Showing posts with label evil of two lessers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evil of two lessers. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 4, 2026

Michigan's & Missouri's Primary Reckoning: Will The Money Silence The Many?

 


<Sourced via Facebook surfing: 
A fair snapshot of the mood?>

<i.>
Never mind the pundits, here's the reality behind all their bollocks: voters in two major primaries will finally have their say, after endless months of media bloviating, record levels of dark money spending, and the usual standard issue wish casting will likely end up forgotten -- depending on tonight's outcomes.

In this corner, you have Michigan's Democratic US Senate primary. It's one that pits its handpicked Establishment favorite, Haley Stevens, against the insurgent upstart doctor and former public health official, Abdul El-Sayed. In that corner, voters in Missouri's First District -- situated just outside of St. Louis -- will decide whether to turn out Democratic incumbent Wesley Bell, and replace him with Cori Bush, whom he ousted in 2024.

As it happened, the 2024 Bush-Bell matchup served as a harbinger of things to come. Its major legacy remains the $8 million that the notorious pro-Israeli lobby, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), successfully spent to oust Bush from office.

This time around, they're shelling out a smaller sum ($3 million), possibly because their attention is elsewhere -- judging by the mind-boggling $60 million that it's invested, along with its notorious Astroturf groups, particularly the United Democratic Project (UDP) -- toward the goal of preventing El-Sayed from winning his party's nomination.

For space and practicality reasons, we'll focus on the Michigan primary, whose stakes are billed as so much existentially greater -- though, as Bush and her allies rightly point out, if she wins tonight, it'll mark the first successful reclamation of a seat back from AIPAC. That wouldn't be a small development, either, as Justice Democrats spokesman Usamah Andrabi notes (see link below):

 "I think her victory this cycle would be monumental. We haven't had a lot of cycles to try this out, but this would be the first time that we would be able to take a seat back from AIPAC after they bought one and deliver it back to working-class people."

But we'll focus more keenly on the Michigan primary race, even though there's a lot of overlapping factors between both races -- particularly the spending, which has become the story, much to the chagrin of Stevens and her claque of Establishment backers (Governor Gretchen Whitmer, former Congresswoman Debbie Stabenow, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and retiring Senator Gary Peters, to name a few).

In any event, the Guardian writeup (see link below) offers a crisp, detailed summary of the Bush-Bell rematch, which is no less bitterly contested than last time -- whether you favor Bell's perspective ("
“I’m not a fan of Netanyahu, but I think it’s important to stand with all of our allies"), Bush's (“I credit the fact that we didn’t stop, that we grew the coalition, and then having the loss grew the coalition even more"), or voters tired of money buying elections ("“Blind support for AIPAC candidates is not leading us to anything").

However Missouri's rematch goes, there seems little question that AIPAC's initials are becoming as politically toxic as AI, and its champions' promotions of the data centers needed to impose their consumer surveillance state. But we'll touch on that matter shortly.


<Republican Fearmongering, Exhibit A-Z
(...Some Things Never Change)>


<ii.>
In many ways, El-Sayed's background is much a study in contrasts as the dynamics of the race that's pitted him against Stevens. Critics complain of struggling to square the signature chant of his rallies ("Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare For All!") with an educational background that includes some of the  marquee names of higher education (University of Michigan, Oxford, and Columbia, where he completed his medical degree).

They also question, as Steven does, if someone who's written three books, hosts a public health podcast ("America Dissected, With Dr. Abdul El-Sayed"), and owns multiple rental properties in Ann Arbor, Dubai, and India -- worth an estimated $500,000 -- can claim to genuinely champion working class interests. It's a fair question worthy of a fair answer, though the nitty-gritty of such accusations is more complicated, as we'll see momentarily.

The short answer is that El-Sayed appears to have seized the momentum more successfully in his direction. His basic platform -- including a data center moratorium, Medicare For All, redirecting our $4 billion aid for Israel toward domestic priorities, refusal to take corporate donations, trimming Big Tech's sails, and a wealth tax -- ticks all the relevant progressive boxes as well as a popular discontent that's never seethed more strongly against the billionaire class striving so hard to buy Stevens the promotion she seeks, from Congresswoman, to U.S. Senator.

If its headlines are any sign, the legacy media's reaction to El-Sayed's surge -- most polls show him leading Stevens by a double-digit margin -- ranges from fuddled brow furrowing (New York Times: "Michigan's Tense Democratic Senate Race Poses A Big Test For A Divided Party") and wish casting (The New Yorker: "Will Left-Wing Democrats Reinvent the Party, or Hurt Its Chances in November?"), to blind panic (The Atlantic: "Abdul El-Sayed Fuses Together Two Toxic Ideologies").

The scarifying language of such headlines -- coupled with negative press that dutifully echoes Stevens's accusations of sexism, political dilettantism, and so on -- mirrors the fervent prayers of Schumer and his fellow Boomer Beltway mandarins, that this horrible "democratic socialist" virus is some hideous passing fad that will thankfully melt away, once the little people finally come to their senses.

The only problem with such reasoning, as El-Sayed has repeatedly pointed out, is that it ignores the rottenness of a system that gave Trump such a welcome space to enter the public square in the first place. If the root cause simply came down to voters missing a lecture or two on moderation, how does that hypothesis explain Trump's 2016 and 2024 victories?

If Schumer and company really think so, they may face a rude awakening from voters like Les Lukacs, who cited his lack of health insurance as the reason for casting a ballot for El-Sayed: "
"We can barely afford groceries and gas. I have to make sacrifices - and healthcare is one of them." He doesn't plan to vote for Stevens if El-Sayed ends up losing; it's likely that his sentiment isn't an isolated one.

This reality on the ground is what the punditocracy and its Washington allies seem unable to grasp. When polls show that half of Americans struggling to afford groceries -- and four in 10 cite gas prices as a "significant source of stress" in their lives -- is it really so surprising that voters are tiring of cautious incrementalism as a cure-all for those ills, especially as the basic disease (hint: rampant levels of inequality) continues to get worse?

Why should anyone expect us to tolerate a system that delivers so little, and inflicts so much pain, presided over by a political class that seems hellbent on wrecking our lives beyond repair, even as it refuses to invest the minimal effort of sweeping up the resulting hot mess? Those who insist otherwise do so at their peril...to put rather midlly.


<A Rogue's Gallery To End All Rogue's Galleries:
A Summary Of Corporate Donors Funding Stevens's Campaign:
Is This What She Means By "Having The Receipts?">

<iii.>
If Abu El-Sayed comes across as the cocky overachiever -- one who's variously dissed his opponent as  "the least capable candidate in America," and "a suit with a large AIPAC bank account" -- Stevens seems more like the peremptory prom queen who doesn't understand why nobody loves her anymore, once she's successfully stuffed the ballot box.

It's the reason, perhaps, why she picks public fights about the authenticity of her accent -- as if "sounding Michigan" is sufficient grounds for lifting her over the finish line ("
Let's be real. They're making fun of Michigan," she told the BBC. "They're thinking they're better than us.")


The four-term Congresswoman often seems brittle and defensive on the campaign trail, particularly when reporters and voters press her to justify the corporate largesse being lavished so openly on her behalf -- including $30 million from AIPAC, and $30 million from its various Astroturf groups. Call it the "Justin Timberlake" theory of politics, which focuses on carpet-bombing of images, memes, and slick 30-second ads -- all banking on the idea that even if you don't end up saying "yes," or "uncle" (depending on the circumstance), someone close to you might.

Stevens's go-to response, whenever AIPAC comes up, is avoidance -- as seen from video clips of an appearance in Traverse City, that she abruptly called off, on hearing that influencer Troy Masterson might try to bring it up. You can find them without trouble, I'm sure.

The strangest aspect of the Traverse City affair -- as Masterson and other Stevens critics have pointed out -- is that it forced the scuttling of an event for supporters. Like it or not, disruption goes with the political territory, so if Stevens think it's getting weird already, she may want to get out now. Obviously, that's not happening yet, but so runs the logic of the entitled. Right? Whatever they want, they think it belongs to them -- and hell hath no fury to those who suggest otherwise.

Her campaign materials also play fast and loose with basic facts, whether it's the commercial edited to suggest that former President Obama endorses her (he did, but only for her 2018 and 2020 House races), or suggesting that El-Sayed continued to urge the Uncommitted movement against endorsing the Democrats' 2024 losing nominee, Kamala Harris (he didn't).

She has also thrown shade in El-Sayed's direction for allegedly being demeaning and disrespectful of women, focusing on criticisms of Whitmer and former First Lady Michelle Obama -- though some basic fact-checking from Bridge Michigan casts doubt on these claims as misleading, or relying on a fog of innuendo without specific examples to back them up (see link below). 

How well such attacks stick will become apparent soon enough. But the real reason for Stevens's impatient defensiveness may boil down to the basic disconnect that voters like Saline Indivisible organizer Naomi Ernst -- leading the fight against a data center in her township, that Whitmer actively promoted there -- already recognize:

"You see politicians promising to work for you, and then when it comes time to do something...nothing ever actually gets done, or they kind of go rogue like Whitmer has. If you look at what Dr. El-Sayed says about following the money, it makes perfect sense."

We think so, too.



<What's that old saying again?
"One picture is worth a thousand words...">

<iv.>
But let's set all this stuff aside, for one hot minute. One of the final ironies of today's Michigan primary is that El-Sayed's potential path towards a historic victory -- which would come in November, as Michigan's first Muslim Senator -- is also one being increasingly used as a cudgel to disqualify him. It's the centerpiece of Stevens's argument, after all, that she is the safer bet against Republican Mike Rogers.

On a certain level, El-Sayed's previous experience is slender, based on two stints as director of public health in Detroit (2015-17), and Wayne County (2023-25) -- offices that are worlds apart, Stevens argues, from the messier power dynamics of Washington, D.C., that she already inhabits as an incumbent in the U.S. House of Representatives.

But that argument is equally easy to turn around. One of Stevens's major talking points is her presence on the team credited with saving Michigan's auto industry in 2009. It's the same feel good ad where you'll see the clever editing used to suggest Obama's endorsement of her current Senate campaign -- and while there's no question that win was significant, it happened almost 20 years ago.

Though the auto rescue played out in an economic climate just as brutal as our current one, two questions are worth asking. What role did Stevens actually play? And how is her effort, such as it was, relevant in a climate of absurdly rampant levels of corruption, power abuses, and social inequity? If she's offered specifics on either point, we've yet to see them.

In contrast, wouldn't the Senate have benefited from the presence of someone like El-Sayed, when Obama crafted his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? Surely someone involved in crafting actual public health policy could have improved on a finished product that jettisoned the oft-touted "public option," in favor of buying off the health insurance industry's cooperation.

But how  grand does that bargain look, now that Republicans in power have effectively gotten the repeal they narrowly achieved in 2017 -- simply because Obama's team failed to make the subsidies, on which its business model depended, a permanent proposition?

Various alibis have been raised to explain the oversight -- most of them beginning and ending with, "Those f#cking Republicans" -- but if you're caught in the same old, same old dispiriting shit sandwich that voters like 
Les Lukacs struggle to navigate every day, those alibis sound hollow, and unconvincing.

And, by implication, so do the endless repeated pleas of Schumer, Stevens, and all their enablers, in the Beltway, the public arena and the media, to wait just a little bit longer -- because, well, "help is coming, just around the corner." The only problem with this mantra is that learned helplessness -- or the constant reminders of it -- isn't a winning message in itself. The longer the stomach rumbles without an answer, the more likely the hungry voter is to tune out the message -- if not the messenger.

It's a malaise that felt painfully familiar to civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, and forms the backbone of one of his most cogent, well-written essays, "Letter From A Birmingham Jail" (see link below), famous for its citation of the white moderate as the greatest roadblock to civil rights:

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was 'well timed' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

Time will tell, if El-Sayed wins, on the long-term question of his ultimate electoral appeal But if he wins tonight? Then let these words ring long, and loud, and true, in the ears of those to whom "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" comes all too naturally, and too readily -- because they are more relevant and urgent now than ever, and the real reason for his surge.

So, on this night of all nights -- let us hope that the money does not stifle the many. --The Reckoner


Links To Go (Hurry, Hurry, Before They Buy
What's Left Of Our Democracy Out From Under Us)

Bridge Michigan: Abdul El-Sayed
And Haley Stevens Make Final Push:
https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/abdul-el-sayed-haley-stevens-make-final-push-in-fierce-michigan-senate-primary/

Bridge Michigan: Fact Check: 
Ads Take El-Sayed Out Of Context...:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62q0kkr6k2o

The Guardian: Will Missouri Be The Next Primary Win

Sunday, June 30, 2024

"What's Project 2025?": The Horseracing Of The 2024 Election

<"Just Say No, 
While You Can"/Take I:
Image Source: Institute For Strategic Dialogue
Amendments: The Reckoner>

Reckoner's Note: Alas, this piece turned out to eerily prescient, and more timely than I could ever have imagined, having been written before the so-called Biden-Trump "debate." However, I really need to address it separately, most likely for July Fourth, because this post is long enough already! Suffice to say, though, it confirms practically every point I made here. And then some. With that cheery preamble, read on!

<i.>
Imagine the scene: you're talking with friends at the library, and inevitably, the discussion swings to the 2024 Presidential race. "So what do you think about the election? How do you think it'll go?"

"Well, start with the so-called 'double haters,'" you answer, "or people who don't like Biden, or Trump." You reel off the usual imponderables: what'll the independents do? Which states seem within each for either candidate? Will the A-word (abortion) carry the same weight as it did in the 2022 midterms.

And so on, and so forth, as you explain. "Of course, whatever Trump's spouting out on the campaign trail is nothing, compared to he's dreaming up for Project 2025..."

Your friend furrows his brow. "What's Project 2025? I haven't heard of it."

"Wow, you mean -- you don't know?" You struggle to contain your amazement. "It's his plan to become President For Life, basically, the all-powerful autocracy that he and his cohorts dream of creating."

Your friend begins scribbling in his notebook. "What are the basics of Project 2025?" he asks.

"Well, start with Schedule F, which he tried to implement in 2020. It's an executive order that he'd use to fire some 50,000 federal employees, and replace them with zealots who'd pledge to do his bidding..."

And off you go to the races, breaking down the most alarming points into bullet points, while your friend mostly just listens. When America's most recognized autocracy expert, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, describes the 2024 election as "an information emergency," I'm sure she's encountering similar scenes, like the one you're describing here. Because it's keeping her up nights, too.


<See You At The (Horse) Races..."
Image Source: Institute For Strategic Dialogue
Amendments: The Reckoner>

<ii.>
Even so, you're not prepared to give your friend too much grief. Sure, the Mainstream Media (MSM) has devoted a fair chunk of column inches to Project 2025, but its attention is largely consumed by the approach that it pursued in 2016, indeed, in every election -- the Baseball Game/Beauty Pageant/Horse Race Model of coverage.

You know how that model runs, if you're paying any kind of attention. It's the model that laser focuses on a few cliched questions: Who's up? Who's down? Who's in, who's out? Who's cool, or uncool? Who's relevant, or irrelevant? What trends are dominating today's news cycle?

It's a dead horse that was already starting to stink when I started my own media career, so long ago. What sounded sober and sensible in a less chaotic era, no longer makes sense nowadays, as we'll see. The existential dread, the audible shudder that so many feel, at seeing Trump, the failed coup leader, sharing face  time with Biden, the incumbent President -- as they did on the debate stage, in Atlanta -- is worlds away from the '90s, when complaints about overly bland, polished, Tweedledee-Tweedledum candidates were all the norm.

We saw ample glimpses of the Horse Race Model's limitations in the 2016 race, when Trump became the first presidential contender to resist releasing his tax returns, as the MSM chased the bright, shiny object of his opponent's emails. We all know why Trump fought so hard to avoid scrutiny, of course, once The New York Times finally, belatedly, ran some sort of investigative series in 2018. 

That series showed the Trump origin story -- the crackerjack negotiator, the eminence grise of American business, so far-sighted, that he could see around corners -- for the PR mirage that it was, amplified and magnified by a fog of pure BS. By then, however, Trump was halfway through his presidency, with all the calamitous implications that it implied. But hey, better late than never, right?

What's particularly galling, too, is how much the Times and its MSM cheerleaders clapped themselves on the back, once its series appeared -- since the source material rested largely on documents supplied by Trump's niece. Obviously, those papers contained facts and figures that required further legwork and follow-up, but it might have been nice if they'd managed it all a bit sooner.

After all, Trump's presentation of himself as a laser-focused, uber-business figure  -- one unsullied by the dirty business of politics -- was the centerpiece of his presidential brand. We'll never know how many people might have had second thoughts, if they'd known otherwise (particularly late deciders, who broke decisively for Trump). But without having those details in front of them, how would they ever had the chance to think twice?

Just ask Atlantic City, whose residents paid dearly for the Trump-built casinos that went bankrupt there -- no mean feat, when the house always wins -- thanks to the political establishment that rubber-stamped it. They, too, bought the Trump origin story.

Unlike their residents, the boodlers can simply move on to another place on the public payroll. That disconnect highlights one major problem with horseracing: there is no cure for buyer's remorse, once the inconvenient part of the story rears up. And regrets are such a bitch, when you can't take them back.


<"See You Down The Memory Hole..."/The Reckoner>

<iii.>
The limits of horseracing don't end there, of course. Boiling races down to numbers and personalities dumbs them down to the point of absurdity, and in that respect, the 2024 election coverage is serving up an unnerving parallel to the 2016 version. Ha, ha, hee, hee, that whacky Biden. Can't put his pants on, and chew gum, at the same time! Listen to him yammering about empathy and decency, when folks can't even afford a hamburger. Hey, that stuff's for losers, right?

Ho, ho, ho, Trumpy Bear's back for sloppy seconds. Sure, he has no filter, and he can't string together a sentence, but c'mon, what did you expect? That's just Trump being Trump. He's hours of endless entertainment! 

Amid all this horseracing, and all its obsession with Biden's age, you'd hardly realize that his Republican rival, Trump -- who kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bedside, one of the only tomes he's ever read, cover to cover, or so we're told -- is the same man eager to drag us back to the 19th century. That is, after he cranks up his revenge tour first.

Trump and the Republican Party that he's co-opted so completely are screaming the quiet part out aloud, in ever-shriller tones, about trading America's nearly 250-year democratic experiment for a nakedly dictatorial patriarchy, one that vows to make life a hellscape for anyone who isn't white, rich, and right-wing Christian. This time, they swear, those who resist will pay whatever price is needed to tramp them into the dirt.

But you would never know it, judging by the tepid language that MSM outlets like the New York Times use to report it. The Republican political establishment and its shadowy enablers are merely committed "conservatives" repeating "baseless" accusations about stolen elections, whose nominee's never-ending stream of threats and confabulations are dismissed as so much "bluster," even as his acolytes openly discuss about how to impose their Handmaid's Tale homage on the rest of us.

What's the problem? Well, there's a difference between conservatives, generally defined as persons "favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditionally ideas," per the Oxford English Dictionary, and reactionaries, or those who favor "a return to a previous condition of affairs."  If that's not a succinct description of the January 6, 2021 coup attempt, what is?

By that standard alone, Trump and his acolytes can't ever be considered "conservatives," which makes their plotting against the US government more than merely "baseless." How fitting that both terms emerged during the French Revolution. "Conservative" derives from "conservateur," a term used to identify monarchist parliamentarians who opposed the revolution, while "reactionary" springs from "reactionnaire," and in turn, "reaction,"
 a label generally bestowed on those who favored returning to aristocracy, and opposed any sort of democracy.

One of the essential requirements for a functioning democracy is the willingness to properly describe the people and events that drive it. To continually soft-pedal them does us all a grave disservice, thanks to headlines like this one, from the Associated Press: "Trump Hints At Expanded Role For The Military Within The United States. A Legacy Law Gives Him Few Guardrails."

Or, to put it in plainer English: Trump plans to invoke the Insurrection Act, and send out the military to crush civilian dissenters, should they try to spoil his restoration. Falling back on stock euphemisms fails to convey the horrors of such images, should they ever become realities, which is another limitation of horseracing.


<Even then, they must have known (what we didn't):
Der Spiegel (June 2020 cover)>*

<iv.>
We might pay a lot less attention to all these linguistic gymnastics, without having to account for another occupational hazard of horseracing: the "both-sides-ism" that runs right through the darkest heart of it. MSM thought leaders like Paul Krugman are well-known for their audible shudder about coming across as overly biased, though it's fair to ask, when would the reactionary right ever not accuse of them it? 

In covering campaigns, the traditional journalistic model that Krugman, and the great majority of his peers, has been to quote Candidate A ("I think the Mayor is a crossdressing vandal! I've seen the video nasties he keeps on his shelf at home!"), followed by Candidate B's response ("As Evergreen City's Mayor, it's only fair remind to you that neither crossdressing nor video nasties are illegal, in themselves, and I've never even raised a gardening tool in anger!"). 

Let readers make up their own minds, runs the mantra, and call it a day. We've done our job. But it might fair to ask whether that's still an effective approach, in this age of digitally siloed media, whose viewers can cherry-pick whatever suits their point of view, and ignore whatever doesn't.  Thus, Evergreen City's unfortunate Mayor might never get a real chance to make the case for the defense, or vice versa.

Another fair question to raise is whether all this earnest "both-sides-ism" truly serves the public interest. The desire to avoid the tint of bias at all costs has its comical results -- such as the New York Times's November 2017 feature on an avowed neo-Nazi, "who, just like other humans, eats food and likes Seinfeld," the Columbia Journalism Review noted. "As we wrote at the time, the piece was heavy on banality, but failed to capture the evil that its subject didn’t even try to conceal."

What did the writer hope to convey about his neo-Nazi subject, I wonder? "Hey, I have this thing about the master race rising up -- but Kramer's can collecting still kills me, every single time." Yikes! But even Seinfeld isn't who he claims to be, either, now that his other half (Jessica) has gotten caught funding violent counterprotests at UCLA against pro-Palestinian students. But I digress.

Contrast all this cautious hairsplitting with the European and British press, and you'll find a different model at work. Generally speaking, you'll find a less personality-driven, sensationalistic approach at work, and many writers aren't shy about speaking their minds, when the occasion calls for it. 

Consider how the Guardian's Thomas Frank, for example, immortalized Trump's 2020 loss: "Ding Dong, The Jerk Is Gone. But Read This, Before You Sing The Hallelujah Chorus" (11/7/20), or the question that Al Jazeerah posed, of Britain's next applicant for Prime Minister, Keir Starmer: "Is The UK's Left-Wing Labour Party on a 'Rightward' Path in Election Race?" Obviously, I'm painting in broad brush strokes here -- recall how Jeremy Corbyn's supporters protested the shade thrown their man's way, for instance -- but suffice to say, based on my own experiences in the UK, we could learn a thing or two from our European cousins.

Things have reached the point where it's  difficult to tell the difference from parody websites and their counterparts, as The Big Picture blog points out: "The editorializing and horse-racing of the election, where one side poses an existential threat to our entire democracy, has gotten so bad and so predictable that the parody New York Times Pitchbot account often simply screenshots actual headlines from the paper, saying, 'I can't do better than this.'" Enough said about that one.


<"Just Say No, 
While You Can"/Take II:
Image Source: Institute For Strategic Dialogue
Amendments: The Reckoner>


<v.>
Enough of the complaining. Where, exactly, does all this horseracing leave us? Obviously, in a deeper, darker place than any of us could imagined 30-odd years ago or so, when the right wing noise machine began taking shape. For me, ceding that space -- without a second thought -- is the dumbest thing that the American Left ever did.

It still amazes me how so few on the left -- or their more traditional peers, who allow themselves to wear Birkenstocks, with their suits and ties -- grasped the threat posed by such anger mongers as Fox News, the late Rush Limbaugh, and his current evil twin, Tucker Carlson, to name a few. (The latter duo are the spiritual heirs of Nazi propagandists like Lord Haw-Haw, but that's a discussion for a different day.)

I remember the befuddlement that greeted this new phenomenon, one driven by relentless pugilistic windmilling against some starkly-defined "Other" -- atheists, Democrats, environmentalists, feminists, gays, and so on, Needless to say, the names never changed to protect the innocent, with facts and accuracy -- however Fox and company defined it -- taking a back seat to entertainment.

And, whether progressive or traditional, the prevailing refrain sounded something like this: "Ah, it's just a few whack jobs They only appeal to those who already think that way.
 Who's ever going to watch this stuff? What harm can they do?"

That question's been answered, many, many times, and we all know how that particular movie played out. Still, the far right instinctively grasped what its opponents couldn't accept, or didn't understand -- that changing perception is the key to harnessing public opinion. After all, look how it's working out for them lately.

As I write, we stand on the verge of putting a convicted criminal, serial fraudster, and sociopath back in charge of the same government that he schemed to overthrow, barely three years ago -- and vows to bend completely to his aggrieved ill will, if he gets the chance. This isn't how democracy is supposed to work. Still, going after Fox News, and its acolytes, is a much bigger job, as the fallout of the Dominion lawsuit demonstrates. What can we do about any of this? 

First, start by supporting outlets, that actually do what big boys like the New York Times, or the Washington Post, used to pride themselves on doing -- catching the bad actors with their pants down. Right now, Pro Publica is doing the most significant investigative reporting anywhere.

Pro Publica's series on the corruption of the Supreme Court's far right majority -- a giant salmon here, a luxury RV there -- has thoroughly blown its self-image as some exalted body of legal grand wizards who only float above the rest of us, as they ponder, and rule. More importantly, though, the series ("Friends of the Court") put names to faces, and hard facts to suspicions, codifying the unease that people had long felt about the institution. 

The court's reputation had already sunk to historic lows, long before the series came out. What "Friends of the Court" revealed, however, is that the institution's supreme lack of transparency -- coupled with a taste for living large, and cozy self-dealing -- was far worse than its critics had ever imagined.

Airing these details is the first step in breaking that tired refrain -- "We can't, we can't, we can't do anything about it" --  and putting the enablers on the defensive, until they finally start to address whatever problem is being highlighted. There's nothing that an empty suit fears most, than seeing their career sidelined, or shut down for good, so let's use it to our advantage -- and use it, more often than we do.

My second and third conclusions coincide with one another. As worthy as alternative outlets like Pro Publica are -- or peers like In These Times, Mother Jones, The New Republic, and so on -- we must also recognize, as long as billionaires like Jeff Bezos own newspapers, their coexistence with such established outlets will always be an uneasy proposition, at best. 

Competition is the essence of creative mojo. Just imagine how the '60s rock revolution would have unfolded, if EMI and Decca -- the Beatles' and the Rolling Stones' respective corporate patrons -- had owned the creative marketplace, and simply rolled out more bands like them, assembly line-style. We need to continue pressing for stronger enforcement of current anti-trust law, and stop tolerating market concentration and monopolization as the price of progress -- as the Biden administration is finally doing, for example, by challenging the merger of Ticketmaster and Live Nation.

We also need to look beyond the virtual walled gardens that mega-bullies like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg want us to inhabit for the rest of our lives. Their business models center on making us so dependent, that we can't ever imagine living without them -- that is, until we do.

A lot of older school technologies -- whether it's paper fanzines and flyers, or cassettes and CDs -- are still worth keeping around, for just that reason. The more of our lives that we can keep out of their grubby little hands, the better. The catastrophic transition from Twitter to X should serve as an eternal reminder that when you're playing in someone's space, it's never really yours -- though it may feel that way, until someone takes it away, for good. 

Does that make me a Luddite? Far from it. Like millions of others, I'm active on sites like Ebay, or Etsy, because of the outreach opportunities that they offer -- but I'm also thinking about the alternatives, so that we don't stay permanently stuck in those uber-platform ruts.

Otherwise, we'll just continue the endless cycle of embracing those hot, new, seeming quick fixes that end up putting us out of business. "That's the way it is" doesn't have to stay frozen in time, as the Dead Kennedys' frontman, Jello Biafra, told Psychology Today

“I was married at one point, went to see my wife's sister in New York. It seemed like every third or fourth thing out of her mouth was how much she hated their mother and how angry she was. I thought, you know, this could be me, but it doesn't have to be me. And I'm going to make sure from this point onward, that it's not me.”

Let's keep that spirit in mind as we try and take back our media, which is one of the keys to taking back our democracy. And maybe then, we won't hear the horse race ringing so much in our hardened, jaded ears -- and we can all (finally) get some sleep! -- The Reckoner

Links To Go (Hurry, Hurry,
Before They Fit You For A Bonnet...)

Columbia Journalism Review:
How The Press Covered The Last Four Years Of Trump:
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/coverage-trump-presidency-2020-election.php

Democracy Americana:
What Makes Project 2025 So Dangerous:

https://thomaszimmer.substack.com/p/what-makes-project-2025-so-dangerous

National Public Radio: The Sunday Story:
Media Failings In Covering Trump:

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1198909715

Psychology Today; Jello Biafra Is A Chip Off The Old Block:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brick-brick/202011/jello-biafra-is-chip-the-old-block

The Big Picture: Biden Gets Tougher:
https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/p/biden-tough-israel-russia-border

The Big Picture: The Right Has
A Terrifying Second Term Plan Called Project 2025:
https://thinkbigpicture.substack.com/p/project-2025-thomas-zimmer-trump

USA Today: Fact Check:
Image Of Trump Holding Lit Match...:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/05/01/image-of-trump-holding-lit-match-is-from-2020/73517702007/


(*See the Der Spiegel link for a more complete explanation of the cover story's title, and how it actually translates.)

Sunday, April 28, 2024

No Labels Leaves The Building: What Now, Then, For 2024?


<Mike Luckovich (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
wishes Mitch McConnell a happy retirement,
on his way out of the building...>


<i.>
Slowly but surely, after months of missed deadlines, and postponed reveals, the dream died -- not with a bang, but a whimper, to coin that timeworn T.S. Eliot phrase. On April 4, the forces behind the No Labels curtain finally confirmed what the commentariat had already gathered -- that it wouldn't mount a third party ticket for this year's high stakes Presidential election.

In its public statement, the group blamed a lack of suitable candidates: "No Labels has always said we would only our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House. No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action for us is to stand down."

Or, to put it another way, nobody wants to end up the punchline of a joke, nor their epitaph to read: "I helped Trump regain the White House." Which is why some two dozen-odd names --- ranging from Trump's last major rival, Nikki Haley, to 2016 retreads like Chris Christie, Never Trumpers like ex-Maryland Governor, Larry Hogan, and the West Virginia Gremlin, Senator Joe Manchin -- turned down the opportunity, it seems.

That left Democratic strategist Doug Gordon to tie a bow on the obvious: "It shouldn't taken 30 people turning them down, and tens of millions of dollars spent, for them to realize what was clear all along, they had no path to winning, and would only play the role of a spoiler." 

The basic premise of No Labels -- a joint Democratic/Republican ticket, primed for that ever-elusive commodity of "common ground" -- sounded breathtakingly simple, and infuriatingly head scratching, at the same time. As I often joked, "Does this mean we'll get that dream pairing of some free market militarist, and vaguely progressive-sounding second banana? What's the appeal?"

How would such an ideological tossed salad would ever work? No Labels never explained. Still, the concept appeared to pose a significant threat to President Biden's re-election hopes, especially among so-called "double haters" -- or voters who can't stomach him, or Trump. The group had gotten on 19 state ballots -- greased by its mysterious patrons behind the curtain, and their apparently bottomless checkbooks -- before it pulled the plug. 

Who were these masked men? Don't ask, don't tell. We'll never know, since anonymity is the coin of dark money politics. Thankfully, No Labels and left the building, and we're all the better off for it. Does this mean we shouldn't worry about other third party efforts? That depends, as we'll see.



<"Give 'Em
What They Want"/
The Reckoner>
Right-wing activist Jack Posobiec 
kicks off this year's
Conservative Political Action Conference>

<ii.>
Although Democrats are breathing audible relief, No Labels's announcement doesn't immediately change the unpleasant optics that dog Biden's re-election efforts. His approval ratings remain well underwater -- on a good day, hovering at just over 40 percent, on a bad day, slightly less -- and concerns persist about his age. We're talking about someone who'll be 86, if he actually finishes out his second term -- a Rubicon that many voters seem leery of crossing.

Younger voters have also soured on Biden -- notably, due to Israel's destructive militaristic orgy against Gaza, and lack of progress on priorities like student loan debt relief. How long they'll hold their grudges remains to be seen, especially if Trump's return shows signs of gaining traction again (and the white Christian nationalist police state he openly mulls about vowing to impose -- just read Project 2025 for those grisly specifics).

But let's put those factors aside, and take the arguments at face value. If Biden's past his sell-by date, isn't it time for a political savior, who can lead us to that shining city on the hill? Someone preferably unsullied by current events, and our tribalized politics, of course, who could ride the disaffected vote to an eleventh hour upset.

Might that figure be Cornel West, the rock star academic who
 can boil complex ideas into snappy soundbites ("The ruling class can't ride your back, unless it's bent")? Voters who feel the Democratic Party could never be progressive enough, no matter what it does, those disaffected voters may well be inclined to say, "Go West, young man."

Yet West's intoxicating verbal tonic is one that's also long on rhetoric, and silent about how he'd turn any of his priorities -- a $27 per hour minimum wage, a National Jobs Program to ensure full employment, banning corporate stock buybacks, and so on -- into reality. His campaign website presents them as a string of bullet points, and leaves it there, at least for now.

West's dizzying zigzags -- from the People's Party, to Green Party, and back again, to full-on independent -- also hint at a short attention span that would kill him on Capitol Hill, where philosopher-kings are scarcely seen, for a reason. His lack of political  experience also begs the question, after the dumpster fire of the Trump-era presidency, whether we can ever afford the luxury of training someone on the job.

But West's bullet points are positively encyclopedic, compared to the one-paragraph statements that characterize the "Principles" section of Stein's website. Like West -- for whom Stein also served as campaign manager, during his Green Party phase -- she supports the right to a living wage, food, and housing, the Green New Deal, and curtailing American military interventions. Like West, Stein is equally silent about how she'd make any of those things happen.

There's also the small matter of how Democrats might feel about seeing someone whom they blame for costing Hillary Clinton the 2016 election, coming back for an encore. I suspect they won't be so casually dismissive of Stein's impact as they were in 2016. What kind of opposition research fireworks they'll unload against her, I'll leave to your imagination.


<"Labels, Shmabels"/
Take I: The Reckoner>

<iii.>
All right, then. Perhaps Cornel West and Jill Stein are too flawed to be successful. Might RFK Jr. be the political savior we've been seeking? A look at his website offers a more detailed overview than your standard issue white knight provides. He espouses some classic liberal positions, from the $15 per hour minimum wage, to free childcare, and reining in housing costs. His policy page is fairly detailed -- such as proposals to promote homeownership --  and, in some places, downright hyper-specific (for example, the idea of expanding AmeriCorps, which is laudatory in itself).

How Democrats will square those particular circles with Kennedy's vaccine and geopolitical skepticism remains to be seen. RFK Jr. also has little to say on foreign affairs, beyond (emphasis mine) ending
 "the military adventures and regime-change wars, like the one in Ukraine."  Looking for someone to check  Putin's megalo-tyrannical impulses? Look elsewhere. Otherwise, like most newcomers, he has little to say about foreign policy issues (in fairness, not having been in a position to deal with them).

There's also the small matter of Kennedy's funding, starting with Timothy Mellon -- a billionaire who once stood proudly in Trump's corner, to the tune of $15 million, for various MAGA-related causes. He's since emerged as RFK Jr.'s biggest patron, at $20 million, followed by Gavin de Becker ($10 million), a security consultant for the likes of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

Strangely, though, American Values -- the Kennedy Super PAC, through which his campaign cash gushes -- has returned most of de Becker's money (see link below). But it's well worth asking: does a candidate surrounded (and bankrolled) by the reactionary mega-rich have any right to claim the progressive mantle, and whose interests will he actually represent? 

That's before we get to other small matters, like the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Kennedy's suggestion that the ongoing federal prosecutions of defendants -- the same ones who used batons, bear spray, flagpoles, sticks, and tomahawks that day -- are politically motivated reeks of either jaw-dropping naivete, moral bankruptcy, or sheer stupidity, depending on your mood, or outlook.

Despite his background as an environmental lawyer, Kennedy is also a climate change skeptic, and has shown little appetite for regulations -- although he does support banning liquified natural gas exports. (Biden has paused them.) That desire to "have it both ways" -- coupled with opposition to gun control, Trumpian-style calls for a closed border, and full-throated defense of Israel -- could make Kennedy radioactive to the vast majority of Democratic voters. Time will tell.


<"Labels, Shmabels"/
Take II: The Reckoner>

<iv.>
So, does RFK Jr,'s presence automatically dampen Biden's second term prospects? Not necessarily. First, non-major party candidates typically tend to lose steam as the big day looms closer, and people revisit whatever initial choices they've made.

The classic example is the 1992 election, when Texas billionaire Ross Perot came from nowhere to lead national polls (36%) over Republican President George Bush (30%), and Democratic challenger, BIll Clinton (26%). It was an event that inspired much brow-furrowing and finger-wagging from pundits, as both major parties scrambled to court Perot and his followers.

They needn't have bothered, as Perot finished with 18.9% of the popular vote on Election Day. Although Perot turned in the best showing of any independent candidate since 1912, it failed to win any love from the Electoral College -- because he didn't carry a single state.

Other cases include that of Ralph Nader -- who 
earned 2.74% of the popular vote in 2000, well short of the 5% he hoped to earn for the Green Party, and claim federal matching funds -- but enough to deny Democrat Al Gore the White House. Or you could point to Libertarian Gary Johnson, who averaged 8 percent throughout the 2016 Presidential race, only to bottom out at 4%. Any number of examples will do.

On this evidence, it's hard to imagine a path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for any of this year's upstart class, though how deeply RFK Jr. will bite into Biden's margin remains to be seen. Depending on the poll, Kennedy's support ranges from the high single digits (8-9%), to the mid-teens (15%). Some polls show Kennedy taking votes equally from Trump and Biden, which makes sense, since insurgent candidates can often appeal to different voting blocs that would otherwise have little in common. 

Other polls, like one from NBC News (see link below), suggest Trump has more to worry about -- with 15% of his voters choosing RFK Jr. in a five-way matchup. (Just 7% of Biden supporters would back RFK Jr., if they had the same option.) Yet even the inclusions of West and Stein doesn't prevent Biden from coming out on top, though only just barely -- by two points.

The scenario has prompted the punditry to dismiss the NBC poll as an outlier, although others -- notably, Marist, and Quinnipiac  -- have registered similar results. The verbal barrage that Trump has begun to unleash against RFK Jr. as "a Democratic plant," and "a WASTED PROTEST VOTE," suggests that the former President has already reached a different conclusion.



<"That Same Old Broken Record..."/The Reckoner>

<Coda>
So just where does all this insurgent energy leave us? As anxious as ever, basically, since the country is headed towards the Great Old White Guy Grudge March -- the same one that most of us openly dread, and don't want, so the pollsters say. In a different era, Trump and Biden would already be sailing into the sunset, plotting how to manage the dueling narratives of their legacies, and competing storylines.

Yet it's hard to imagine a different outcome in a nation that long ago slid into gerontocracy, whether we look at the average ages in the US House of Representatives (57.9), US Senate (65.3), or US Supreme Court (63). The doddering, tone deaf politicians we mocked during the '70s, when I grew up, are now as common as Elvis stamps -- like Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, re-elected in 2022, at 89. If we want the big names off the stage, it would help to stop enabling their ambitions. If not, look for them to continue dying at their desks, at least figuratively.

Given this unsavory backdrop of dead men and women still walking, it's not hard to understand why the emotional appeal of third parties -- even after the wreckage they left us in 2016 -- has never been higher. Snappish dismissals and stern admonitions will do little to turn that particularly tide, as Hillary Clinton recently demonstrated, by telling disaffected voters, "Get over yourself." It's Biden or Trump, so shut up, and swallow it, right?

The Boomer-era generation that Clinton represents -- the same one that yanked the economic, social and political ladders up behind them, once they'd achieved whatever they'd achieved -- lacks the moral capital to demand such unblinking compliance from the younger generation it's left to sweep up the mess.

However, the twin demons of ego and aggrandizement continue to muddle the success of such a remedy -- since third parties in America have normally served as convenient vehicles for their standard bearers. 
It's hard to imagine that Cornel West, for instance, really believes he'll occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But as one of the nation's hottest speakers, the idea of a Presidential run, however improbable, will certainly gin up his ticket sales, and his speaking fees.

And what Stein accomplish in what looks like a far lower-key second run is anyone's guess, though at worst, she might score a a book deal, or maybe a high-profile job at some institution or other. And would RFK Jr. even figure in the running, without his surname, and his family DNA? The question answers itself. 

What's more, this year's insurgent class may not leave any major legacy -- whether it's a new political party, or even an advocacy group to promote their ideas -- once the dust settles from this election. That task will inevitably fall to another upstart candidate to reinvent the wheel all over again, leaving us to bemoan our lot, as we always do: "Why aren't there any real choices this year?"

I have a better idea. Let us stop waiting for some self-styled white knight or social messiah to swoop in at the eleventh hour, whose lofty rhetoric will make our eyes water, and eliminate the need for the heavy lifting that real organizational efforts typically require. Because, make no mistake, the climb has never seemed steeper, because the stakes have never been higher. And there is much work to be done. --The Reckoner


Links To Go:
BBC: Democrats Are Worried:
But Will RFK Jr. Take More Votes From Trump?
:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68893186

Rolling Stone: Meet The Big Money Moguls 
Behind RFK Jr.'s Quest To Unseat Biden:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/rfk-donors-trump-investors-celebs-1234975307/

The Hill: Democrats Score Victory
With No Labels's Decision To Call it Quits
: