progressive champions are hard at work in this stage right now). Basically, this would require us to make the party earn its “democratic” name. In the end, it would be best for the Republic if the working class swiftly disbanded the Democratic Party after disposing of the Republican Party therewith, thus erecting the nonpartisan system envisioned by the Framers. Over time, we should also strive for a series of Constitutional reforms to strengthen our democracy; such as abolishing the Electoral College, making all redistricting nonpartisan, overturning Citizens United and mandating public financing for all elections, as well as considering further pro-democratic measures.

    Tragically, there is a heightened risk of systemic failure. What I mean by this is that the system’s archaic design meant to shield the nation and its people from the threat of a dictatorship will collapse due to the Framers’ lack of anticipation for the role that partisanship would play in preventing a genuine check on political power. Their first design flaw came about when the aspiring despot managed to manipulate the Electoral College to circumvent the will of the majority and ascend to power despite the fact that inhibiting such a rise was the SINGULAR purpose for the Electoral College’s existence. In their next design flaw, the system of redistricting as corrupted by partisanship in the form of gerrymandering and the existence of the U.S. Senate which over-represents the voice of low populated states further distorted the will of the majority by placing control of Congress in the hands of a loud minority; which effectively empowers the same party to which the aforementioned man yearning to be king belongs. Still, there is yet another design flaw: the Supreme Court, with its Justices supposedly appointed with no political intent and afforded lifetime tenure and which is poised to have a new member overtly appointed with the goal of molding a right-wing Court for a generation.

    The final piece of this puzzle in the risk of failure is the electorate itself. Disenchanted by decades of let-downs and being convinced that the whole system is corrupt no matter what we do, disoriented by the persistent bombardment by a party actively working to dismantle our democracy, and disillusioned by the so-called “opposition” party and its propensity for only coming to us when they need our electoral support, the people of this great nation are in grave danger of not uniting to stop this nightmare. As has been the case with the success of fascist uprisings throughout history, the opposition to such has been fractured to the point of confusion long enough for the invasion of autocracy to be completed. Those who would like to prevent the Republican Party’s antidemocratic agenda are having a difficult time consolidating behind the only viable – again, by design – means to thwart as much.

    It is no doubt unappealing to keep feeding the deceptive Democratic Party’s machine. The leadership thereof is convinced that the working class will come “home” and that Trump will be the death of the Republican Party. Their arrogance will facilitate our collective plunge into an abyss from which we will not easily escape, if we allow it. My challenge to you – difficult as it may be – is to work now as one to defeat this fascist threat and then to set your sights on deposing the established order which made this threat possible to begin with.

    We can not have a progressive revolution in the ashes of democracy. If we fail to defeat the Republican Party now and then in 2020 everything for which we fight and have fought will be lost. Escaping the clutches of authoritarianism is not easy once we have ceded control thereto. Please, fellow Progressive Revolutionaries, let’s stave off the tide of horror which is approaching our shores and prepare to make right the wrongs of those who’ve exploited us from the beginning.

    Onward.

     

  • A Brief History and the Modern Consequences of Tribalism

    Originally published at “The Bern Report” on May 23rd, 2018 by Daniel Crawford

     

    A lady popularly known as the “Tiger Mom” recently wrote a book about tribalism. From the interviews in which I have seen her participate, you could gather that she fully understands many of the dynamics which contributed to the rise of Trump in 2016. In promoting her work, she notes that we humans – as social animals – have an unyielding need to associate ourselves with others. This need to socialize for the general public often produces the sense of community that one feels and enjoys by partaking in various clubs and organizations – such as book clubs, churches, charities, political organizations, etc. -, but it also creates the groundswell for the most extreme satisfaction of this basic need: through affiliating with cults.

    There are an estimated 7 billion of us on this planet and we will likely reach 8 billion very soon. Given our intellectual capacity in conjunction with a primal sense of territorialism it is almost inevitable that conflict will arise as diverse groups of this massive population collide. At the most primitive level our divisions are simplistic and based initially on the physical differences that we perceive. This first alignment of humanity – much like other members of the animal kingdom – is determined based on gender, size, and skin color.

    Devoid of education and integration, humans are naturally suspicious of the unknown and are usually hesitant to embrace something different. Males typically associate with males and the same is the case with females until each reaches sexual maturity and seeks to compete for the purpose of mating. The weak/small and the strong/big likewise are prone to align with their peers in size. Finally, the obvious dividing line is that of skin color. If we are not raised around a diverse group of people with the full or near-full spectrum of our possible skin colors, then our uneducated inclination is to brace ourselves out of fear when we first meet another who appears different.

    This basic instinct to welcome the similar and reject the dissimilar is the core explanation for the ancient emergence of societal constructs wherein slavery, patriarchy, and domination of the “weak” thrived and persisted for much of our existence thus far. Many of our ancestors did not concern themselves with our intellectual diversity nor did they ponder the common characteristics which should have united us. Rather, their blind obedience to the natural pursuit of securing territory impelled them to conquer others instead of working together. Through the contemporary lens this part of human history is reviled today, but it occurred in lieu of an intentional structure facilitated by more educated minds to bring us together. The remnants of our primitive tribalism persist in the modern era through obvious cultural and political standards, but it is instructive to remember its origins.

    At the next tier of our tribalism is with respect to sexual orientation. Here, our basic understanding of the natural role played by gender diversity is instructed by the patriarchic construct in primitive society. When the reality that heterosexuals are not alone interferes with the pseudo-intellectual concept that sex exists only to procreate; another form of tribalism emerges producing heterosexual purists. It is tempting to associate this with the rise of religion, but this tribalism extends beyond religious sects today and may have predated such.

    Early humanity was undoubtedly rife with examples of certain societies not concerning themselves with the sexual conduct of their members. Still, at some point a slew of patriarchic societies developed a mindset that “unnatural sex” – that is, intercourse where procreation is impossible or very risky such as in the case of incest – was abominable. While most – if not all – of our animalistic brethren continued to satisfy themselves in every way they could attain satisfaction, humanity began to condemn the same conduct in our own ranks. This is about domination and conformity under extreme patriarchy, and religion only provided a means to mainstream such.

    Our early intellectual development before science expanded our understanding of the natural order led to the birth of religion. The human imagination is – as far as we know – unmatched in Earth’s animal kingdom and the intellect’s need to find answers to a stream of questions was met with the untamed imagination’s capacity to fantasize innumerable possible explanations. Storytelling merged with oral historical traditions and eventually inspired the creation of religion when it increasingly became too difficult to separate fact from fiction. Over the course of thousands of years, these competing traditions – which eventually evolved to include written traditions as well – forged the most complex, and the most divisive form of tribalism.

    Religious conviction became the new foundation for the existence of a society. It infected the culture, reinforced the primitive tribes as well as the accompanying standards, and inspired all political decisions of early civilized – and I use that word lightly – humanity. Simply put, if you were not a loyal follower of the dominant religious order then you were not worthy of all the rights and privileges thereby endowed. This also meant that any society not sharing the same beliefs must be conquered if and when there was a territorial dispute.

    Nationalism also comes to mind, and it has roots in ancient humanity. To a large degree, the national identity of a society was built upon their common religious belief system. However, geography had as much to do with the process of organizing an ancient or even classical “nation” as did religion. The combined forces of geographical positioning and religious doctrine gave rise to myths about superiority over the other “nations”, further united the people with a devotion to their commonality, and instilled in them a fear of humans whom were “outsiders”. The most radical form of nationalism – of course – took the reins in Germany during the 1920s-40s; ethnic nationalism. This exclusionary variation of nationalism dismisses the notion that anyone not sharing an ethnic bond with the original members of a “nation” could join such. This is where tribalism took its next leap.

    When intellectual thought started to become more complex and contemplate the normative and descriptive reflections on life, political factions became inevitable. Humans enjoy being around others who think like them, because it helps to avoid the feeling of social isolation. Political parties sprung from the organization of political beliefs, but the unyielding fealty to ideological points of view infused the advent of partisanship with the familiar foe of tribal thinking. The concept of compromise and consensus – crucial components for a functioning democracy of any form – goes out the window once one or both sides of the debate regard the opposing group as the “enemy”.

    In our conditioning as citizens of the most powerful and most influential nation on Earth, we Americans have long been trained to think of these evils of humanity as something which can either never or barely permeate our society. Sure, we hint that our rise as a superpower came with some missteps along the way – a little slavery here, some genocide there, and maybe some trouble being inclusive up through the Cold War -, but then the popular narrative is instilled in us which purports that this is all in the past and we’re mature now. We delude ourselves into believing this myth that the shortfalls of humanity elsewhere have ceased to threaten our own unity because confronting such requires the one thing that our society has yet to master: humility.

    Humility is the last barrier which firmly inhibits our ability to avert the self-destructive path taken by hegemonic powers of the past. Only through our humble collective reflection on the wounds which continue to haunt each segment of our population can we ever hope to heal and unite. It is through acknowledgement of the wrongdoings of the past and present that we can bring everyone together, become stronger, more prosperous, and guarantee our liberty. Unfortunately, the forces of division and greed hold the reins and the cult mentality is alive and well amongst the protectors of those forces.

    Before Trump came into the national picture and capitalized on an era of populism which demanded systemic upheaval, our divisions were exploited by the Republican Party and ignored by the Democratic Party when it came time to promote beneficial policies; an issue which we’ve discussed at length in the past. It should come as no surprise that the natural tendency of humans – in our weakness of blind loyalty irrespective of circumstance – to slip into cultism has infected our capacity to depose the very aforementioned forces crippling our collective forward movement. On the one hand, it has never been easier for the political foot soldiers of either political organization to critique the opposing side. On the other hand, our willingness to critique ourselves – meaning both our individual selves and the organization to which we belong – has never been more difficult.

    Are there some exceptions? No doubt, but a bipolar political construct effectively outcasts everyone who dares to stand up to their respective camp. The defector class is terribly disorganized – agreeing only that the system is broken – and lacks the political will and/or know-how of confronting the corrupt major party dichotomy with a viable alternative. The moment you speak up against the conduct of your camp the devoted within seize the opportunity to prove their own fealty to the cause by lashing out at you and ensuring that no one in the proverbial loop will take you seriously. You are left with one of perhaps three legitimate choices: remain in the group and quiet your complaints, defect to the other side, or leave the fray entirely.

    For Republicans, the end game is the pursuit and preservation of power. It shouldn’t shock anyone that the overwhelming majority of the party’s elected officials refuse to criticize Trump for anything that he does. It is only when one of them has determined or realized that their career is at an end that they defy the flock, but not a moment sooner. After all, each of them risks facing a rabid primary contest should they take on a leader whom enjoys the support of most fellow partisans. It is pure political calculation and recent developments are the culmination of decades of the party’s intentional appeal to the worst of our basic impulses.

    In the Democratic Party, the emergence of cultism is a reaction to its perpetual struggle to remain relevant in the post-Reagan era. First, the party’s leadership decided to start selling out the working class to try and financially compete with the better-funded Republicans. Then, when the party started to lose ground in its former strongholds it desperately clung to any signs of success as a shrine which should not be defiled. That’s where the apparent worship of the flawed legacies of Clinton and Obama surfaced.

    To be fair, Democrats are far more willing to ridicule their own publicly, but that’s because the devotion isn’t to the figureheads as much as it is to the means of these fluke electoral success stories. Each party desires victory at the ballot box, but the Republicans have managed to do so while maintaining the faith and devotion of their so-called base (mostly by way of manipulation, but that’s another story for another time). With the Democrats, the model for national victory in the post-Reagan era has been diluted with poorly-remembered circumstances (something with in which we will delve further in a future post), yet the myths surrounding this model as created by the desperate cult of the Democrats have taught its rank and file to believe that ultimate victory is inevitable.

    You may ask yourself at this point as to what model I am speaking of. Since the Democratic Party effectively stripped its “base” of power in the wake of the barrage of stinging national defeats at the hands of Reagan and Bush 41 it has convinced itself that doing so was justified by “demographics”. In other words, the Party believes that it will never again have to take on the oligarchs because they will come crawling to the Democrats once the magic switch of cultural change makes it virtually impossible for the Republicans to ever win again. This is not a line of thinking which any Democratic leader will openly admit, but it is the underlying reason why they refuse to sit idly by while the working class attempts to reclaim the steering wheel.

    Why permit the party to boldly “welcome [the] hatred” of the oligarchs as it had under Franklin Roosevelt when it is a foregone conclusion that doing so is no longer necessary to attain power? Regardless of the plethora of betrayals presided over by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the ends justified the means. Both men were elected, and twice so. This is despite the fact – the easily proven fact – that both were heavily tied to the very oligarch class which is presently unleashing a torrent of hellfire on the rights of the working class. Confront this reality at your own peril; that is, if you care about having a voice within the only known viable alternative to the Republicans.

    As for idolizing Democratic Party heroes; this, too, is a growing phenomenon within the party and related support groups. Especially in the era of Trump, the cultural cancer of cultism is throwing both sides into convulsions as they increasingly reject any effort at introspection. In social media it is all laid bare for any reasonable person to see. Call out Trump and the Republicans come out of the woodwork to attack you. Criticize Obama and the most loyal Democrats will do the same. Oh yes, the cult of personality is alive and well across the spectrum.

    Unfortunately, tribalism is engrained in our species; as the earlier-referenced author has noted. Feeling the need to be involved is natural and even good for us, so long as we do not permit ourselves to become so deeply immersed in its spell that we forget to use the one trait which seemingly sets us above our animal peers: reason. Likewise tragic is that reason itself is under a full-fledged assault by the cultists all around us. It is like we are witnessing the unraveling of civilization itself.

    What is the solution? How do we save ourselves? The truth is that there is no easy answer, because even the simplest explanation of what we must do comes at a price. That price is the risk of being a target of the cult mentality which has spread throughout our society, and which is showing signs of infecting the world beyond. Our unity is essential for our survival, and the sacrifice which ought to be made is to willingly stand alone – if need be – as a bold voice of reason amongst the warring cults. Silence is the only thing worse than the intentional use of fear to achieve power and we must avoid the temptation to become silent no matter how easy it seems compared to the difficulty of staying in the fight.

    In closing, let me say this: I strongly believe that we can overcome the challenges posed by rampant cultism. Tribal thinking may be natural to us, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it work for us. The key is not to fight this need for community, but to expand its tent to the point where it is all-inclusive. None of us exists in an island of one on a separate planet made just for us. It’s time that we fight for global recognition that our solidarity is both essential and preferable. Otherwise, we – let alone our precious institutions and freedoms – won’t be around for much longer.

    Onward.