Tara Reade, Casualty

William Sundwick

No, she didn’t get the timing right. She knew she only had weak corroboration for her accusation that Senator Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, when she was a young staffer in his office.

Alas, it was too late to keep everybody that mattered, including the bulk of the mainstream media, from anointing Joe Biden as the presumptive presidential nominee in 2020. Bernie Sanders, her favorite in the primary, remained silent following her public accusation in late March. He endorsed the former Vice-President anyway. Elizabeth Warren, and every woman being considered by Biden as a potential running mate or cabinet member, jumped at the chance for a full-throated defense of his categorical denial – especially after he appeared on MSNBC May 1 to tell Mika Brzezinski, “It never happened. Never. Period.” Tara Reade’s strongest defense was the withering fire from a retreating Berniecrat crowd, growing fainter by the day, and some more substantive feminist voices like Kate Manne.

Then, Reade’s friend in California, Lynda LaCasse, came forward later, apparently unprompted, with a reasonably powerful endorsement of Tara’s story, which she related a few years after the alleged incident.

Even if some of the details that Reade stumbles over cannot be corroborated (like the Senate complaint about harassment in Biden’s office), “absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,” as Kate Manne reminds us. This is not a legal proceeding, nor a civil case, but a classic case of survivors reliving trauma, after long simmering shame and embarrassment. This is what #MeToo was all about.

In any case, “Believe Women” never meant that all women always tell the full truth about their experiences, only that they be given the benefit of the doubt when they come forward. Tara Reade has been given that, and only a fringe has sought to defame her (notably, not Biden himself). Both she and her accused are presumed innocent.

But, as we know, truth often comes down to “he said, she said.” Some feminists have noted that Reade’s accusation accurately portrays who Biden really is – even if this specific case is dubious. Much in his public persona suggests he comes from an extreme patriarchal culture. His admitted “handsiness” and other behavior has made many women uncomfortable, even if falling short of sexual assault. Some have labeled him “creepy.” His presidential campaign is trying hard to focus on the alternate public image of “decent old Uncle Joe” – not difficult versus the twenty accusations his opponent faces!

And Biden’s defense is bolstered by a #MeToo postulate: “there’s never only one.” It seems that Reade is the only one, as no credible secondary victims have yet appeared -- after at least six weeks of non-stop media coverage of her allegation. But Christine Blasey Ford had no credible secondary victims either. The main difference between her case two years ago and Reade’s is that Blasey testified under oath and took a polygraph about what happened to her in high school. Reade has done neither.

Most of these ministrations about trying to determine the “truth” are irrelevant, anyway. The November election will be about far more critical issues. If proven true, Reade’s accusation would force the Democratic Party to tackle the unprecedented task of overturning duly certified primary results to replace Biden. The most likely result of that would be disarray and ultimate defeat for the Party in November. Is this Reade’s hope? It certainly is not the hope of her friend LaCasse – who still plans on voting for Biden.

If we conclude that Reade’s story is too flimsy to believe, she is still a casualty of the campaign. She should have anticipated this outcome. Maybe she did but chose her timing, regardless.

Power of Denial

William Sundwick

Under increasing pressure to deal with Tara Reade’s allegation of sexual assault, Joe Biden went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to reiterate his campaign’s official position – flat denial. “It never happened.” The campaign had already sent appeals to supporters to not stray from that line.

Tara Reade shared her 27-year-old story only with a few intimates, until this March, when she went public on a podcast to announce that she was sexually assaulted in the halls of the Senate by then-Senator Joe Biden, for whom she worked as a junior staffer. The charge was old, and there is no documentary evidence to corroborate it, but three friends and a brother have come forward recently, following interviews from multiple investigative reporters.

So far, the only “evidence” for skepticism of Reade’s story is vague suspicion of her motivations, and some inconsistencies in her accounts.

Yet, the response from Biden’s supporters, especially potential running mates and cabinet appointments, implies satisfaction with the denial, often citing Biden’s past legislative efforts on behalf of women, especially the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Where does that leave the #BelieveWomen trope now?

The oblique support for Biden will likely persist. Deny, deny, deny is a time-honored political strategy. If fewer women turn out in November, they at least won’t be voting for Trump -- considering his even more egregious past behavior!

Deniability is still plausible. Biden’s campaign can reason its margins will still hold for myriad other reasons.

Most importantly: Biden remains the only thing standing between us and the apocalypse!

What Happens in Iraq Stays in Iraq?

What Really Did Happen in January?

William Sundwick

On January 3, we received news that a U.S. drone had killed Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani while he visited militias in Iraq. He was allegedly the second most powerful man in Iran, a national hero branded by the U.S. as a terrorist. For about one week, the news cycle was dominated by fear of all-out war between the U.S. and Iran.

Iran responded by launching 16 missiles into a U.S. occupied Iraqi air base near Baghdad, with injuries but no fatalities. Diplomatic notes relayed by Swiss intermediaries indicated that this would be the full extent of Iran’s retaliation, for now. Then, as if by Karma, an Iranian missile mistakenly downed a Ukrainian airliner near Tehran’s airport, killing all 176 aboard (many Canadians but no Americans). Street protests in Tehran again turned against the government – as they had been before the drone assassination – giving little respite for the Ayatollah.

News media promptly abandoned talk of potential Iranian cyberwarfare attacks and other doomsday scenarios that had been so prevalent in the preceding week. It was back to the Senate impeachment trial and a feud brewing between two Democratic presidential front-runners.

What happened? Was there really such confidence that nothing would come of such a brazen violation of international law as assassination? The Iraqi parliament overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution that all U.S. forces leave the country immediately. Are we so jaded that we just shrug off these incidents as a natural consequence of the still-legal Global War on Terror (GWOT)? In domestic U.S. law, if the killing is in war, it’s not illegal!

It’s useful to look at a consistently erratic U.S. policy toward Iran, and the Middle East in general, stretching back decades – arguably to the 1950s. In 1953, a joint MI6/CIA coup d’etat successfully overthrew the popular prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. His crime: seeking to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The young monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza-Pahlavi became a U.S. puppet, with newly established dictatorial powers (previously Iran had been a constitutional monarchy with most powers devolving to the Majlis and government). At about the same time, the height of the Cold War, U.S. and British oil interests began consolidating their influence over the absolutist monarchy across the Gulf – Saudi Arabia. At that time, control of the huge oil reserves around the Persian Gulf waxed very large in strategic western planning. It was imperative that the Soviet Union not gain control over the region, restricting access to those resources – any political instability in the littoral nations was actively discouraged.

That was then. Today, it is more difficult to understand the importance of that geostrategic principle. Both the U.S. and Russia are self-sufficient in fossil fuel resources, and the world in general needs to collaborate in reducing its dependence on all carbon-intensive fuels. Oil just isn’t a big thing anymore. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran realize this. Yet, their economies depend on oil revenue. And, that’s not the extent of the competition between the two regional would-be hegemons.

When Iran finally succeeded in overthrowing the American puppet Shah in 1979, their revolution was driven by two fundamental precepts, to extricate the Americans and to establish Iran, seat of the Shia sect of Islam, as the spiritual center of the Muslim world. The first of these put them on a collision course with U.S. foreign policy, the second with the Saudi monarchy which claimed full control of the holy cities of Medina and Mecca. Saudis hosted the Haj each year, just as the Ottoman Empire had done until its retreat from Arabia in World War I. It also claimed religious hegemony over Muslims worldwide. Now Iran was challenging that hegemony.

But it was the U.S. that ordered the assassination of an Iranian general in Iraq. Not Saudi Prince Mohammed bin-Salman. The U.S. had even encouraged and aided Saddam Hussein in invading Iran in 1980, leading to an eight-year-long struggle with thousands of casualties, and ultimate Iraqi defeat. Why?

This is where the intricate patchwork of weak nation-states, ethnic enmities, and fragmented alliances among the various nations in the region enter the picture. It’s an old story, going back to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Iraq and Syria, in particular (perhaps Lebanon and Palestine/Israel as well) have never been successful independent states – their peak prosperity and stability was in those late Ottoman days, and as European protectorates later. Ethnic and sectarian tensions have riddled those countries ever since. The oil era was characterized by a monopoly situation, where the region was the only supplier to many world markets. The petty players of the Arabian Peninsula (UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Yemen) also enter the picture. They are the periphery of Saudi power, always vulnerable to exploitation by the Kingdom’s rivals, like Iran. Indeed, since 1979, Iran has become far more aggressive in its efforts to do just that. The Quds Force of proxy militias in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, created and directed by Qasem Soleimani, became Iran’s vanguard for establishing regional hegemony over both U.S. interests and Saudi Arabia’s.

But none of this explains why the U.S. felt it needed to assassinate him. Everybody knew he would simply be replaced by another commander. There was no explanation given of any “imminent” threat. Was it simply a distraction from the President’s impeachment trial? By the final week of January, the episode remained a mystery. Iran, to its credit, responded in a measured, rational manner (perhaps merely due to embarrassment over the mistaken downing of the airliner).

The news media have grown weary of trying to solve the mystery. Perhaps it’s just “too complicated” to garner enough eyeballs or clicks. Adam Schiff’s eloquent summaries of the impeachment case and Bernie Sanders’ spurned handshake after the last Democratic debate make for much more entertaining speculation – they’re not so complicated!

Leftist or Liberal?

Where Do You Fit?

William Sundwick

Modern liberalism goes back a long way. Let’s start with John Locke in the 17^th century. He came up with the idea that governments exist to serve the needs of the people. Obvious to us now, but directly opposed to the divine right of monarchs. He was influential even in his own lifetime.  The Glorious Revolution of 1688,  establishing the supremacy of Parliament, was a Lockian idea.

All contemporary democracies are fundamentally liberal structures. The tension with the authoritarian right visible today in the United States and Europe has more to do with anxiety about who should be part of the polity than what that polity should provide its members.

In the 19^th century, tensions emerged with the first industrial revolution. Karl Marx became the icon for those who saw politics as a conflict of power wielded by the owners of capital over those who produce their wealth (workers). That was then. Now, anticipating a “fourth industrial revolution,” it is becoming clear that wealth tends to perpetuate itself – it doesn’t really depend on workers at all! Workers have lost most of the power gained over 200 years of struggle and liberal governance.

Economic prospects seem bleak for all who aren’t plugged into the capitalist wealth machine (mostly residing on Wall Street). It’s the current version of Marx’s alienation of labor. Yet, we’re loathe to divorce ourselves completely from the ideas of freedom and social contract in that very old liberal tradition. The liberal solution to the problem of alienation is based on disincentives for “excessive” accumulation of capital. Primarily, redistribution of wealth via taxation. Real leftists reject this solution as not going far enough to redress the imbalance of political power. And, political power is more than mere economic resources – it’s cultural. Liberals retort that leftists are guilty of “class reductionism.” Liberal societies, after all, allow for social mobility, right?

Class is the focus for the Left in the 21^st century more than wealth -- leave wealth to the liberals, they say. Yes, money is a common denominator in acquisition of political power (especially in the U.S.), but what the Left wants is a reversal of the dynamic behind ascendance of “elites.” Liberals may choose to make everybody happy with more money (Universal Basic Income is the current hot topic in liberal, and neoliberal, circles), but Real Leftists want to throw out the “money people” (Wall Street) from government altogether, feeling that an entirely different class should be in charge. Paradoxically, in the U.S., Donald Trump was supposed to be the kind of person the working class could get behind. Except, of course, he is the bastard child of Wall Street to begin with. Could a Bernie Sanders be the best answer? It’s populism, whether left or right.

Liberals generally counter populism with attempts at making everybody’s life more comfortable. It’s not about power, but comfort. If you give people enough stuff, maybe they’ll go away. Pitchforks come from more than discomfort, says the Left.

If the real contest in democracies is between classes and how much influence they can wield in government, then we should explore what defines these classes – the ins versus the outs. While it sometimes seems that multi-party parliamentary systems have more flexibility in accommodating class struggle, American political history also provides examples of realignments of the two major parties over time.

The Democratic Party of today is a strange (by historic standards) coalition of apparently divergent class interests – Wall Street capitalists find common cause there with communities of color and others who define themselves as marginalized, and with the well-educated minority of the population seeking to protect their privilege. The Republican Party seems to consist of a combination of “self-made” (allegedly) capitalists and culturally conservative religious communities, provincial rather than cosmopolitan in outlook (“people like me” versus “the other”). This bipolar party structure leaves those with strong left-wing convictions no home. It’s usually a story of compromise for American leftists – how much can they stomach to call themselves a Democrat?

So, what do American “leftists” believe? They despise liberals as much as the right-wingers in the Republican Party do. Yet they understand the economic structure of society to be based on exploitation of the labor of people like them. They no longer believe they can achieve “the American Dream” of one day becoming a successful capitalist themselves, probably not even their children. Privilege is so baked into the “elite” classes, who mobilize to protect it, that extraordinary political means are necessary to change it. They don’t want crumbs from the liberal establishment – they want power! How do they plan to seize it?

I have not met a single American Bolshevik – people who believe in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  If there ever were such animals, they probably all died out, or were co-opted, sometime around mid-century, during that unprecedented postwar prosperity with high participation of organized labor. Racial identifications with the Left persisted into the 1970s. But co-optation, and intimidation via police violence, mostly put an end to that. Women and young people? We’ve seen some organizing success with women recently (#MeToo movement), but young people will likely be co-opted by forgiveness of student loan debt – and higher starting salaries. That remains to be seen.

Anybody still committed to the Left imagines using social media to mobilize large numbers of people behind left-wing political candidates – and, doing it fast enough to save the planet from ecocide. The media message is crucial, but the goal is to ultimately seize victory through the ballot box. They expect great resistance here, however. Voter suppression and gerrymandering of legislative districts present real threats. And the judicial branch of government appears less friendly with each passing year. But seizing power democratically has long been the hallmark of Democratic Socialists and social democrats alike – the latter not necessarily committed to eliminating capitalism, anyway, hence of questionable “leftist” credentials.

Despite all the sniping at the “Democratic establishment” and resentment of “academic elites,” there remains a basic respect for democracy among the American Left – they have bought into the fundamental liberalism of the last three centuries. My bias here tells me that the liberal project is working. The differences between leftist and liberal will lead to a synthesis: a “Left-liberal” or “Liberal Socialist.” More leftists will be co-opted into the elites, convincing others that, given more attainable education, they too can become part of the governing elite.

The only ones left behind will be those who choose entrenched community traditions over current economic/political reality: otherwise known as conservatives. Looking inward and backward always succumbs to looking outward and forward. 

Great opinion piece from Slate -- follow-up to "2020 Campaign Notes" -- Joe Biden, the counter-intuitive candidate?

2020 Campaign Notes

Warp & Woof Has Opinions

William Sundwick

Twenty-two candidates and counting*. That’s where we stand with Democratic presidential contenders for 2020. The first Democratic debate will occur late next month, and the bar for inclusion on the debate floor is low: either a 1% showing in three different authorized polls or 65,000 unique donors spread over 20 or more states. As of May 9, 18 of the 22 declared candidates had met one or the other of these easy requirements. There will be two nights, with each candidate assigned randomly to one. That means the leading candidates may not even be on the stage together in Miami.

So, what are we voters to make of this field? Do we know enough to distinguish platitudes from real policy proposals? Does it even matter? Perhaps the best way to choose in the primary is that “gut feeling” about the candidate that policy wonks despise.

It seems clear that not all 22 of the contenders really think they could become the 46^th President of the United States. Reasonable guesses about their motivations for running include advancement of their respective political (or financial) careers, or possibly a cabinet post in the administration of whichever one of them wins. We will see maneuvering as the campaign season progresses, with lower-ranking aspirants dropping out and throwing their support to one of the leaders, hoping for whatever rewards this may provide. It might be fun here to speculate on where the candidates fit on the political spectrum.

As it looks now, trying to accommodate both their backgrounds and publicly announced policy positions, a rough sorting of leading candidates – from left to right – might look something like this:

Sanders à Warren à Booker/Williamson à Harris à Buttigieg/Castro à O’Rourke/Gabbard à Inslee à Gillibrand à Klobuchar à Bennet/Hickenlooper à Biden/Delaney

Only 16 names appear in the schema above. Among the others:

•           Andrew Yang has made a splash with a fervent defense of UBI (Universal Basic Income, a set amount of money payed out to every citizen, no work requirement, via monthly check),
•          Mike Gravel (88-year-old former Senator) has a campaign run by two teenagers based on dismantling U.S. imperialism,
•          Tim Ryan and Seth Moulton (two Congressmen who opposed Nancy Pelosi for Speaker),   

•       E ric Swalwell (another Congressman who is trying to capitalize on his cozy relationship with MSNBC hosts, and focus on gun control),
•           Wayne Messam (mayor of Miramar, Florida – a bigger city than South Bend – and he’s African-American).

All of these are probably best seen as quirky opportunists, devoid of a solid place in the left-right spectrum.

Without going into nitpicking about how I came up with my idealized spectrum, it’s worth noting that none of the major candidates, except perhaps the two front runners, Sanders and Biden, see any advantage in clearly articulating where they see themselves on this spectrum. Bernie is happy to be the darling of the Left. Biden is happy to anchor his support among older “moderates.” They both believe that victory in November 2020 will belong to whomever can capture that respective territory. The rest aren’t so sure, so they appear to shift ground from speech to speech, interview to interview. That makes it difficult to place them on a spectrum.

Nobody knows the most “electable” posture for a candidate – it may not even be related to any policy positions. It may come down to who they are, not what they propose. It seems supporters of one candidate or another will be totally convinced that THEIR candidate is MOST electable. Polls show a range of results for one-on-one matchups against Trump, but they tend to defy easy analysis. Most major candidates can probably beat Trump. If there is a bias toward beauty vs. age, that certainly doesn’t explain Sanders and Biden sitting on top of those polls. Youngsters Buttigieg and O’Rourke do relatively well, but they’re not at the top. Gabbard has gone nowhere.

A presidential landslide would be good. That is what’s needed to retake the Senate. More Republican incumbents this time will be facing re-election contests (22), fewer Democrats (12). Unfortunately, most of those Republican Senators have well-established constituencies, difficult to break unless an extremely strong top-of-ticket Democrat is nominated in Milwaukee. Mitch McConnell is up for re-election in 2020, and could be defeated even if the Senate doesn’t flip.

Should impeachment be on the table before the election? Speaker Pelosi, as of now, is reluctant to embrace it. Yet, some presidential candidates are endorsing it (Warren, Castro, Harris, Moulton). Of course, the presidential candidates saying they support impeachment means it’s not an issue if they win! Perhaps that’s why it’s easy for them to support it, but hard for the current Speaker of the House.

Warp & Woof has opinions on the election campaign. Rule number one: don’t worry about labels. Republicans will call any and all Democratic policy proposals “socialist” – Bernie’s embrace of the “Democratic Socialist” label means nothing to voters, unless they plan on voting Republican anyway. And, his supporters need only point to real leftist commentators who dispute that he even is a true-blue Democratic Socialist (more a social democrat, in the European mold). But, if your middle class, or upper middle class, sensibilities cause you to feel funny about a socialist label, there is always Elizabeth Warren, who has virtually indistinguishable policy proposals from Bernie (even more radical, in some cases), but claims, like FDR, to be “saving capitalism.”

Moving rightward along the idealized political spectrum above gets you nothing except hedging your bets on what focus you want. It’s more a matter of style than substance. Jay Inslee, for instance, is the “climate” candidate, but his detailed climate plan* differs little from Beto’s, introduced a few days earlier. Booker is the “cities” candidate, but we all know that the American economy relies on more than urban production -- if there’s more money concentrated in cities it’s because that’s where the capitalists are. Gillibrand wants to be the “women’s” candidate, but half of us are men. Pete is very slick – but who is his base? (If well-educated LGBTQ folks, fine, but how many of them are there?)

Warp & Woof thinks it’s obvious that going all the way to the right, for Uncle Joe, would be tantamount to an abject surrender to Republicans – even if he wins. He didn’t represent the best of the Obama years, but was likely a “balance” V.P. candidate.

*latest news, since drafting this post, Montana governor Steve Bullock and New York mayor Bill De Blasio have announced (#23 and #24, respectively). Neither of them has earned a place in my spectrum yet. And, Jay Inslee has revealed a second climate plan, more comprehensive than the first, falling just shy of where the Ocasio-Cortez/Markey Green New Deal landed in February.

2018 Election Recap

Blue Ripple or Wave?

William Sundwick

It didn’t take long after the 2016 election for organizing to start. The Women’s March the day after the Inauguration was an affirmation of public disdain for the newly elected president and everything he stood for. So angry, yet so positive. The packed Mall was a marked contrast to the nearly empty Mall the day before, for the Inaugural. And, true to form, the new president lied about it, creating his own narrative out of whole cloth. It was the beginning of “alternative facts,” which we would see much more over the next two years.

As expectations headed successively lower for this president, planning for the 2018 midterm elections became a major preoccupation. The first nationwide referendum on the Trump era would be held on November 6, 2018. But it became apparent that not all voters agreed about him. How many would care enough to vote? Which ones? Which specific awfulness would motivate them most? Would there be so many that voters would just throw up their hands in disgust, and refuse to participate?

The Democratic Party needed a strategy. They needed to discover what would motivate voters most viscerally, much as the Republicans (and Trump himself) had succeeded in doing the last two election cycles.

Would it be the piggishness toward women? The semi-overt racism? Charlottesville or Vladimir Putin? How about the attempted repeal of Obamacare? That one was a wider Republican disaster, not just the President’s. Had Bernie Sanders brought enough socialists “out and proud” to make inequality and class struggle cool again? (After 100 years!)

In 2017, something eye-opening happened in Virginia. A huge blue wave was coming toward the Old Dominion. Was it a dress rehearsal for the nationwide elections the following year? In the event, it was more about fresh faces, and women, than about issues. But we have seen Medicaid expansion and dedicated funding from Richmond for Metro despite the wave not being quite complete in the General Assembly. It needs to wait until next year.

In 2018, the two-year-long organizing of the Resistance was about to meet its first real test. There were so many organizations: Indivisible, Our Revolution (the Berniecrats), PDA, PCCC, DFA, OFA, and DSA (Democratic Socialists of America, sounding almost like a third party, but not quite).  Indeed, from the viewpoint of one of those newly “out and proud” socialists, it seemed that the left had not seen better days in the USA for just about a century (certainly not since the New Deal).

The results of the November 6 elections did not, in the end, support such giddy optimism. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made a big media splash after winning her Democratic primary but has been punching above her weight class ever since – we wish her the best, but it’s going to be a long, hard slog on Capitol Hill.

The Bret Kavanaugh hearings did galvanize women, likely contributing to many female Democratic candidates’ victories. But there may have been a reverse effect as well, in some races (North Dakota?). 

This year’s results, like last year’s in Virginia, were spectacular in the House, and more than impressive in statehouses and governorships (six statehouse flips, seven governorships so far). Many states, especially red ones, were willing to jump on non-partisan ballot initiatives. Had they relied on a Democratic candidate to push them, many would likely have failed.

A gun control measure passed easily in Washington. Decriminalizing recreational marijuana passed in Michigan, medical marijuana in Missouri and Utah. Minimum wage increases passed with ballot initiatives in Missouri and Arkansas. Voting rights were restored to ex-felons in Florida. All these initiatives passed easily -- even as Democratic Senators went down to defeat in Missouri, and maybe Florida, too.

More than ever, it seems that whether you vote for a Democrat or a Republican depends on where you live and who you are. It isn’t really about issues, it’s about tribes. Tribalism is growing, not subsiding. Sometimes, however, demographics do change. Virginia is now a classic example: it is more diverse, more suburban, better educated than twenty years ago. It’s seen a bluification. But some rust belt and rural states in the Midwest are undergoing redification. They experience a brain drain and decline of their cities and educational infrastructures. This seems to be true of Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri. But, even here there continue to be blue oases within those red states (i.e., cities). House seats can be won by Democrats in such places, and in this year’s elections many were.

Certain indicators can predict accurately how you will vote. And, the myth of telecommunications bringing us closer together was clearly exposed in these last two election cycles. The Internet age has contributed to greater tribalization, not less. The indicators are:

• ·         How old are you? (18-to-29-year-olds are Democrats, if they vote; 65+ are mostly Republicans)
• ·         How close do you live to your next-door neighbor? (if more than 200 yards, you’re a Republican)
• ·         Where did you go to school? (it’s too much to say that only non-college-educated are Republicans, but education does matter)
• ·         What color is your skin? (this one is at the end of the list on purpose, because it’s well-known, but is not as decisive for brown people as you might think)

It would seem this makes pollsters’ jobs easier. But, for some reason, they still crank out those polls every election. Why don’t they just look at Census Tracts? The answer lies in the eternal uncertainty of who will show up to vote!

This election, turnout was huge – rivaling presidential years. But, contrary to Democrats’ assertions, large turnout, in some states at least, went against them. You can’t assume that “the people,” when engaged, will vote Democratic. See the list above. Many people in many states are afraid, afraid of a future where they may not enjoy the privileges they have always known. They live in anticipation of an ebbing of their influence. They’re old and dying, as is their way of life. And they are still voting. They vote for candidates who project their fears, “Make America Great AGAIN”. 

These people didn’t vote for or against health care, breaking up big banks, the minimum wage, or even “socialism”. They just wanted to be younger! They wanted things the way they used to be.

But, then, many looked forward rather than backward. They likewise didn’t vote for specific issues, just the future in general. For both groups, it came down to personalities, and a non-rational message of hope. It may have been delivered by either an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or a Steve King.

In the end, and it hasn’t ended yet (recounts still going on), Democrats will likely pick up more seats than any time since the post-Watergate midterms of 1974. Perhaps, even more seats than Republicans flipped in 1994 or 2010. And, with pick-ups in governorships and state legislatures, the 2018 midterms were clearly more than a ripple. Those ballot measures were all leftish (except some new taxes, which failed). Looks like a wave to this observer!

Locally, the Virginia Congressional delegation, formerly seven Republicans and four Democrats, reversed to seven Democrats and four Republicans. Deep blue Arlington flipped its sole County Board seat not held by a Democrat to a newcomer, young Matt de Ferranti. 

Whatever losses Democrats incurred in the Senate, after all recounts, can probably be made up in 2020, when Republicans must defend some difficult seats, just as Dems did this time. Beto O’Rourke can try again vs. John Cornyn. And, the field of Dem candidates will only increase.

In the meantime, the House can investigate the administration, looking at Elijah Cummings as chair of the House Oversight Committee. It can block legislation, yes, a “do nothing” Congress might be the right prescription in these times. And, Nancy Pelosi, as presumptive Speaker, is at least as talented a politician as Paul Ryan.

Most important now, Democrats must frame a message that can resonate with voters in 2020 to burnish their brand – even in those red states -- if they want the wave to continue.

American Politics for the 21^st Century

Making the Old New Again

William Sundwick

Something has happened to the American political order in the last few years – both before and since the last Presidential election. Neither major political party is “your father’s” Democratic or Republican Party. Partisans in both parties are convinced that the nation they were taught to love and cherish is in grave danger. Yet, no clear signs of a path forward are visible. Is the reality of party politics so different from past elections? Or, are differences merely more amplified now, since the political center seems to have collapsed? How much time do we have to get our house in order? Does it even matter? And, if it does, what can we do?

I maintain that it does matter, and time is short enough that we must begin now to cement our legacy. We need to prepare the next generation of Americans for their ultimate responsibility -- saving the Republic!

What happened?

It’s a fuzzy timeline, but sometime during the Carter administration (late ‘70s), the Democratic Party started its long, slow disintegration. At first, it was mostly about Democratic voters disenchanted with a lot of semi-amateurish pols clumsy at maneuvering the machinery of government and diplomacy (Hamilton Jordan, Zbigniew Brzezinksi).  Only when Carter lost his re-election bid, after a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy, did it become clear that bad things were happening in the Party. Ronald Reagan was given the undeserved gift of an opposition increasingly embroiled in its own internal dissensions. Those only increased in intensity through the 1980s. A three-way election in 1992 allowed the ultimate Democratic assassin, Bill Clinton, to emerge as the unlikely party leader. His “Third Way” centrist cabal, touted as the Democratic Party of the “future,” amounted to the Party’s surrender of principles going back to the New Deal and Great Society.

Meanwhile, a new ideology was growing in America. It was an ideology from the right. As the Cold War waned, all those John Birch Society anti-communist hawks needed a new target. They had money, mostly from oil. Their money was behind Goldwater in the sixties, too, but wasn’t as well-organized then. The Koch brothers became the new czars of the movement. They bought influence and politicians. They even bought academic institutions (like the Libertarian economics department at George Mason University here in Virginia).

Simultaneously, perhaps due to some of the same money (no evidence here – just my conspiracy theory), many religious denominations -- including factions of the College of Cardinals -- found success by touting fundamentalist, very conservative social interpretations of America. Protestants called themselves “Evangelical” – as in spreading the Gospel – but were, in fact, spreading a quite different theology than other Christian and Jewish religious traditions.

Both groups shared a common seething anger at the established social order. They became obsessed with a radical “burn the house down” apocalyptic vision. Only true believers would be lifted up in the “shining city on the hill” that President Reagan referenced. The others be damned!

Thus, the conservative “revolution” had two legs – Libertarian-oriented billions from the Koch’s and others, and devoted religious followers of many denominations, especially in the heartland and the South. Only the third leg was missing -- an appealing messenger. Reagan was soothing, George W. Bush was folksy – but, it took Donald Trump to make the message visceral!

Hadn’t Obama’s two terms undone any of this? Nope. He, and the Democratic Party, were far too devoted to compromise. His “Kumbaya moments” with Republicans continued to seal the fate of progressivism in the Democratic Party that began in the Clinton years.

Are We Really in Decline?

Many Americans are in a political funk these days. They feel separated from the power structure and are resentful of it. Democracy as an ideology seems to be in decline– not just in the U.S., but around the world. Much of it has to do with the colossal growth in the power of multinational corporations. They seem to be a higher sovereignty than the nations that host them. And, they are not necessarily public, either.  They may be closely held, even family owned. The Trump Organization and Kushner family enterprises are not atypical around the world. Still, much of the world’s population is now focusing its hopes and aspirations on these corporate powers, not their own country. It’s called “globalization.” And, it has its own political ideology – known as “neoliberalism.” Neoliberals have no national allegiances, but only worship the global market. True enough, this ideology promotes international peace, but tends to exacerbate class and race warfare. It may even have created a counter-ideology, “neo-Marxism,”

While much of the world is now experiencing a great expansion of their economies, largely because of the new global order, it’s notable that they are mostly countries with non-white populations (not Europeans and white Americans). Racial conflict ensues. White folks don’t generally have rising expectations these days.

But, if we remain objective about the world’s condition, we must acknowledge that the bulk of the world population improving its lives is a net plus, right? It’s just that in a zero-sum game some will be losers. Even if it’s not a zero-sum game, people may be hard to convince. After all, their own experience hasn’t given them much hope, lately. Also, powerful interests outside the global power structure want to take advantage of these fears. They include some members of the military class, who would benefit from armed conflict, some religious groups who would also benefit from that “us vs. them” rubric, and political demagogues who win by inflaming the emotions of self-perceived “losers.”

American politics is now at the point where we need to give a sober assessment of what we really want to preserve about our society. Is it participatory democracy? Civil and human rights? Freedom of expression? We may need some targeted priorities for the next few election cycles.

Whatever happened to third parties in America?

Politics in the United States has been dominated by two parties since the earliest days of the Republic. When either of the two main parties loses too often, so that a large portion of their supporters feels they must leave, third parties emerge. This happened to the Federalists, who died and were replaced by Whigs, who later cast off their anti-abolitionist constituencies and emerged as Republicans. Socialists, influenced by Marx and others, popped up in the late 19^th century, then were co-opted by Democrats in the New Deal era.

In the mid-twentieth century, a traditionally Democratic constituency of white folks in the South (Democrats since Andrew Jackson) split off from the New Deal national Democratic Party when it became too concerned about racial equality. Dixiecrats, and George Wallace’s American Independent Party, were third parties until co-opted by Nixon’s national Republican Party.

Meanwhile, other Republicans, alienated by this new direction in their party, bolted to form a Libertarian Party (in 1992, Pierrot’s Independent presidential bid was Libertarian without the name). Ralph Nader formed a Green Party for the 2000 election, which never achieved a coherent ideology, mostly co-opted by the Democrats.

 Depending on the strength of the group bolting from the major party, the third parties either replace the old party, or are co-opted by a major party. This is American political history. The 2016 election campaign was another chapter in this saga. The Republican Party was captured by an outsider, who had no long association with the Party, and the Democratic Party was once again rent by internal disaffection. The ultimate losing formula for them was the product of a bitter primary fight – reminiscent of the 1980 rift between the “Carterites” and “Kennedyites.” In both cases, the strength of the insurgents was enough to sap the ultimate nominee of the support needed to win. The Republican Party had the good sense to avoid such open warfare -- the “NeverTrumpians” voices didn’t rise to the same pitch as the Democrats’ divisions.

Now, Donald Trump’s Party, despite being only the party of white people, commands all those who wear the Republican label. It is not too fringy, nor too racist, nor too extreme by any measure, if you are intent upon avoiding voting for a Democrat. There are no significant third parties in America today.

The Wave Theory of Politics

Americans like divided government, checks and balances seem to have historical appeal. That’s why off-year midterm elections generally favor the opposition party. Voters don’t have enough trust in either party to put all their eggs in that one basket. In recent memory, 1986, 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2014 all support this hypothesis. 

The idea of a pendulum swinging, always seeking equilibrium – the middle ground – works in physics but is questionable in politics. The alternate model of politics is that the pendulum swings proportional to force applied, not necessarily seeking the middle. It’s not gravity that determines its motion. This model allows for anger and frustration of voters, and simple boredom -- what do we have to lose? Let’s burn it down and see what happens!

Which model you choose depends on your assessment of how much time we have. If we are racing toward the Apocalypse, putting a finger in the dike may have limited value. But, if we place our faith in social engineering solutions -- tuning here and tweaking there -- we may avert the total collapse of civilization, even if forced to choose which features we really care about saving. Planetary disasters from climate change, mass extinctions, and nuclear war may be avoidable with the proper attention to engineering, either technological or social.

Then, there is the position of social resignation, the apocalyptic vision. Yes, civilization as we know it may come to an end sooner rather than later, but in the fullness of God’s plan, something will replace it. All empires have finite lifespans– the Roman Empire lasted only about 400 years, the British Empire barely 200. How much more time can we reasonably expect for the American Empire? We typically see American Evangelical Protestants subscribing to this position but insist THEY will be the ones to prevail in the end.

The youngsters

When I look at the world, and especially American politics, I see a future populated by people younger than me. I see my kids in charge. I think they have what it takes to make that old optimism new again. Their idealism surpasses my own. It comes from knowing what they want, and how things should be, and in part from their innocence. That’s not a bad thing. Their clarity of vision correctly identifies obfuscation as an excuse for compromise.

I’ve seen them in action in political campaigns. They are willing to put in the hours and the shoe leather needed for grassroots support of candidates they believe in. Of course, all this is subject to change once they find themselves in power. Compromising their principles will become a matter of survival, and quid pro quo arrangements will sap their youthful energy. Getting their candidate into office may prove to be a lesser challenge than staying there!

But, still, their values appear to be those I’m proudest to pass on. After all, they have a lot more at stake in the future than I do!

Last year's post on "The Future" page: "Mysteries of the Internet" dealt with ICANN and international control, now Trump administration appears to want to undo that ... with new pick for NTIA head

Psychologists protesting "Goldwater Rule" -- they say they can diagnose NPD perfectly well remotely, and Trump suffers from it!

Nice support for two recent blog posts: "Misogyny: It's a Matter of Degree ..." and "A Feminist Manifesto (From a Heteronormative Male ...)"

Great piece from Jonathan Freedland, of The Guardian, on the real consequences of Trump's so-called "foreign policy"

10% isn't nearly enough, but it is a renewable energy milestone. Could be much greater with federal incentives -- not likely in a Trump administration (despite Rick Perry's history as a wind farm promoter in TX)

Not sure a "non-human" language is necessarily bad ... especially if it improves negotiating skills of robots!

David Corn, in MJ, writes that, regardless of what courts ultimately say constitutes "collusion" we already know that Trump campaign knew, early on, of Russian cyber-ops. We just don't know whether they merely acquiesced in Russian plans, or actively facilitated (or directed) them. As always, we don't have any idea of the ultimate effectiveness of the operation, haven't seen any evidence (polling, or otherwise) of anybody's vote actually being changed by any *dezinformatsiia* story ...

Gary Cohn has temporarily triumphed in Trump palace intrigue ... he represents the very heart of neoliberalism, not in the interests of the American people! But, since DJT listens to whoever has kind things to say to him, day to day, expect return to his roots soon ... more white nationalism, more neo-nazi antisemitism, more contempt for everybody not in his "inner circle", any time now!

Seems to me that DT may have had a deeper political goal in mind when he launched strike against Syria ... take some of the pressure off!

Reports from multiple studies ... need to take serious look at medical marijuana!

Not only is the Prez out of his depth ... so is his son-in-law!