This is the first time I'm writing anything on this site.

I feel privileged to be a part of continuing dialogues and debates here and remind myself on this Martin Luther King Day that the stakes are high for all of us who struggle for change.

Briefly, I’m a person of Bernie Sanders’s generation and supported his presence in the political arena until his capitulation. As a lifelong political activist, both within and outside the electoral framework, I share the view that the iron-grip of America’s two-party system cannot be loosened from within the two-party system—you can’t buck the ruling elite and the tangible 1% (I’d say more like 5%) by being in the service of that 5%. The ruling elite here—multinationals, Wall Street, the building and “energy” industries—all need to keep the system functioning as smoothly as possible, like well-hidden oil pipelines.

One other thing. I also share the view that the struggle for change must be waged with a clear vision that cuts through the fog of identity politics and the politics of fear.

So here we are at last with all wheels spinning, turbines humming, pistons pounding, and smokestacks spewing forth cloudy signals: we have a new Pope. Yes, Donald is ready to be the new POTUS.

Meanwhile, the Russians have become the sum of all great movie villains, and the CIA—America’s vanguard in ruthlessly changing regimes everywhere—has recovered some of its lost glory because Trump has doubted the agency’s capability. And his nominees are being questioned by Congressional Committees. An old game, but with very news faces on the witness stand.

Is it an ominous sign then to find that both grassroots supporters AND principled opponents of the new Pres are nervous and even a bit scared to go to Washington to celebrate or to decry the inauguration of America’s 45th President, especially with children in tow? There may be violence. What kind? From whom? Against whom? We shall see.

With your indulgence, I’ll post first a series of essays—consisting of six parts—I had written following Donald Trump’s victory. To some extent, for an international crowd.

Wow! That was more than a week ago—Election Day 2016.

The first thing that occurred to me was to take a new look at Howard Zinn’s People’s History… Perhaps also Cornel West’s Democracy Matters. Were there other times similar to the last few years leading up to this election? Right now, this question could be a good beginning for checking facts, I think, instead of relying on media “experts”. Alter all, they failed our unhappy “deplorable” citizens with their pompous hogwash. Now these pseudo-journalists are continuing their confused discourse with a wee bit of self-criticism and analysis, but mostly with pitiable lamentation—still contemptuous, still out of touch with any version of a “people’s history”—even with a right-wing populist articulation of hope that the President Elect may represent.

“How could this happen?” They seem shocked.

Pontification about the plight of the 95% made by media celebrities— “liberal” or “conservative”—who are multi-millionaires all, sounded to me just as obscene as powerful, repugnant men boasting about their groping prowess. (Check out the salaries and net worth of these media “monks”.)

I found my neighbor who had been quite incensed about this voting cycle, and at one time had yelled, “To hell with this election!” It appears that in the end he had pushed the Trump cart across the finish line. I just nodded—yeah, a painful decision.

Donald won our “toss-up” state—Pennsylvania—over Hillary by about 1.2%. In actual numbers, the difference was 68,236 votes. So I set about to examine the data some more. Needless to say, a little bit for my own satisfaction.

In the East, Philadelphia and surrounding counties gave their votes to Hillary, some by huge margins, others by small ones. In the West, only Allegheny County containing Pittsburgh was in Hillary’s camp, and she won a few other counties scattered throughout the state. Every other county went for Donald—56 out of 67 across our state and most by sizable margins. A basic comparison will tell the tale.

In 2012, the Obama-Romney difference was 5.4%. In actual numbers, Obama won by 287,865 votes. A big turnaround, eh? Yes, in this election, Hillary got 145,470 fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. On the other side, Donald got 232,507 more votes than did Romney. Across the country, Obama voters simply didn’t embrace Hillary’s candidacy. There were also ~143,000 more Third Party Pennsylvania voters in 2016 who didn’t wish to vote for “the lesser evil.” Most of them voted for Gary Johnson—the Libertarian surrogate for many disaffected Republicans. Jill Stein didn’t fare too well.

So far, Hillary’s campsters have not complained about the numbers because I suppose they have realized that their ground game was terribly flawed, and the Obama coalition didn’t become the Clinton coalition automatically. By campaigning exclusively in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas, with celebrities in tow, Hillary lost the “hinterland” badly. Where Romney had beaten Obama by a 7 to 1 margin, Donald crushed Hillary 45 to 1. From 2012 to 2016, the increase in the number of voters who voted Republican or Democrat, that is, who chose Hillary or Donald, was 241,604. Clearly, the change was to Donald’s advantage.

Framing all this in an “urban” vs “rural” scenario is another mark of “expert” disingenuity. For example, Allegheny County went for Hillary 16 to 1, but the 5 counties surrounding it voted for Donald with margins ranging from 20 to 1 to 52 to 1. The population centers in these counties are not “rural” at all, but small towns to medium-sized cities that had once been thriving industrial centers.

I lived in the area for 30 years, and most families I knew or knew of (outside academia and some businesses) had one or more members (including managers and engineers) who worked for US Steel/Allegheny Ludlum, J&L Steel, ALCOA, Pittsburgh Plate Glass, Westinghouse, and other companies. These folks never belonged to the agrarian sector, and didn’t rely on their farming skills to make a living—even when they were laid off! Other towns across the state, from Bethlehem in the east to Erie in the west, also grew around various industries. So what we are really talking about is not an urban/rural divide (although that’s present too), but a conflict between our two neo-liberal metropolitan centers (with their own unresolved contradictions and affluent suburbs) and the rest of the state. In other words, a conflict between the 5% and 95%, along with a growing gap between haves and have-nots.

Splashing all these facts and numbers on the tattered banner of identity politics simply deflects an understanding of what really happened. I mean, there’s a decisive difference between struggling and agitating against Donald and the bigotry his camp engendered, and continuing to defend Hillary’s candidacy and her clan—the worst possible team Democrats could have fielded against Donald.

When Donald was railing against a “rigged system”, Hillary’s people (and Obama too) insisted that the process was fair and just, and this election would prove that. Until (oops!) the outcome went against them. Of course, now Obama has to rally the troops in support of a proven mechanism for handing the scepter to Trump. He has said that in America we have only peaceful transitions from one head of state to the next. Implying what? That this is unique? That in Sweden or France or India or Chile, they transfer power some other way? What Obama is really saying is that the system must prevail.

That’s the bottom line. Well, we shall see.

Next part coming up.