Politics

Dear Sanderistas: Your candidate is a pushover

Burn it down, Bernie!

“Liberal allies turning on Bernie Sanders after Nevada donnybrook,” ran a Washington Post headline. After a public snubbing of Bernie supporters during the Nevada State Democratic Convention, the senator’s groupies are learning a hard lesson: The Democratic leadership hates their guts.

The animus was on full display last week when, according to NPR, “Sanders supporters allege they were denied being seated at the convention and that the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, was slanting the rules in favor of Clinton.” This led to a violent uprising, as Hillary was awarded five more delegates than the Vermont socialist, even though she narrowly won the state.

The Bernie Bros. weren’t having it and reportedly created a ruckus after being slighted by party leadership. When Hillary proxy Senator Barbara Boxer got on stage to woo the crowd, the Bernie Brigade let loose a torrent of boos and jeers.

A few thrown chairs and death threats later, the Nevada Democratic Party filed a formal complaint, accusing Sanders of initiating violence. DNC Chairbitch Debbie Wasserman Schultz called the senator’s response to the mayhem “anything but acceptable.”

To his credit, Sanders didn’t take the charges lying down. “At that convention, the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place,” he shot back. Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver accused Wasserman Schultz of “throwing shade on the Sanders campaign since the very beginning.” Bernie even endorsed Wasserman Schultz’s primary challenger – sparking headlines about the senator going rogue and threatening the ability of the Democrats to unify behind Queen Hillary.

(more…)

Advertisements

Liberalism After Obama

With the Obama presidency coming to an end, much of the energy that might have been devoted to analyzing his legacy has been diverted by Donald Trump. But how can one make a fair analysis of a polarizing figure in American politics?

Speaking for myself, as someone of the left with libertarian tendencies, it’s difficult to have much sympathy to the man, however a lot of criticism coming from the GOP is sadly too partisan and unthoughtful. I think from the left the criticism is fairly more interesting, CounterPunch is an outlet that continuously had denounce Obama for his liberal interventionism, the bank bailout, the crony capitalism of the Export-Import Bank and even the corporatism of Obamacare. Recently progressive journalist Jeremy Scahill attacked Obama over drone killing. But one has to wonder where the progressive discontent with Obama comes from.

Allow me to suggest the hopes of the progressives were too high — but they were also misled. Back in 2008, Ralph Nader argued rightly that in a lot of issues John Edwards was actually more progressive than Obama, but the symbolism of the first black president trumped any real discussion of who Obama really was. Matt Gonzalez, a former Green Party councilman of San Francisco that was the vice presidential candidate for Ralph Nader argued that Obama was far from the pacifist some on both right and left try to portray.

On the right the thing is more complex. While some argue racism, the main reason is partisanship — liberals hated Bush every bit as much as conservatives hate Obama. Let me be clear, there were racists and white supremacists of different kinds that were against Obama from the get go but in general the reaction was more than just against Obama, it was against a country changing demographically — Obama was a symbol but not the cause.  

While the radical left and average conservative were fierce critics of Obama, the world seemed to like him more than Bush. Obama recovered the image of America but was far from being the new JFK. The Kennedy years gave American liberalism an identity, the Obama years failed to do so. A government that supposedly signified the victory of the McGovern coalition was closer to the neocon foreign policy than the thoughtful realism of the late South Dakota Senator.

The foreign policy of Obama enabled a Cheney-lite candidate like Hillary to have an easy time becoming the next candidate for the Democratic Party. He was less hawkish than Hillary but was far from being a dove, liberal interventionists and other warmongers were very influential in his government and are going to be even more if Hillary gets elected. Even Sanders who calls himself a socialist is very much a military Keynesian and even supports drone killing.

The popularity of socialism among the young makes one wonder what these could mean for the American left. Without major socialist figures, the next leaders of the Democratic Party will probably identify themselves as FDR Democrats embracing New Deal liberalism — plus identity politics, but nothing revolutionary.  

Obama would still be in high regard within the base of his party and is a useful tool for the party. A Hillary presidency would preserve his legacy in a better way, Trump would try to undo what he has done including his major foreign policy victory in the Iran deal. Sanders is still a mystery because if he is successful he would replace a lot of Obama’s major policies including Obamacare.

Back to the real question of what Obama means for liberalism: seems to be more a symbolic image than a revolutionary change, he represents the victory of identity politics. That being said Obama is by far one of the smartest politicians of the last time, a charismatic leader that gave hope to a generation. Liberalism after him could be more populist in the line of Sanders but at the same time more hawkish in the line of Hillary. I still wonder if Russ Feingold could run in the future for president, it seems like he will be re-elected to the Senate. His mix of civil libertarianism and foreign policy restraint seem to be ideal to form a broad coalition. Another thoughtful leader for the future could be Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who bravely fought against the Clintonite establishment. Tim Canova who is running to unseat corporatist Debbie Wasserman Schultz represent the new generation of insurgents.

You can love him or hate him, Obama had marked a time of extreme polarization. He hasn’t shaped the Democratic Party in the way some thought he would and he had united the GOP against him. He knows that the future is unknown and that his legacy depends on the future, but he did his best. And while he didn’t exactly deliver the change people think he would bring, he changed the image of America in radical way.

(Image source)

The importance of gatekeepers

Blogger Andrew Sullivan is back, and his latest offering in New York magazine is a doozy. Here’s a quick (and predictable) synopsis: Donald Trump is an existential threat to the American system of constitutional order.

Trump Derangement Syndrome gets tiring, even from a sharp guy like Sullivan. But T-Man Sully does get one thing right about the Donald and our fragile Republic. Citing Plato, he argues that the populist swell that propelled Trump to the GOP nomination is a real danger to something our country is losing supply of: legitimate authority.

I know what you’re thinking: Talk of “legitimate authority” usually comes from puritan witch-burners or Stalinists. It’s true that if taken too far, authority can corrupt. But as sociologist Philip Rieff wrote in his book The Triumph of the Therapeutic, the culture before our modern era “was embedded in a consensus of ‘shalt nots.’” The America of yesteryear had “creedal hedges” in place around “impulses of independence or autonomy” that detracted from “communal purpose.” Our country used to have a shared set of standards regarding sexuality, religion, race, and working life. It wasn’t perfect; but at least it kept grown men out of the little girls’ room.

Those informal limits are long gone. Explanations are legion for the collapse; yet one factor in particular stands out: A lack of gatekeepers on truth and knowledge.

(more…)

Denny Hastert, sexual revolutionary

Why do liberals care that former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert molested four young boys?

That’s a serious question. Federal prosecutors allege that Hastert sexually abused at least four students while coaching wrestling at Yorkville High School in Illinois. He subsequently tried to cover up the molestation by paying the victims $3.5 million in hush money. No such luck, as the PATRIOT Act, which Hastert was indispensable in shepherding through Congress, alerted law enforcement officials to the payoffs.

George Bernard Shaw would be hard-pressed to create such delicious irony.

Liberals, seizing on the personal hypocrisy of a midwestern Republican leader, are going ape shit over Hastert’s alleged diddling of teenage boys. Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon demands that “no pity” be given for the former Speaker. The comment sections of left-wing havens like Slate.com are littered with contempt and denunciations of Hastert’s perversion.

I honestly don’t understand how the Left can be so stinging in its criticism of Hastert. Aren’t we supposed to be accepting of the alternative sexual choices of others? Isn’t it bigoted to cast judgment upon those can’t help their sexual preference? And doesn’t social justice warriorism claim that men can’t be raped?

If Denny Hastert sexually abused male students in his role as a teacher and mentor, liberals have no reason to be incensed by his behavior. After all, it wasn’t conservatives who led the effort to rid sex of reasonable limits. Progressives started it, and, boy, do they intend to finish it.

(more…)

Some days I just wanna…

Some days, all I want is the police to violently punish the miscreants who play super victim in public.

It’s like the old Mencken saying, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” Except, instead of cutting jugulars, I want to see some SJWs have their skulls cracked against pavement.

The latest example: A group of students (it’s always jobless college students) at Emory University protested an overnight pro-Donald Trump chalking of the campus. As the little snowflakes descended upon the Emory University building, they chanted commie bromides about how it is their “duty to win” and how they have “nothing to lose but our chains.” The leader of the march, sophomore Jonathan Peraza, demanded university officials “Come speak to us” because “we are in pain!”

If these crybabies think a chalk drawing of Kingfish Trump’s coiffure is painful, I gleefully wonder how they’ll feel about the back of a police truncheon.

The Emory trail of tears is just latest show of pitiful behavior in a long line of academia-enabled embarrassment. Precious angels at Oberlin College are complaining about dining hall food not being culturally accurate. Black students at the University of Albany are faking being attacked by white racists. Super queer and free speech hero Milo Yiannopoulos continues to have his university speeches disrupted by momma’s boys who can’t bear to hear a thought they disagree with.

Every time I read stories of students bitching about how hard and oppressive life in America is, I wish they would get a first-hand experience at real, physical brutality. Upset a non-Mexican wore a sombrero to a kegger? Have you ever had police hounds sicced on you? Or been pummeled by a high pressure hose?

(more…)

Can we at least agree not to call each other Hitler?

Listening to NPR the other day, I caught a story on the haranguing of Muslim refugees by natives in Clausnitz, Germany. A bus transporting migrants to a shelter in the small town was stopped by nearly 100 Germans, who opposed forced settlement in their town by yelling such things as “Get Lost” and “Go Home if You Don’t Like it Here.” Not kind words, but not off the mark either.

While reporting the bus episode, the radio host blithely referred to the protestors as “neo-Nazis.” Her guest, a Canadian immigrant who organizes aid services for refugees, let the Nazi charge go unchallenged. Without a lick of evidence, they both agreed that the protesters were Führer worshippers. The idea that those who resents the forced relocation of foreigners in their town are Hitler acolytes was treated as accepted wisdom. And this was an ostensibly nonpartisan program!

Occasions like this – that is, the assumed maliciousness on the part of ideological opponents – are becoming increasingly prevalent in western democracies. Whatever one’s political leanings, there is a sense that common consensus is gone. One side is right; the others are morally and ethically wrong, and don’t deserve a fair hearing.

How have we gotten to this point?

(more…)