The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Electoral Politics Page 19 of 30

It’s Clinton’s Election to Lose

President-George-W.-Bush-Mission-Accomplished“He denounced “15 years of wars in the Middle East” — a rebuke of President George W. Bush — and pledged to help union members, coal miners and other low-wage Americans,” this traditionally Democrat-sounding politician continued, “These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.”
the-new-yorker-who-is-donald-trumpIn another forum Donald Trump spoke, a bit incoherently, of the position where the United States foots 75 percent of NATO bills: “If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I’m talking about are extremely rich. Then . . . I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”
In NatSec think tanks all over the Beltway, heads were exploding. A national correspondent for The Atlantic said, “Trump is creating conditions for the dissolution of NATO, the demise of Europe, and rampant nuclear proliferation.” This from the scribe who claimed POTUS didn’t have the power to close GITMO. Poor Goldberg, always at the tail end of the main issue because he’s too busy brown-nosing to win the race.
I’ve said it before (and I think Trump’s on to it as well), NATO’s usefulness is analogous to that of the Concert of Europe in late 19th century. What began as a Triple Alliance between Great Britain, NATO has been creating the conditions for its own demise for about 25 years now. As I have repeatedly said on multiple occasions: The more nations adopt into the mutual defense alliance, the more the power of said alliance is diluted. It becomes a club that everyone has to be a member of, a sort of stepping stone into the ultimate club, the EU. Although at present the desire to join the EU is at question.
13701129_10154284424981678_8356750441445175509_o
The interviewer then brings up the question of non-monetary value, i.e., good will, with large monetary outlays. Trump is having none of this nasty, pocketed, traded, lost, reheated old chestnut that Think Tankers love to trot out: “We’re spending money, and if you’re talking about trade, we’re losing a tremendous amount of money, according to many stats, $800 billion a year on trade. So we are spending a fortune on [our] military in order to lose $800 billion.” I’ve got ocean-side property in New Mexico, folks, anyone interested?
undated-new-f-35c-marylandBut really, who is this Republican nominee? Where did he come from? Sure, he’s quite the bigot and sexist. But what male senator or Representative in Washington DC isn’t? Look at their legislation. The only thing they care more about than getting their hands into women’s pants via abortion legislation, is getting into people’s pocketbooks with new fees. Unimaginable new fees. Fees with names a woman with an advanced forensic accounting degree couldn’t decipher.
Why, someone has to be asking, the fetish with fees?
Easy: They raise revenue but don’t count as taxes.
Suckers. American taxpayers are flat-out suckers.
But this nominee has problems: His use of grotesque race-baiting, his lack of care for the tragedies faced daily in America when innocent brown and black people die at the hands of white cops who never see any form of punishment. Worse, departments across the country are hiring men and women eager to enforce compliance over their fellow citizens with predictably tragic results. Then there is the stomach-turning use of violence at political rallies. It’s not the violence, per se, that churns the gut. It’s the “Brown Shirt” techniques that are utilized, to be frank, that reek of outright fascism. Are the trains running on time? Oh, wait. . .
Does Donlad’ “Flannel-Moth-Larvae-Head” Trump’s message machine have anything to say about these issues? No, because he’s banking on the silence resonating with a group of voters people see every day but rarely take notice of. People like the following group:
Do they see the man or woman who got the raw deal like the plumber in Wisconsin who took out one too many 25 percent APR credit cards intent on paying for Junior’s cracked front tooth? He, too, had a cracked tooth when he was young and never fixed it. He was too poor. He also always felt it held him back from promotions, getting the right girl, the list was long. He was determined that his son have a better chance, even if he was leaving university soon with upwards of $50,000 in debt with a degree from a mid-level state school in English.
indexHow about the voter down Texas-way who had one hundred acres of land within the city limits of a moderately-sized city in the Texas Hill Country and lost it to imminent domain for letting it lay fallow after racking up so many citations for claiming it to be agricultural land with no farm animals. It wasn’t his fault a group of local hoodlums kept killing the animals he put on the land so as to keep it in good standing with the law. It’s also the voter I sneer at because he or she can’t or won’t move past the slogans; and yet at the same time, is a howling hypocrite, taking advantage of every government program available, going around the neighborhood or attending neighborhood meetings (yes, I’ve been to a few) “hoping to make some converts.”
chicago-is-facing-financial-calamity--and-rahm-emanuel-may-not-be-able-to-save-itFinally, there is the voter who understands every government he or she falls under, be it local, toll road, water district, school district, state or federal, is taking, taking, taking. As a result s/he’s pissed. If only I could just make them see how the Ultimate One-Percenter has swindled them, letting local government gut public service by selling off a crown jewel of revenue to a private company (conveniently owned by friends) to solve a short term budget hole. The company then trebles rates, pockets the rainy day fund set up for emergency maintenance, and now has a 1-800-telephone tree giving the customer nothing but bullshit excuses. If you don’t believe me, take a look at Chicago’s parking system. A cash-cow’s cash-cow!
151119_DX_Hillary-Myths.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlargeNo, I won’t vote for him, because, while I doubt he’s as malevolent as Cruz or malignant as someone like Dick Cheney, he’s letting demons out of our collective closet that are best left in said closet. But, beware and be forewarned if you are a Democrat; especially if you’re certain Hillary is going to steam roll this guy.
You’ll have only yourself to blame if Trump wins.
Why?
It’s her election to lose.

Trump’s Speech: Not Insane

Donald TrumpOk, let’s analyze what Trump said.

Crime Is Increasing, Cops Are Being Killed, I’m Going to Stop That

I’m more with BLM, but this isn’t a surprising message. In fact, as he’s a Republican, I’d be shocked if he had not used it. (It’s also not true that crime is increasing, but that hasn’t stopped others from proposing hard-on-crime policies. And the perception of high crime is real, because of mass shootings and attacks on police.)

Illegal Immigrants are a Big Part of the Crime Wave, I’ll Deport Them

Immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans, but this isn’t that crazy; he’s just going to do more of what Obama and Bush did. The irony is, of course, that Obama has deported more immigrants than any US president of which I’m aware, but, hey, executing Republican policies doesn’t get you credit with Republicans if you’re a Democrat.

Stop Immigration from Countries Where Terrorists Might Originate

Okay. It’s not going to make much of a difference. But as a logical construct: “There are terrorists over there, we shouldn’t let them come here”, it’s not crazy. I disagree, America has some responsibility (okay, a lot of responsibility) for the refugee crisis, and if you broke it, you get to pick it up. But given how many countries are already refusing Syrian immigrants, this isn’t that far out.

Fix Poverty

He starts with African American poverty stats. He pivots to the fact that Obama is a failure for ordinary people, their wages are down, etc.

Fix Trade

America has lost jobs because of trade and has an 800 billion dollar trade deficit. He’s going to fix that with bilateral trade deals. And an 800 billion trade deficit is a LOT of jobs. And, no, other countries aren’t going to stop selling to Americans.

This is not crazy. It is, in fact, sane.

Better Treaties

He starts with Iran, and moves on to trade deals. He throws a bone to Israel, and so on. The Iran and Israel bits are crazy, but his rhetoric is no worse than Clinton’s.  The Iran deal happened after Clinton was no longer secretary of state for a reason.

Attacking Hillary’s Record

I don’t agree with the entire laundry list, but the argument isn’t a bad one. Libya is in ruins, Syria is in ruins. The Iran nuclear weapons bit is a lie, but it’s one Democrats tell all the time.

And he’s completely right that if Clinton wasn’t so important, the way she handled her email would have destroyed her life. An ordinary person would not have skated on that.

He’s right in the uber argument too: Clinton is corrupt, beholden to various special interests, and to judge on her record in an actual position of power? Incompetent.

I Care for Americans

I’ve hugged this American and listened to that American’s tale of woe. I love you all and I’m going to look out for you.

Any politician who does not say this sort of thing is incompetent.

I am Part of the Corrupt System, but I Will Now Fight for You

Because I’m a billionaire, I know how the system works. But because I’m already rich, I owe nobody anything and I’ll work for Americans. A friend calls this the “sleazy version of FDR’s class traitor.” It’s a good argument, even if one doubts him.

Reiteration

I’ll fix crime by appointing the best people. I’ll fix the inner cities. (Sub Voce: I will care even for those who don’t vote for me.)

An End to Nation Building

Sorry, this is just the right policy. Especially since Libya and Iraq clearly illustrate the results of American “nation building” these days. While I supported the Arab Spring, its success or failure was no damn business of the US’s.

NATO Is Obsolete

People have been squealing about this, but Trump’s position is that Russia is not particularly a threat, terrorism is, and NATO does little against terrorism. He also notes that America foots most of the bill for NATO, while it is intended to protect others (for instance, if Russia does attack, it won’t be sending tanks into D.C.).

I think that the way NATO has been used for the last 20 years (Estonia? Estonia?) has made a nuclear war more likely, not less. Trump’s wrong about the purpose of NATO in a way (control of Europe), but I think Europeans will be better off without large American garrisons.

Bring the Troops Home

They cost less to keep at home.

Sorry, people, but it is way past time for most US overseas bases to be shut down. Sorry.

Immigration Is a Bad Idea Right Now

It can bring in terrorists when it is from countries which breed terrorists, and there aren’t enough good jobs for the people who are here already.

Border Wall

Practically his signature, not surprising it gets a call out.

I’m Going to Look after Americans FIRST

That’s the job description, people. That is not going to go across badly. If America can’t employ the people already in America, decreasing immigration until that is fixed is not insane. And it especially doesn’t look insane to the poor and working class who compete with immigrants for jobs.

The economics on this is dodgy, but the case can certainly be made (in England a BOE study found that immigration was decreasing wages for the poorest 20 percent).

Bring Back the Manufacturing Jobs

Covered above: Initiate bilateral trade deals to bring these jobs back. It’s not insane, despite what the neoliberals and economists who have given you the wonderful economy will say.

Cut Taxes and Regulations

I disagree, but this is a Republican nominee. And many Dems have said (and done) the same thing.

Fix the TSA

Ummm, any politician not for this is committing political malpractice. (Correction: Turns out the platform says this means not allowing unionization. Sigh.)

Allow Political Churches

I disagree, but he’s the Republican candidate. In any case, he just said he’ll fight for it, he’s unlikely to be able to do it except that he will tell the IRS to stop going after said churches, which was the status quo under Bush.

I Love You, I Love You, I Love You

“I grew up around regular people, even if I’m not one now, and I think you’re wonderful. Honest!” This is at least as believable as Clinton trying to pretend to like working class people. Slightly more, even, as with Trump it’s obvious that if they make him feel good about himself, he’ll like them.

Clinton Is the “More-of-the-Same Candidate,” I’m the “Candidate of Change.”

Whether you agree with Trump’s plans or not, if he follows through on even half of them, this is completely true.

My Concluding Remarks

Pundits have been screaming about the conflation of crime and terrorism, and wailing about his NATO remarks. I don’t like the first, and I actually agree about his NATO remarks, but I am not super worked-up about this.

“I’m going to super deport illegals” is not a radical idea. “I’m going to be tough on crime,” which I disagree with about 95 percent, is not a radical idea. Clinton’s husband was responsible for one of the toughest on crime bills ever passed in America.

Now, depending on how far it goes, Trump’s NATO policy could be radical, as could be bringing back troops to America. But it’s not a radical I necessarily disagree with, as noted above.

His trade policies: Well, these could go disastrously wrong, or could go brilliantly right. They’re certainly not stupid prima facie. But if you’re a working class or poor American, the status quo is not in your favor, period. You need a roll of the dice.

I don’t support Trump, nor do I support Clinton, but the demonization of Trump is off the scale. I very much doubt he is Hiter reborn. He actually seems less likely to start a nuclear war than his opponent. I despise some of his policies, but some of what he is proposing is not in the least nuts, it is just not acceptable to the guardians of the neoliberal status quo.

Trump’s positions are reasonably consistent.

Trump is a nativist populist authoritarian. He does not believe in the American Empire.

More on Trump later. And judge for yourself, read the transcript of Trump’s speech.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Is Doing What Matters Most for Winning the Election

Melania Trump’s Plagiarism is not important. Look, if you’re a college-educated intellectual like myself, or a college-educated journalist, you think plagiarism is a bad thing.

Most ordinary people do not care very much. It’s just not very important.

So. Is it more important if Melania plagiarized a paragraph from Michelle Obama, or is it more important if Trump can handle the economy better than Clinton?

The argument seems to be that it creates a narrative of incompetence. My guess is that people who would vote Trump will shrug it off as “not important.”

I note, further, that Trump continues to suck the air out of the room. Yes, it’s the convention, but even so, the coverage drum beat, day-by-day, is Trump, Trump, Trump. Good publicity, bad publicity, it’s all publicity.

Recent polling has had Trump winning key swing states, though Clinton is still ahead in more polls.

Trump is far from out of it, and can still easily win.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Personnel: A Potential Achilles’ Heel for Progressive Electoral Politics

(Just so no one misunderstands, this is Mandos writing, not Ian.)

Over the years I’ve collected a laundry list of potential problems that left-wing movements have in obtaining and exercising official power “through the system” in developed Western societies, but at least two of them have to do with the question of personnel and talent. These are problems that that manifest themselves both in the way that movements operate in the electoral space and then again reveal themselves if the progressive-leftist party gets really lucky and manages to hold official power. Some of them apply to populist right-wing movements too (but I think less so; the reasons for this we can leave to another day) and is at least a contributing factor to the extent to which the neoliberal order appears so crisis-resilient.

(1) Personnel for Getting into Power: We live in a mass media society where cheap communications means that messages are propagated very quickly. This means that almost all political campaigning is going to involve an aspect of mass advertising and marketing. I know that a lot of lefty people for obvious reasons have a bit of an allergy to the idea of political ideation as selling something, but unfortunately, that’s what it is. Selling stuff is a profession, talent, and skill.

The neoliberal establishment side of the equation has a lot of money to attract the kind of talent who can sell stuff. But that’s true of everything: The left always lives with a headwind of money that favours the establishment. What is more fundamentally difficult, however, is that the neoliberal demeanour has a very natural and smooth affinity to the notion of selling and is very deeply founded on the idea of competing psychological influence over individual choice; in fact, it openly celebrates this as a cornerstone of its fundamental political truth. The modern left, on the other hand, views advertising and marketing as an attempt at corrupting individual authentic choice. But in an environment of technologically-accelerated information dissemination, there’s no escape from selling political ideas and from a need for the talent required to do that. It seems unlikely to me, however, that, money aside, the sales talent is in large numbers going to abandon an ideological affinity for the governing neoliberal attitude.

(2) Personnel to Run the Show: Once in power, the problems have only started. Large industrial societies actually require a great deal of technical skill to run, both on matters of economy and finance as well as general administration and regulation. While leftists deride the prognostications of academic economics, there are nevertheless technical skills and concepts that are still required to have a modicum of control. Unfortunately, most people educated in these disciplines were also made sympathetic to neoliberalism. We saw in the Greek crisis that there was a layer of Greek bureaucracy that actively resisted the original form of the Syriza government. That is partly class interest — but a lot of “technocrats” genuinely believed that they were doing a good deed from preventing what they thought was stupid or impossible policy from being implemented, rather than respect democratic decision-making or question the political assumptions they take as positive truths. This is potentially a deeper and more difficult problem than (1).

The problem of finding technocrats willing to administer a moderately left-wing, post-neoliberal state feeds back into the original problem of electability. If the public (quite reasonably) gets the sense that left-wing parties simply lack the expertise to make existing systems work on a day-to-day basis, they’ll choose a seemingly better-administered political outcome, even if it actually represents long-term decline.

I won’t pretend to have immediate solutions to these problems. But I think they aren’t very closely discussed in these sorts of environments.

On Bernie Sanders

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004

I am not upset by Sanders endorsing Clinton because I never expected anything else.

What is important about Sanders is that he showed how well a self-avowed socialist can do. He won super-majorities of the young. In four years there will be more. In eight, even more.

The demographics are shifting, real left-wing politics are now viable.

That is what matters.

Four years ago, if you’d told me someone with Sanders’ policies would have come this close to Clinton, I’d have been happy with that result. I am today.

Sanders himself is now irrelevant. He’s an old man; he showed there is a constituency for left-wing politics, now his time is done.

Something similar may turn out to be the case with Trump, if he doesn’t win election: He will have proved that right-wing populism is viable and a more disciplined candidate will step in and execute it better.

Chill. Sanders run isn’t a victory, but it did show the tide of history is turning in favor of those who favor a kinder and far better-run world.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump vs. Clinton

This is the problem that Democrats are ignoring:

It is simply not clear that Trump will harm more brown people than Clinton, because she has a record of being good with killing brown people in large numbers.

Now Trump has said all sorts of things at this point. Who knows what he’ll do? I get that, but here’s what I also get: We all know what Clinton will do.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Well America Has Their Thatcher; Congratulations?

Hillary Clinton Secretary of State PortraitIf Clinton becomes President she will kill and impoverish a lot more people than Sanders would have.

If Trump becomes President, well, Sanders was more likely to win a general election against him.

Bernie might be flawed, but he was significantly better than Clinton on almost every axis than Clinton.

If you are one of Clinton’s retainers, she will take care of you. ‘Grats.

If you are in the top 3 percent of the population, you should do well under her policies.

Everyone else will do badly under her policies, or no better than they would have under Bernie.

As for brown people overseas, well, no one who voted for Clinton actually gives a shit about whether they live, die, or suffer.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Starts His March Leftwards By Saying He’ll Tax Rich People

Donald TrumpAs I predicted.

Trump is not an idiot. He will go hard for the left-wing populists and he will get some of them.

Meanwhile Clinton is running after right wing money and endorsements. Max Boot endorsed her. The Koch brothers are considering her.

The standard rule in an election is you run to the primary voters during the primary, then you run to the rest of the people you want voting for you and funding you. Clinton is now running to oligarchs, neoconservatives and Republicans who despise Trump; while Trump is running left to get economic populists.

It’s next to impossible to vote Trump because of his racism. It is next to impossible to vote for Clinton because she is a war mongering oligarch whose economic policies guarantee stagnation and decline.

But Trump will be well to Clinton’s left on economic issues long before election day. And for all that people say Trump isn’t believable, Clinton is even less believable on those occasions where she tries to say left-wing things.

(Update: And, now he says he won’t.)


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 19 of 30

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén