WARS ABROAD, WARS AT HOME
Election Dissection Continues
Since before the November election and especially afterward there has been a torrent of discussion and analysis of what to make of the Trump victory. Much of the discussion has centered on understanding the political basis for the Democratic defeat – and to what extent the explanation centered on class (“the white working class”), failures of the Democratic Party establishment, or the supposed over-emphasis on “identity politics” on the left. Here are some interesting recent views.
MIKE DAVIS: The Great God Trump and the White Working Class
Trump’s victory, of course, may turn out to be the ghost dance of a dying white culture, quickly followed by a return to Obamian, globalist normalcy or, conversely we may be heading into the twilight zone of homegrown fascism. The parameters of the next four years are largely unknown. Much depends on whether the Republicans succeed in incorporating the old industrial states of the upper Midwest into their mid-continental reich of solidly red Southern and plains states. In this case, their structural electoral advantages, as the National Reviewrecently pointed out, might override the popular vote for another decade. But whatever the scenario, the issue of the utmost immediate importance to the Left is whether or not the Sanders coalition, including the progressive unions that backed him, can be kept alive as an independent movement bridging the racial and cultural divides among American working people. An extraordinary restructuring of political camps, cadre, and patronage is taking place in an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty, but we need to understand more clearly whether 2016 actually reflects, or necessarily anticipates, a fundamental realignment of social forces. [the article goes on to look in detail at the actual election results in the light of economic blows to working-class communities in states won by Trump] More
LINDA BURNHAM: No Plans to Abandon Our Freedom Dreams
A highly consequential debate about the future direction of the Democratic Party rages among academics, pundits and politicians. This debate is most active among liberals, but it ranges both rightward and leftward as well. For two months now liberals have been ruminating on the role of “identity politics” in November’s defeat of Hillary Clinton. Essentially the debate turns on whether the
Democratic Party and Clinton, in their embrace of racial, religious and sexual minorities, forsook working class whites, who in turn responded to their abandonment by casting their votes for Trump. According to this point of view, the journey back from the devastation of 2016 requires that the party take an indefinite break from identity politics to concentrate on winning back economically squeezed white workers. There’s a leftish version of this line – an economic fundamentalism that posits that pocket book issues trump all others. And a classic liberal version that, seemingly reasonably, demands the subordination of the part to the whole, the interests of particular groups to the national interest. Both boil down to the same thing: it’s time to subordinate the rights claims of various “interest groups” to an economic agenda that prioritizes the distress of white workers. Only this adjustment will create the conditions for Democrats to make gains in congressional and statewide races and retake the White House in 2020. (Or, in the leftish version, only this adjustment will set the foundation for building a successful workers’ movement.) This essay was circulated by Bob Wing, but is not yet available online, as far as I know; email me and I’ll send it to you.
Democratic Party and Clinton, in their embrace of racial, religious and sexual minorities, forsook working class whites, who in turn responded to their abandonment by casting their votes for Trump. According to this point of view, the journey back from the devastation of 2016 requires that the party take an indefinite break from identity politics to concentrate on winning back economically squeezed white workers. There’s a leftish version of this line – an economic fundamentalism that posits that pocket book issues trump all others. And a classic liberal version that, seemingly reasonably, demands the subordination of the part to the whole, the interests of particular groups to the national interest. Both boil down to the same thing: it’s time to subordinate the rights claims of various “interest groups” to an economic agenda that prioritizes the distress of white workers. Only this adjustment will create the conditions for Democrats to make gains in congressional and statewide races and retake the White House in 2020. (Or, in the leftish version, only this adjustment will set the foundation for building a successful workers’ movement.) This essay was circulated by Bob Wing, but is not yet available online, as far as I know; email me and I’ll send it to you.
GLENN GREENWALD: Why Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention
The more alarmed one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party… A failed, collapsed party cannot form an effective resistance. Trump did not become President and the Republicans do not dominate virtually all levels of government because there is some sort of massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism. Quite the contrary: this all happened because the Democrats are perceived – with good reason – to be out-of-touch, artificial, talking-points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionairesand funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes… One can spend all of one’s time and energy denouncing Donald Trump. But until the systemic causes that gave rise to him are addressed and resolved, those denunciations will do little other than generate social media benefits and flattering applause from those already devoted to opposing him. Focusing on and attempting to counter the fundamental flaws of the Democratic Party is not a distraction from #TheResistance; it is a central priority, a prerequisite for any kind of success. More
Why the Democrats' Challenge Is Far Greater Than Donald Trump
What Clinton only slowly came to understand was that the foundations of a successful Democratic politics had shifted in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse and the very partial recovery that followed it, just as they had shifted once before in the wake of the 1929 market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. It wasn’t only the party’s dependence on Wall Street for funding and economic counsel that was no longer politically sustainable. The problem was also that the party’s concern—a morally and politically necessary concern—for the rights and livelihoods of minorities didn’t extend to all the nation’s embattled out-groups. In combining the sharper focus on economic inequality with the party’s long-standing commitment to the civil and social rights of minorities, the Democrats will need to square that circle by recognizing that class is an identity, too—an identity that Democrats need to champion not simply by securing rights for more people, but also by altering the balance of economic power. More
It turns out Donald Trump’s ‘forgotten men and women’ aren’t who you thought
During the campaign, Donald Trump liked to brag that, unlike his rivals, he wasn't in Wall Street's pocket. And you can tell that by the fact that he's stocked his cabinet with Goldman Sachs alums, has signaled that he wants to dismantle the post-crisis rules reining in banks, and will now allow brokers to go back to giving their clients deliberately bad advice. This is Wall Street's kind of populism. That last part, what's known as the fiduciary rule, was something the Obama administration only changedin the last year. Up until then, you see, it was perfectly legal for your financial adviser to give you advice that wasn't in your best interest, but was in theirs. In other words, to push you into products that wouldn't increase your returns, but would increase your fees. Wall Street, of course, didn't take too kindly to a rule that the administration estimated would cost them $17 billion a year in lost revenue… But no more. The Trump administration is going to let financial advisers go back to ripping you off. More
How Corporate Media Paved the Way for Trump's Muslim Ban
President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations justifiably led to much outcry from activists, politicians and foreign leaders. The list—currently struck down by a federal judge in Seattle—was arbitrary, motivated by disjointed racist panic and was reportedly causing deaths worldwide. But while it’s important to lay primary blame for the ban at the feet of the man who signed it, years of Islamophobic coverage in corporate media—right-wing, centrist and “liberal”—laid the propaganda groundwork to get us here… Americans’ perception of terrorism is, for the most part, not informed by actual terrorist activity, but rather what we call “meta-terror,” or the fear caused by the coverage of terrorism, unconnected from any actual threat. Meta-terror has five manifestations: 1) the media disseminating ISIS threats in the form of video of audio; 2) reports about speculative terror attacks (e.g., LA Times, “A Freeway Terror Attack Is the ‘Nightmare We Worry About,’ Law Enforcers Say,” 12/21/15); 3) media treating “ISIS plots” manufactured by the FBI as actual ISIS plots, despite the fact that no one in ISIS was actually involved; 4) FBI and DHS “terror alerts” that never precede any actual attacks; and 5) the whole-cloth creation of fake ISIS stories. In all five of these categories, it bears repeating, there is no actual act of terrorism. There is simply the specter of a threat, or a Potemkin plot. Taken together, meta-terror inflates the perception of Islamic terrorism, inflaming anti-Muslim prejudice. More
Trump border 'wall' to cost $21.6 billion, take 3.5 years to build: internal report
President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday. The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell… The plan lays out what it would take to seal the border in three phases of construction of fences and walls covering just over 1,250 miles (2,000 km) by the end of 2020. With 654 miles (1,046 km) of the border already fortified, the new construction would extend almost the length of the entire border… The report assumes DHS would get funding from Congress by April or May, giving the department sufficient time to secure contractors and begin construction by September. Trump has said Congress should fund the wall upfront, but that Mexico will reimburse U.S. taxpayers. Mexico has said it will not pay. More
The Confirmation of Betsy Devos: An Outrageous Insult to Students, Teachers, Communities
"It is a sad day for American public education when a person who has repeatedly expressed contempt for public schools is confirmed as Secretary of Education." She was never a student, a parent, an educator or school board member of public schools. It is her life’s work to tear down public education. She does not respect the line of separation between church and state. She supports for-profit charter schools… The DeVos nomination awakened parents and educators to the dangers of privatization. She personifies the privatization movement. She is the leader of the Billionaire Girls Club, spreading her millions across the land to reward and enrich allies in Congress, on state and local school boards, and in any setting where she could tout school choice as a magical remedy for poor performance. Charters and vouchers, whether for profit or nonprofit, is her sole idea. She has singlehandedly stripped bare the “reform” movement, showing it to be not a civil rights movement but a privatization movement funded by billionaires and religious zealots. More
