<i.>In the end, all our best intentions, dearest dreams, and highest hopes were not nearly enough. The coming of Kamala Harris, and the various hopeful milestones that it represented -- first Black, first female, first South Asian President -- crashed and burned against the rocks of the same rancorous misogyny that swallowed up Hillary Clinton's hopes in 2016. White woman, or Black, millions of Americans are simply unwilling to envision such a person leading them.
Eight years on, the glass ceiling that broke millions of women's hearts remains, as immovable and unbreakable as ever. Only this time around, top advisor Cedric Richmond found himself pressed into the role that John Podesta occupied in 2016, as the bearer of bad tidings, roughly along these lines:
Candidate Harris will not address you tonight. Whatever happens, we left it all on the field. We will fight to ensure that every vote is counted, and we'll see you tomorrow morning. And so on, and so forth. It's a ritual that Democrats have come to know well -- the grizzled sage, left to preside over the Viking funeral.
For those who hoped against hope, there's no sugarcoating the results, as the various rationales behind them rapidly evaporated. First-time voters? Late deciders? They broke mostly for Trump. That eleventh hour poll, the one showing Harris with a three-point lead in Iowa, a state she didn't even bother to visit? Trump won it overwhelmingly, for the third time, by 13 points.
The high decibel apocalyptic aura of Harris's last couple weeks of campaigning, anchored around the nightmares of further abortion restrictions, and the hollowing out of democracy? Voters mostly shrugged it off, apparently satisfied with Trump's promise not to pursue either of them -- at least, not right away, it seems.
Cruelty won, as did all the "isms," ageism, racism, and sexism. So did sedition, since-the various legal cases involving Donald Trump are melting away as we speak. So will those of his wildest-eyed disciples who smeared feces on walls, crushed police officers in doors, and bayed for the blood of all who opposed their fight to undo Joe Biden's electoral victory on January 6th, 2021. Thanks to Trump's black-robed enablers, and the foot dragging of Attorney General Merrick Garland, The Great Ditherer, the drive to hold conspirators large and small accountable will dry up and blow away, as if the attempted coup had never happened.
The bully boys have wasted no time asserting themselves. The morning after the election, on November 6th, Black folk in some 21 states -- including local political leaders in my area -- got blasted with racist texts cheering on their second enslavement. Moments like these serve as a rejoinder, for those who still cling to the idea, "This isn't who we are" -- Alas, no. On this evidence, this is very much who we are, and always have been.
<Snapshot of what might have been:
Late campaign mailer, Harris-Walz, Take II>
<ii>
So what went wrong, exactly? By all rights, it shouldn't have even been close. In Trump, the Republicans were again banking on a nominee so endlessly aggrieved, so obviously unhinged, and so obviously consumed by the endless need for attention and wealth -- with immediate retaliation prescribed for those who would deny either of those things. Still, unlike in 2020, Trump actually won the popular vote this time, which is a notable achievement, at least on paper.
Harris's candidacy boasted some major positives, starting with the lack of baggage that dogged Clinton's 2016 run. You also had a Democratic nominee 18 years younger than her rival, brimming with superior energy, and smarts -- as her only debate with Trump showed -- and better positioned than her boss to argue for core issues like abortion rights. How could she miss?
Well, as the wags joke, "The biggest party is the Stay-At-Home Party, or, the Couch Party." It's easy to see why, when we compare Harris's totals, as they stand now (70.4 million votes) with Biden's 2020 victory (81.3 million), which means that she garnered 10.9 million fewer than her predecessor. It's hard to imagine anyone succeeding, with such anemic numbers. In contrast, Trump's current estimated total of 74.3 million represents a modest improvement over his 2020 showing (72.4 million).
Put another way, "Trump didn't win a popular vote majority this time because 1-1.5 million Biden voters flipped to him. He won it because over 7 million Biden voters stayed home this time" (Down With Tyranny). So why did they? As we all know by now, exit polls showed the economy as the top issue. Although Harris threw out various ideas for taming runaway food and housing costs -- notably, cracking down on the rampant price gouging that's driving so much current misery -- she offered precious few details for how she'd go about it.
Although it's natural for politicos to indulge in some rhetorical foggery -- to allow sufficient maneuvering room, if they do get elected -- Harris's tightly-scripted presentation left voters largely unmoved, it seems. Like Hillary Clinton had done before her, Harris kept the relevant cards close to her chest. Stick with me, she suggested, and the ride will be great. You'll just have to see how I manage it.
All of which might have passed muster in a different era, except for one fatal flaw -- a refusal to acknowledge how voters felt. On that score, Team Harris's assertions barely differed from those of Team Biden (2024), or Team Clinton (2016): C'mon, folks, what are you moaning about? The stock market's never been higher! Unemployment's never been lower! Wages have never risen higher!
For all of Harris's promises about creating an "opportunity economy," what's striking about America today is how uphill that idea feels. With inequality at rampant levels, how far can anybody move up the ladder, let alone keep heads above water? Any number of statistics will drive home the point, as you can see from Bernie Sanders's blistering statement (see below): "While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry, and want change. And they're right. Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before."
Indeed, pressed by "The View" as to what she might have done differently over the last four years, Harris responded, "There's not a thing that comes to mind." Not surprisingly, Trump seized on that line for his final attack ads, a rhetorical grenade that hit its mark, more than not. The tepidness in some of her proposals -- such as returning corporate taxes to pre-Trump levels of 28 percent, before his signature bill cut them to 21 percent -- undermined Harris's posture as the candidate of change.
Some commentators attribute Harris's skittishness to the influence of her well-connected brother-in-law, Uber's vice president and chief legal officer, Tony West, who apparently urged her to go easy on Big Business (see below). Ugly as it is, and sounds, the story crystallizes the Democratic Party's biggest problem. For the Boomer normies who run the party, flipping the script on most major issues -- whether it's the cost of living, or the slaughter in Gaza -- is simply a bridge too far.
But you can only keep saying, "Eat your spinach, we'll let you know when you can finally have bacon," for so long. And, unless Democrats can offer a more compelling answer -- or, at least, push out the normies who gifted us with this debacle -- their slog back from the wilderness will be lengthy, painful, and complicated.
<"Bjelke Blues": Front cover art>
<iii.>
On to our next question. As Trump and his minions retake center stage, what might they actually do, and how will it affect us? Though comparisons with Weimar-era Germany seem obvious, which we've explored here, the repressive model of Johannes "Joh" Bjelke-Petersen, the notoriously iron-fisted Premier of Queensland, Australia, offers a closer template for how an illiberal America under Trump might actually look.
For those who don't know his story, Bjelke-Petersen ruled Queensland from 1968 to 1987, largely by creative gerrymandering, and total control of the institutions that mattered, including the police, and the bureaucracy -- to impose his blunt force style of governance over every aspect of life. In that regard, this blog post by Edwina Shaw, author/compiler of Bjelke Blues -- a retrospective essay collection -- is illustrative:
"For almost 20 years he stayed in power, despite receiving only 20% or so of the vote through a notorious gerrymander. He drew electoral boundaries around left-leaning areas in wiggly jigsaw-patterns around the state. Funding went first to areas that voted for his party, then to the other members of his right-wing coalition, leaving next to nothing for Left wing Labor electorates. He used the police force as his own personal army giving them unprecedented powers to enter properties under the infamous Health Act. Bjelke used taxpayers’ money to fund his personal vendettas through the law courts. He once sued every member of the opposition party for defamation. Heard enough yet?
"And through all of this obvious corruption – I won’t go into the rape of the environment, jobs for mates, and the police and government corruption that eventually brought about his downfall – through all of this, he appeared on television every night with his peanut-shaped head and blotchy skin, smiling crookedly, bewildering and amusing journalists with his own special brand of obfuscating banter. Remind you of anyone in power now? ‘Don’t you worry about that!’"
As you might imagine, Bjelke-Petersen's brutal, hard-charging leadership took a considerable toll, starting with the exodus of a good chunk of Queensland's best and brightest, who didn't see themselves faring well in a climate where any public gatherings of three or more people were automatically illegal, The Stranglers' experience of this atmosphere when they toured Australia inspired one of their best-known songs, "Nuclear Device (The Wizard Of Aus)," which reached #36 UK as a single, in October 1979 (for the video, see the link below).
Outside of his Queensland fiefdom, "The HIllbilly Dictator" -- as Bjelke-Petersen's detractors dubbed him -- was viewed largely as an unflattering hangover from a different era, Shaw observes: "In Australia’s other states and in other countries too, Joh was seen as a laughable buffoon, a joke. But life under Joh was no laughing matter." Eventually, December 1987, Bjelke-Petersen abruptly quit his post, amid accusations of police corruption and cronyism that made it politically unviable for him to continue.
The fallout dashed Bjelke-Petersen's plans for stepping down in 1988, to mark the twentieth anniversary of his ascent to power. But further efforts to hold him accountable foundered, amid the usual technicalities (see the Wikipedia entry below), allowing Bjelke-Petersen to live out a low-key retirement. One of the last times that Joh made headlines came in 2003, when he unsuccessfully sued the Queensland government for $338 million, alleging loss of income, due to government persecution. Sound familiar? It should.
Like all bad actors, Bjelke-Petersen lived and breathed for an ungodly stretch of time, dying at age 94, in 2005 -- earning a full state funeral, despite his notoriety, although 2,000 demonstrators turned up in Queensland's capital (Brisbane) to provide an appropriate counter-perspective. As our whistle stop tour here suggests, not all autocracies emerge through violent military coups, or counterrevolutions. Sometimes, the co-opting of major institutions, coupled with creative abuses of power, produces the same effect.
<Like January 6th never happened
(...Once the pardons kick in):
Late campaign mailer, Harris-Walz, Take III>
<iv.>
Getting his trifecta of complete governmental control, as he did in 2016, will give Trump all the relevant tools he needs to push America down a Bjelke-style path, starting with the proverbial "phone and pen." We can count on Trump to fire off a blizzard of executive orders that further his various obsessions, like his hatred of electric cars, for example.
And that's before we contemplate the specter of a Trump-dominated Congress, enabled by the Extreme (Supreme) Court -- the same one, let's not forget, that crafted a sweeping immunity right for him, out of thin air -- poised to make the far right's wish list come true. Reports suggest that the first priority is permanently locking down those 2017 tax cuts, with corporate taxes falling to 15 percent.
As critics note, this orgy of tax slashing could add $8 trillion to the national debt, and accelerate Social Security's insolvency by three years -- since Trump wants to exempt it from the taxes that fund it. How his party addresses such inconvenient facts, we haven't heard, but their carefree approach certainly puts social programs at risk. After all, you have to make up those windfalls for billionaires somewhere, and who wants them camping out in the cold and snow?
Or maybe Trump and his allies will take the more straightforward route, such as converting Medicare and Medicaid into block grants -- another long-standing far right priority -- or try to hollow out the Affordable Care Act, by stripping away its more popular elements, such as protections for pre-existing conditions.
Other reports suggest that resuming the GOP's court capture project will take priority in the new year. This makes sense, since the longest-serving Extreme Supremes -- Sam Alito, and Clarence Thomas, at 74 and 76, respectively, will face pressure to retire, and make room for younger, more toxic versions of themselves, who can wreak havoc with a gavel for decades. Someone like Aileen Cannon, perhaps, whose sinking of Trump's classified documents case has put her on the fast track for the promotion.
This, despite the passage of abortion rights measures in seven out of 10 states, including two (AZ, MO) that overturned existing restrictions, and one (FL) that failed, because it fell short of a Republican-imposed 60% threshold. No matter: as Joh himself said, when pressed about the subject of human rights, he responded, "What's the ordinary man on the street got to do with it?" It's a quote that would likely have earned Trump's full-throated approval, had he been made aware of it.
<"And Now (A Word From Our Sponsor): Thanks, Woody..."
Take I/The Reckoner>
<v.>
We turn to the last, most pressing question, what do we do now, and how should we respond? First and foremost: before we plan the relevant marches, and roll out the pink pussy hats once more, we need new leadership, and should not rest, until we finally get it. The aging affluent overclass that runs the Democratic Party needs to step down, because their credibility is now in tatters.
Yes, Biden should likely have exited the stage earlier -- preferably, at the start of 202. But honestly, it's high time for the next generation -- the Ro Khannas, Pramila Jayapals, Jamie Raskins, and the Adam Schiffs, and so on -- to take the reins, and inject some fresh ideas into the conversation. The sooner, the better.
Second: For all the chatter about the Democratic "ground game," what's striking -- and disturbing -- is how short it fell of its promised results. Someone needs to see why so many core voters stayed home, considering how much emphasis Team Harris placed on the stakes of this election. Most likely, they're only hearing from the door knockers at election time, but it's harder to win people over, if you don't show more skin in the game.
Third: Overtones matter in messaging, and the wrong ones will trigger a rush to the exits. I cringed when former President Obama scolded young Black men for their reluctance to embrace Harris's candidacy; winced, when Biden blasted Trump voters as "garbage"; and groaned at the usual barrage of celebrity endorsements - from Lady Gaga to Oprah, Taylor Swift, and beyond -- all of which singularly failed to connect. Word to the Whoopis of the world: next time, just cut the check, and leave the spotlight shining where it belongs, on the nominee.
Fourth: The wrong priorities can be fatal. It's hard to overstate the oddity of Harris campaigning with the likes of Liz Cheney, whose notorious father played wingman in handing his boss, George, the disputed 2000 presidential election. Progressives recoiled, and for good reason. If saving democracy is such a major part of the message, why share a podium with the Cheneys? What's more, it's perilous to start depending on allies whose interests barely align with yours. It's a dangerous strategy, and certainly not a guarantee of political longevity. Or relevance.
Last, and most important: As tough as the results feels, there's nowhere to go, but up. For Democrats, it should mean going back to basics, starting with the sweeping economic reform message that worked n the 1930s. The plain fact is, without weeping reforms, all this blather about creating an "opportunity economy" will amount to just so much empty hot air, as guest poster Patrick Toomey notes on Down With Tyranny:
"I was hoping that a Trump defeat would lead to GOP rounds of recrimination. Instead, we’re now seeing that with the Dems, including the tired tripe that the party is 'too liberal' and must move to a mythical 'center.' Few seem to be addressing economic class issues— the elephant in the room that the party mandarins and their on-air and on-line enablers invariably ignore."
And, from the same post, I'll leave the last word to author/commentator Tom Frank, former editor of The Baffler, who sums it up better than I ever could:
"I have been writing about these things for 20 years, and I have begun to doubt that any combination of financial disaster or electoral chastisement will ever turn on the lightbulb for the liberals. I fear that ’90s-style centrism will march on, by a sociological force of its own, until the parties have entirely switched their social positions and the world is given over to Trumpism.
"Can anything reverse it? Only a resolute determination by the Democratic Party to rededicate itself to the majoritarian vision of old: a Great Society of broad, inclusive prosperity. This means universal health care and a higher minimum wage. It means robust financial regulation and antitrust enforcement. It means unions and a welfare state and higher taxes on billionaires, even the cool ones. It means, above all, liberalism as a social movement, as a coming-together of ordinary people — not a series of top-down reforms by well-meaning professionals.
"That seems a long way away today. But the alternative is — what? To blame the voters? To scold the world for failing to see how noble we are? No. It will take the opposite sentiment — solidarity — to turn the world right-side up again."
Now, that's a sentiment we can all get behind. Onward and upward, for there is much work to be done. --The Reckoner
PS Incidentally, I'm still getting fundraising emails from the Harris campaign, these ones tied to the handful of national races that have yet to be called: "We must stay engaged for the sake of freedom, justice, and the future that we all know we can build together. The outcomes of these elections may well have an impact on our ability to hold the incoming administration accountable -- so let’s give this everything we’ve got."
True enough. But something tells me that someone else will have to be the face of whatever resistance emerges. Simply because, based on this evidence, the current political class is well past its sell-by date.
Oh, and as for the Inaugural? Maybe they should run a laugh track behind it, particularly when they get to the "protect against enemies, foreign and domestic" part. It will make a fitting soundtrack for our return to the dark side.
Links To Go: Hurry, Hurry (Joh's Ghost
Is Bellying Up To The Bar):
AOL: What Trump's Second Term
[Well worth the read, packed with plenty of fascinating detail]
