It's not rocket science.
This is not a drill. Repeat, this is not a drill.
Never in all of human history has so much gone from so many to so few so fast as in the past eight years. And guess what? It has not stopped and it ain't gonna be over 'til it's over.1
In the 2016 Presidential election, most Americans voted for either Lady MacBeth or Biff Tannen. If you can get past Palast,2 the self-trumpeting founder of Trump University triumphed in the electoral college. Quelle horreur! But....how different would it be had the Presidents MacBeth been slated to leave Whitehaven for the White House in January? Of course, we will never know. As much as we imagine that we know what happens in alternative universes and imaginary Presidencies, we can't know.
That said, the hand sanitizer Lady waxed much dodgier about OASDI than did The Donald.3 And, in the grand old Grand Bargain days, before Obama settled for the sequester, the guy whom she later designated as her administration's money honey offered to help Ryan wreck Medicare "as we know it."4 (Bless his heart!) That is precisely the dilemma of a voter (and the delight of a plutocrat) when a New Democrat neoliberal neocon runs "against" a Republican neocon, namely, "Anyway you look at it, you lose."5 But, I digress.....
1. Why did Hillary lose in 2016? It's not rocket science. As Republican primary voters rapidly dispatched the scion of their beloved Bush dynasty in favor of an oxymoronic populist billionaire change candidate, Democrats and their establishment media minions froze out a populist, change candidate.6 Instead, they sought coronation of the candidate Democratic insiders had anointed after the 2008 primary, a former FLOTSOA, FLOTUS, U.S. Senator and SOS--establishment and nepotism incarnate. She wanted to win the election on the basis of job titles, even though her job performance in each position was horrific. Despite years of working toward this nomination, her only consistent vision for the nation seemed to be "I really want to be the first woman President of the United States." nonexistent. Also, her campaign theme seemed to be "Trump is more obviously bigoted and batshat than I am."And those were her favorables!
I don't know what she did or did not do behind the scenes, as SOS. As a Senator and a candidate, however, she was a weathervaner, not a leader. She had also displayed bad judgment in so many things, from her campaign strategies to the gravest decision Commanders-in-Chief ever have to make. She proved herself unimaginative, uncharismatic, uninspiring, unlikable, untrustworthy hypocritical, bigoted and dishonest, sometimes bizarrely so. Her unseemly invocation of 911 did not cure her confirmation that she had represented Wall Street, which only increased suspicion about her wealth from influence peddling charitable activity and speaking engagements. She was also the very first candidate to campaign for POTUS while being investigated by both a House Committee and the F.B.I. (And you thought she was not a change candidate!)
Nonetheless, Hillary and her supporters incessantly played one distasteful excuse/victim card after another: racism (a race card for a W.A.S.P. candidate!), misogyny, Republicans, Russians, etc. Yet, this allegedly racist, misogynistic nation elected Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. the maximum number of times that the U.S. Constitution allowed it to elect him and gave the 2016 popular vote to the female nominee.
In reality, one bias or another, race, religion, region, divorce or whatever, has played a role in many Presidential elections. Other nominees simply candidated up and ran the best race they could, while Hillary and her camp opted for victim cards which, in my opinion, were detrimental to her and women everywhere. Now, she is blaming the F.B.I., which (wrongly) cleared her twice. I hope to goodness her blaming the F.B.I. signals only her Clintonian inability to take responsibility for anything and not her intent to run again in 2020.
Recap: Hillary was a really bad candidate, chosen by blackmailing Obama in 2008 coronation, both of which factors depressed the Democratic vote.
2. Why did Democrats lose in 2016? It's not rocket science. For openers, see Number 1, above. Almost to a person, Democrats running for office were stubbornly with Her through the primary, even though they knew the risks of nominating Her. News story after news story and poll after poll clarioned: She would not excite people to the polls; if she won, she would, at best, have zero to short coattails and a troubled Presidency; but she might well lose. Turns out, even ardent fans of European Royals don't favor coronations this side of the Pond.
Moreover, Democrats were not with Her only for this election: Decades ago, using Reagan's sweep as an excuse, Bill and Hillary Clinton persuaded Democrats to trade in their long-lived New Deal success for the Third Way (more like one way) gospel of Al From's Democratic Leadership Council.7 Since Bill's re-election, Democrats with power have brainwashed convinced us that only centrist Democrats and Republicans are electable! However, centrist Democrats have lost election after election for years. Not "mere" losses, mind you, but historic losses.
Finding themselves in an ever-deepening hole, most politicians would have stopped digging, recalibrated and starting building. Heck, Republicans even autopsied their own party. No matter how many elections New Democrats lost, though, the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and their apologists never stopped doubling tripling down on running socially moderate Republicans in Third Way (D)rag. As a result, Republicans just may now hold more power than ever.
Come Inauguration Day, January 2017, Democrats will lose the White House and will hold only a minority of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. At the federal level, they will "boast" only a temporary tie in SCOTUS, which is, pathetically, an improvement over conservative control of the SCOTUS (despite Justices Stevens and Souter) since 1971.8 In addition, I heard that Democrats will, after January 2017, occupy only fifteen of fifty Governor's Mansions and hold the majority in only thirteen of fifty state legislatures, with equally grim news at local levels. Truman's words have never seemed more prescient (or less heeded):
If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat....9
In other words, for years, the Democratic Party has been on life support, a condition masked by occupation of the White House by a popular Democratic President. So, if centrist Democrats are, as they insist, the only electable Democrats, Donna Brazile, the brazenly bylaw-violating, acting head of the DNC, may as well pull the plug now: Why put Keith Ellison, Howard Dean and other hopefuls through a potentially divisive battle for DNC chair? However, if New Deal or populist Democrats are electable after all, then Democratic officials have been lying to America and the rest of the world10 since the 1980s. Either way.....
For New Democrats have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.11
And which Presidential candidate in all of U.S. history is stranger than Trump?
Recap: lied, kept digging, unified behind a bad candidate with possibly negative coattails.
3. So, why don't Democratic politicians get it? It's not rocket science. They get it. Dearest reader, why on earth do you imagine Democrats don't get it? Do you imagine that they aim to please the 90%, but fail unintentionally? If so, you're using the wrong paradigm.
Their patrons don't like populism or economic justice. (Why would they? Please see the third sentence of this blog entry.) Their patrons like tsunami up, trickle down, but without the down.12 And, if their patrons like something, Democratic politicians love it. They've even peddled the nonsense that populism and racism are inextricably entwined. Hello? All America has a racist history, plutocrats first and foremost. Economic policies that truly favor those who most need economic favoring are needs-based, not racist! Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Democratic Socialist seeking both racial justice and Scandinavian-style economic justice.13
"Accommodating" the wealthy gets politicians money, power, adulation, applause and many perks, many at taxpayer expense. They really, really don't want to give up any of that. So, they continue to service the rich while giving only lip service to the middle class and STFU entirely about "useless eaters" and others who need to die to decrease the surplus population.14 They know what they want; they know how to get what they want; and have in fact been getting what they want. Either they get re-elected or get some high-paying job influence peddling like Bubba, Dodd, and Kerrey, lobbying (aka influence peddling) or tanking (as in think). Sweet Thing, what part of that says "They just don't get it?" We, on the hand, don't seem to have a clue how to get what we need, let alone what we want.
Recap: They get what they want; we don't; and we'd best figure out very quickly how to change that because they continue to take from us and many of us don't have much left.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 "It ain't over til it's over," said initially by Yogi Berra, I believe, when someone asserted that the 1973 pennant race was over. http://www.retrogalaxy.com/sports/yogi-berra.asp
2http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/
3 http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/2190/the-wolves-of-wall-str...
4http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/bill-clinton-to-paul-ryan-on-me... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR200901... http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-... http://www.weeklystandard.com/sperling-admits-obama-misled-in-debate-the...
5 Mrs. Robinson (Simon, Paul, 1967, for the film,The Graduate)
6 Of course, Bernie Sanders' elder brother has long been in lower level politics in the UK, but that does not constitute political nepotism by any rational measure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanders_(politician)
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council; http://www.salon.com/2016/04/30/clintonism_screwed_the_democrats_how_bil... https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/its-al-froms-democratic-party-we-just...
8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-45-years-of-conservative-r... President Ford nominated Justice Stevens and President Bush the Elder nominated Justice Souter. President Eisenhower nominated, as Chief Justice, another Republican who was very liberal on the SCOTUS, Earl Warren, who presided over one of the Court's most iconic cases, Brown v. Board of Education.
9 See http://caucus99percent.com/content/harry-truman-may-17-1952-americas-dem... Saturday Night Live's Kate McKinnon, as Hillary Clinton:
Who do you trust to be the president? The Republican, or Donald Trump?
10 Hosea 8:7 (Demexited version of the King James Version)
11
In 1998, with First Lady Hillary Clinton, From began a dialogue with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other world leaders, and the DLC brand – known as The Third Way – became a model for resurgent liberal governments around the globe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From
12 Reverend Al Sharpton: "(W)e got the down, but we never got the trickle."
13 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/martin-luther-king-was-a-demo... http://www.dsausa.org/martin_luther_king_and_economic_justice
14 Henry Kissinger, esp. National Security Study Memorandum 200, as foreseen by Ebenezer Scrooge, in A Christmas Carol, Dickens, Charles, London 1846) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46/46-h/46-h.htm; https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger
[video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FAeH1qOgI]
________________________________________________________________________________________________
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8vbhXK-u_g]
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmENMZFUU_0]
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmyzFsYEdco]
Comments
What can one add? The DLC/DNC placed grifters in charge
and the populace suffered. Only those blind to the class structure and class struggle voted for Clinton. Even when told straight out by a leading 1%er - Warren Buffet - that there's a class war and his side is winning, those with the blinders still wouldn't see what clearly was in front of their faces.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I cannot even imagine voting for Hillary.
The Kinks, 1974, Money Talks: would fit in with the others here
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Thanks. Here you go...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ArpwNlVOY]
Thanks. Ray Davies wrote from excellent songs and The Kinks
put on extremely enjoyable shows. Heavy on music and wit - little or no aggro. (a bonus was class consciousness)
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
My pleasure!
The Republican Party is the main vehicle of the policies the
1% wants. Dems exist to give a semblance of democratic choice, but only a semblance. When in power Democrats can only feebly accomplish a watered down program. When Republicans win, they roar into power making huge gains in their agenda. It's that way by design IMO.
Carter is right. We are an oligarchy. The oligarchs continue to consolidate their power through corporate mergers that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. The MSM continues to push the illusion of choice where none really exists. I remains to be seen if the 99% has any recourse remaining.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Obtaining social & economic justice seems almost beyond hope
right now, but often an opportunity(s) presents itself and the people find themselves with no alternative but to push forward.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Well....
Ending welfare as we know it was not a watered down program. Neither was NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, DOMA. Neither was the bank bailout (Democratic Congress, and Obama requested TARP II ), neither was the health insurance bailout, neither was putting Social Security and Medicare on the table.
Wait. You meant beneficial programs.
[video:https://youtu.be/OjYoNL4g5Vg]
FLOTSOA, FLOTUS! FLOTSAM...
Jetsam.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Maybe we can make it a drinking game?
It's not rocket science. ‽ ‽ ‽ ‽
Is rocket science supposed to be difficult? I don't understand.
Many (things and people) have reputations they don't deserve.
Some Republican once implied to me that Carter was stupid. I responded with something like "Maybe he's not a rocket scientist, but he's far from stupid." Then, a Democrat pointed out...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
Which is why I liked most Democrats. We were a fact-based community. Or so I once thought.
Aren't you sorry you asked?
I voted for Carter
in large part because of his background.
And I was right. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, as they say.
Was he our sole POTUS who exposed himself to the Fission
Products? No doubt his oncologists said that exposure led to his liver cancer, although peanut farmers would have gotten aflatoxin exposure as well. Sh*t happens. And he lucked out with the liver thing.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
So much in so few words.
There are at least four triggers in what you wrote.
All scientists share one immutable trait: When encountering a trigger they take a random walk through an aside. Sometimes the asides devour a major fraction of the lecture time. The asides are always far more informative and engaging than the prepared material. I cultivated the art of the extemporaneous as my career progressed and often constructed presentations "on the fly" in my upper division classes.
Well, I found orbital mechanics to be
Somewhat counterintuitive.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Funny Story: back in the day.
Several years ago, as computers became user-friendly, I programmed some simple simulations for my general studies "Physical Science" classes. One set of programs involved them controlling a spaceship to practice orbital transfer and orbital insertion, and long distance approach and docking maneuvers. These were not STEM students. These students became fully engaged and easily exceeded my expectation. "Counterintuitive" is a brain function issue, in the right hands brain function can be modified.
Editorial Note: Far too many computer games do not properly implement the physics daemons. But, various universities have realistic simulations online. Back in the day UNK had a set online, but I had to shutdown my site.
My brain was in good hands.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Great essay, Henry Wallace!
And I really like the formatting with the footnotes providing the sourcing and the subtext.
I personally thought the whole vote for me because I'm a woman and glass ceilings, yada yada was completely misguided from the getgo. OTHER people, i.e. surrogates and voters should have been the ones pointing out that she was female, that she would be the first woman President, glass ceilings, a historic achievement, etc. but she was doomed IMO for citing it herself as a motivation for voting for her.
As a comparison, how many times did anyone hear Barack Obama touting himself as the first African-American President or make it one of the central planks of his campaign? He didn't, because he, unlike Hillary, understood that if he made appeals to identity politics based on his own identity, it would undermine his own merit and credibility for the position, and make his election some kind of affirmative action election. His being the first African American President was a side benefit of his election, but it was not the major reason to elect him as cited by himself.
No one in HRC's campaign seemed to get the cognitive dissonance of their stance and how anti-feminist it was at its core, or at least it was to me. The first woman President will be elected/should be elected because the electorate feels organically and sincerely that she is the best of all the candidates and she won't have to remind anyone of the obvious fact of her gender.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Jill Stein does it for me.
How could she be the rejected by [the] 99%?
Lighten up on the irony please, Big Fella.
I voted for her, but really we need someone
who gets more than one point something of the popular vote,in a good year for third parties and .36% in a more typical year. I don't know whether or not any Green Party candidate can do much better. Then again, we need to do better, too. I don't know how much support Stein got.
Thank you so much!
The format is pure term paper. though the content is more informal than a term paper. Glad you enjoyed it.
I don't mind her campaigning on being a woman as much as I mind that her personal ambition seemed to be her only real vision and purpose for running. There was no authentic vision for the nation, no authentic vision for the majority of Americans. If Sanders seemed to be surging, she copied his ideas. When it was clear she was getting the nomination, she went neocon (which is where I think she is naturally).
If she and her campaign team had had more insight, the slogan would have been "She's with us," or "She's for us," not "I'm with her."
Obama wanted to be a candidate for President who is black, not the black candidate for President, which is how the Hillary campaign tried to paint him. "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too." "Martin Luther King gave great speeches too, but it took LBJ to get it done." Always comparing him to another African American figure. (While playing oh, so innocent if anyone pointed out their dog whistles.)
The salient difference is, though, that African Americans are a minority of voters, while women are the majority o voters. Trying to get women to vote as a bloc is not a stupid strategy However, you do that, not by reminding them you are a woman, but by running on a vision of the nation that appeals to them. That the most openly misogynistic candidate for POTUS since women got the vote won a majority of the female vote is mind boggling.
Wallace for President!
oh,wait. no.
But this: 1.The patrons don't like populism or economic justice.
2. They and Dem. hacks get what they want.
3. We don't.
That's it!
Even irishking can follow 1, 2, 3.
thx for a solid piece.
If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve!
Er, I mean, glad you enjoyed it.
Linking Footnote references
Failed, please ignore.
I think we dodged a bullet in this election.
In spite of his public persona as a buffoon, Trump is not stupid and I suspect that he is a human being.
I voted for Stein, but if that choice were not available, I still wouldn't have voted for Clinton. Trump might turn out to be terrible. Clinton definitely would have turned out to be terrible. What choice did the American people have?
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.