I'm a subscriber and a pretty regular viewer of The Jimmy Dore Show. Recently, he ran a show called "Progressive Primarying Corporate Democrat In Washington State."

The woman running, Sarah Smith, seems like a good sort. Also, she has the name of one of my favorite Dr. Who companions:

Primary corporate Democrats! is an appealing idea because it's positive. It provides an optimistic vision and ready-made roles for people to play in the work--work which won't threaten one's livelihood or well-being. Nobody has to invent new ways of doing anything, which is hard and frightening. People can just take up the roles they've taken up so often before: knock on doors, phone bank, donate money, hand out flyers, organize events, turn out the vote. We all know the drill. And it feels good to go through the drill again, doesn't it?

Of course the problem is this:

How are you going to stop them from flipping people's party affiliations so they can't vote? How are you going to stop them from purging people off the rolls, so they can't vote? How are you going to stop them shutting down half the polling places, so people can't vote? How are you going to stop the media from announcing that your opponent has won before your opponent has actually won? All these things happened last year, and more, to successfully stop Bernie Sanders from becoming the Democratic nominee.

Jimmy Dore actually--sort of--addresses this:

We've seen time and time again, like just in CA, not only on the national level do the Democrats have a rigged system to protect the establishment, meaning superdelegates and things like that, but, also on the local level, like just in CA, they kinda just pulled the same thing, and right now the CA Democratic Party literally just elected a pharmaceutical lobbyist to be the chairman of the party, a guy who fought against Bernie's cheaper health care bill...that's how bad the Democratic Party is--what makes you think that you can change it?

That is a nuts-and-bolts political question. How are you going to take power?

Sarah Smith's response is the political equivalent of a marshmallow: sweet, pleasant, and comprised largely of air.

Because I mean the sentiment that I've made before is when a window breaks you don't just stare at the glass and wait for it to fix itself. Someone has to get in there and sweep it. And I think that it's time that we swept out all the broken glass and we just made change. Regular people stepping up to the plate and actively taking part in their communities, whether that's at a city level, a state level, a local level, a community level, more people coming out and stepping up is going to make sure we're getting out every last piece of broken glass from that window that's shattered, and we're replacing it with a new one.

I have a lot to say about this statement. But first, let's just take it on its own terms. Let's say we agree with everything she said.

Jimmy Dore's question was about how the Democratic establishment rigs the game. "Rigged system" were his words. He was asking Sarah, How will you beat the rigging? To use her metaphor, he was saying: If you want to sweep that glass out, where's your broom?

She doesn't answer that question. She responds to tactical questions with vague moral exhortation. This is sort of like if you asked someone how to build a bench out of sticks or how to fly-fish, and they responded "God helps those who help themselves!" and "Early to bed and early to rise!"

You don't just stare at the glass and wait for it to fix itself. [Subtext: I'm not lazy or a whiner. I'm a hardworking problem-solver.] Someone has to get in there and sweep it. [I'm a hardworking problem-solver.]

That's not an answer. That's a moral exhortation which has nothing to do with his question. If Jimmy Dore were practicing real journalism in this interview, the next question would be "That's great. We all agree we want to do something, and we're all willing to get to work. So, like I was asking, how are you going to succeed in a rigged system?" But since, when it comes to Justice Democrats, Jimmy Dore cannot practice journalism, but only hagiography, he talks about what a great metaphor the broken window is and then moves immediately into asking her yes or no questions about policy: "Are you in favor of single payer?" "Are you in favor of free tuition?" etc. The only nuts-and-bolts political question he asks after accepting Sarah's marshmallow response uncritically is "Do you take corporate money?" which of course he knows the answer to, since she's a Justice Democrat.

In fact, I've now listened to the entire video--I've been listening while I write. I've now listened to all of it. And Jimmy Dore never returns to the question of the rigged political system. He discusses policy, talks about not taking corporate money, asks for some biographical background, throws a couple of deserved barbs at the corporate Dems, warns her that the media will try to smear her, and thanks her for running. It's actually quite weird; while he's warning her of the Dems' character assassination tactics, he says the establishment will do anything short of physical violence to stop her.

Yeah--a rigged system.

So, do we, I don't know, want to talk a bit about how we're going to deal with some of those short-of-physical-violence things the Democratic establishment might do? Not all the nitty-gritty details--nobody's asking you to reveal your entire playbook online. Just enough to reassure the people listening to you that you're actually on the job: that you see the actual fraud that, like a nerve toxin, paralyzes our ability to take political power electorally, and you're making concrete, specific plans to deal with it.

Nope. Apparently that answer of Sarah's is the only answer we're going to get.

Given that, let's poke at this answer of Sarah's a bit more before we leave it:

Regular people stepping up to the plate and actively taking part in their communities, whether that's at a city level, a state level, a local level, a community level, more people coming out and stepping up is going to make sure we're getting out every last piece of broken glass

So the way we are going to get rid of the Bad in the Democratic party--the broken glass--is to get people more involved.

Remember that Jimmy Dore asked her a question about how she was going to succeed when the political system is rigged. She doesn't deny that the system is rigged when Jimmy says so--she's nodding in the video. So Sarah, running for office in a rigged system, knows she is venturing forth into a political terrain of wrongness, because a "rigged system" is not simply a system that's doing wrong, but a system that's defined and maintained solely by its wrongdoing. What's the answer to this problem, according to Sarah?

Getting people more involved. Getting more ordinary people to run for office, getting more ordinary people to provide volunteer labor for the campaigns, getting more ordinary people to "be active in their communities" (I never know WTF that means, whether it means sponsoring a neighborhood cookout or volunteering at the Food Bank).

Isn't it interesting that it's the ordinary people who have to make a change--not the rigged system which Sarah Smith doesn't even address? If only the American people cared more. If only they weren't such a bunch of lazy whiners, Negative Nancys, keyboard warriors, armchair quarterbacks. If only they got involved in their communities. If only more of them ran for office. If only more of them voted. If only more of them became involved in their local Democratic party. If only we had a hard-working, deeply committed populace filled with optimism and faith!

By the way, note that, in Sarah Smith's broken-window metaphor, the people who are "sweeping up" and "replacing the glass" are the people participating in the electoral process, like her. What does that mean about those who aren't participating? How about the people who have lost faith in the electoral process? Are they, analogically, the ones who stare at the glass and don't sweep up? Because her answer to election fraud was "Try, try again. Work really hard on that next campaign!" I'm sensing the implication here that people who tell the truth about election fraud are a bunch of lazy whiners. Not like those hardworking problem solvers that believe in the electoral process.

Overreacting? Maybe. But how come there isn't one moment in her response when she mentions the words "superdelegate" or "election fraud" or "voter purges" or "corporate media" or "DNC" or anything referring to any of the cheating and bribery and fraud that went on last year? The man asked you the most fundamental question there is: is this game winnable, and if so why?

How can you answer that question without specifics? Why no specifics? No specific discussion of election fraud, voter purges, a corrupt media, a corrupt DNC. No. Only a discussion of how the little guy needs to get more involved.

Let's bring it down to brass tacks.

You have a strategy based on people voting and having their votes counted accurately. How are you going to make sure they can vote?

How are you going to make sure their votes are counted accurately?

Specifically:

What are you going to do when the Democrats start flipping people's party registrations to the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party, like they did last time?

What are you going to do when they purge thousands of voters off the rolls, like they did last time?

What are you going to do when they close half the polling places?

What are you going to do when the media informs people the race is already won for the corporate candidate when that isn't true?

You have an electoral strategy that doesn't address these issues. Until you address them, you don't have an electoral strategy.

What are you going to do when they do this?