Thomas Frank: Donald Trump is moving to the White House,
and liberals put him there.
Thomas Frank has a great article on the Guardian that everyone here will want to read.
A respected voice on a good platform excoriating the liberal establishment and calling out their BS.
Some brief highlights:
What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.
And he speaks to the media's collusion and perfidy
How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?
Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.
It's well worth the whole read. I find it quite therapeutic.
Comments
As far as the media went...
They got a bulk discount at the Scarecrow factory, and spent the entire election punching them when they weren't too busy punching hippies.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Agree Completely
Both this article and Glenn Greenwald's equally worthwhile Intercept piece should be considered required reading by anyone seeking to understand the dynamics that led to Trump's elevation to the presidency. A good bet that most of the people who bear primary responsibility for yesterday's debacle won't be bothered.
Those wishing to build a genuine grass roots populist movement capable of effectively challenging the ruling cabal would do well to dismiss the idea of attempting to resuscitate the Democratic Party sooner rather than later. The DP is a vile, stinking, putrid corpse that needs to be deposited in a hole and covered up with dirt as soon as is humanly possible. Any institution that celebrates the presidencies of two such despicable sell-outs, corporate toadies and conscious-less killers as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and elevates such corrupt scumbags as Wasserman-Schultz, Brazile, Pelosi, Schumer, Podesta (the list goes on) is not an entity that can ever credibly put itself forward as a champion of the common citizen.
It may be that the best answer is to start fresh with a clean slate and a brand new party, with an agenda that is very heavily focused on the economic issues that drove so many middle and working class voters into the arms of Trump. But the foul stink of corporate elitism and corruption, and the wholesale betrayal of average citizens by "liberal" politicians like Obama and the Clintons - who pretended to be looking out for their best interests while busily selling them down the river - will, justifiably, envelope the Democratic Party like an odoriferous brown cloud for many years to come.
I'm sure all the establishment liberals like Cenk Uygur will be exhorting the disappointed Berniecrats to "take over" the Democratic Party and transform it into a vehicle for sweeping, progressive change - conveniently overlooking the fact that virtually all of the movers and shakers in the party will, on a personal level, make out far better in Donald Trump's America than they would in one presided over by even a mild reformer like Bernie Sanders. Good luck in wresting control of the party from entrenched functionaries with a vested interest in the status quo, who have virtually unlimited funds courtesy of their Wall St. benefactors, and a massive 24/7 propaganda machine thanks to their army of sympathetic presstitutes in the mainstream media.
Those who decide to go there - good luck. I don't plan on being one of them.
inactive account
Yes, Glenn's piece is great
He definitely makes good argument for washing one's hands of these elitists creeps.
What I want to know, and hopefully we will soon know, is "Has Bernie changed his mind on salvaging the Democratic Party?"
When his campaign was asked for their reaction to the election the spokesman replied "We have nothing polite to say."
I have to imagine he (and Warren--I hope) are feeling particularly burned (no pun) by HRC epic failure. I would imagine everything he was able sweep under the rug in terms of resentment over the primary in the name of stopping Trump, came rushing back.
Everything he thought he'd won in terms of promised concessions in the Clinton Administration, the Platform (Hah Hah-platform) have now been proven futile and non-existent. His game plan for continuing the revolution shattered.
He bet on a compromise with the paranoid, treacherous, backstabbing, kleptocratic Clinton and she failed big time; failed out of her hubris. He lost, lost big. At least in the short run.
So, as he picks up the pieces, will he junk the democratic party piece?
____________________________________________________________________________
"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it. "
-Niccolo Machiavelli
"Sorry Hillary"
-TheJerry
I agree about Bernie
and also felt he should never have run as a Democrat.
It seems like the Democratic party would be easiest to fix now
Now that there is suddenly a Clinton vacuum for the first time in decades and they've just been utterly humiliated.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Oh, my gosh.
There are so many great pieces of writing here at caucus99percent this week, but yours, mouselander, is in a class by itself. Thank you so much. You are making a difference. I agree entirely. The party is over.
True, the democrats ignored the anger in this country
Their first clue should have been the yuge crowds at Bernie's speeches and the second clue was that people were agreeing with him how corrupt the DP was, the third is how people cheered for what he was offering them.
But as I wrote last night, Obama shares in the blame because so many people didn't recover from the economic crash, only the banks and the elites did.
Plus how many more people are dead because of the resources wars, and how many more terrorist organizations are there now since he started arming and funding them to help overthrow Assad for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries?
This person sums it up
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Just to add to your clues...
And the crowds were filled with young people, first time skin in the game, fresh blood ready to power many years of Democratic victories...Now...poof!
Would love to think so
But I tend to doubt it, because Bernie still must depend on the goodwill of Senate Democrats in order to maintain any viability as a U.S. Senator. It could truly be a game changer if Sanders decided the only rationale response to this election is the formation of a new political party expressly dedicated to advocating for the interests of average Americans, but I'm not holding my breath.
Personally, I would love to see the BrandNewCongress organization take the next logical step, forsake the worthless Corruptocrats and start its own party expressly dedicated to achieving the agenda that Bernie's presidential campaign was based on. A major selling point would be if this new party put together a very specific set of policy objectives, and then only endorsed and promoted candidates who explicitly subscribed to it.
People are so damn disgusted now, and will obviously be even more so after a couple of years of Trump running things, that such a strategy just might have a fighting chance of challenging the duopoly's complete ownership of the political system. What I'm absolutely sure of is that a tepid mainstream strategy of running a slate of reformist Dems in the mold of Tim Canova and Zephyr Teachout will go exactly nowhere.
inactive account
In my online correspondence with Brand New Congress
I got the impression they wanted to be a "brandless" organization, with no platform except for some ill-defined "progressiveness." They claim to be "post partisan."
Kind of reminds me of something. Third Way? or some other ill-fated group?
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Sounds similar to No Labels?
It's all the same centrist corporate crap in different costumes anyway.
Outstanding. Thank You!
I am also posting something about Thomas Frank's work (commentary by William Black), regarding same. This is THE story of "the election," for sure. Thanks again for bringing this to the attention of the C99P community. To say the least, it has tremendous historical value, and I'm going to recommend your post within my own.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Nomenklatura
"American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment."
500 prepositioned super delegates, DNC and other little "rigged" bullshit that TPTB and the bureaucratic gatekeepers line up in advance. I won't even mention a bunch of other more slimy crap since i don't really argue or follow it in detail. I have practiced non attachment since the American public re elected Bush in 2004. Fuck New Hampshire and Iowa going first next time. California is the 6th largest economy on the planet. We should set the left wing stage. Imagine 15 center left thru radical socialist Democratic candidates to choose from right out of the gate. I'm done with tight ass puritans, and corn pone midwesterners deciding who I can vote for. I'm probably dreaming.
My question is are the Podesta people waiting in the wings
And regrouping for the next election?
We saw the powerful people waiting for Hillary to become president and install their policies.
I'm betting that they are re-grouping behind the scenes and will run another candidate like Obama next time.
But I'm sure that people will look closely at what they have done during their careers
There were many people that tried to tell us that Obama was blowing smoke because of his record votes of 'present' and not taking a stand and his votes when he was in the Illinois congress.
We won't be fooled again by someone like him.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
What I never understood was the rabid compulsiveness
of the Hillbots. It was like they were addicted, and we were threatening to take away their Stuff. But what was this "Stuff" they were so intoxicated by?
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
It's something about her that's been going on for years
It was the same way in '92 and the Clinton years.
I read an article by someone, who I can't recall now, that first met the Hillary Clique working for the '92 campaign as an intern. These were women working in the campaign that were very eerily obsessed with her and the "joint presidency" she and Bill would have and how that would serve as a launchpad for her own run for office.
She (the intern) found them very oddly Stepford Wives like in their fascination and obsession with HRC, like massive girl crushes or something...or maybe Crazy Ex-Girlfriends (the TV show) but platonically for HRC.
But in 2008, I realized there were men in the Hillbots as well. People so drunk on the Kool-Aid they couldn't possibly see straight. Hence PUMAs. And wow could they be nasty on the net.
It's the same horrible nastiness we saw from Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinman. A vicious/twisted loyalty that overrode their normal thought process and made them say very offensive things in defense of HRC.
There is something about her that causes a sort of "nasty protectiveness" in her supporters. Whether against Obama or Bernie, there is all this personal nastiness directed at the other person's supporters. Why would you personally insult or attack your opponent's supporters? (Markos) It is so short sided, mean-spirit and stupid.
You don't get that from other Democratic candidates.
It's like the fact that someone supports an opponent of HRC is a sin that must be scourged from the miscreant's soul with puritanical fury. It's as if they (the HRC supporter) were personally offended and insulted by the supporter of HRC's opponent.
With this sort of magical sway over the minds of her supporters, you'd think she was the Anti-Christ or something. But if she had been, how did she lose? Twice?
____________________________________________________________________________
"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it. "
-Niccolo Machiavelli
"Sorry Hillary"
-TheJerry
[deleted]
[deleted]