John Lennon said that life is what happens to us while we're busy making other plans. We're having a primary where the coronation got interrupted by an insurgent. That was unexpected, but it quickly became clear that the insurgency could grow into a Democratic schism. One side is corporatist, neo-con, and neo-liberal. The other side is progressive, democratic socialist, and peaceful. "All we are saying is give peace a chance."

On the other side of the American divide, their ideological madness is splitting the GOP into a racist, corporatist, and global side and a racist, christian-dominionist side. The leader of the christianist side is, ironically, Drumpf, with the yet more dangerous Cruz at his heels. Cruz is a traditional racist, a lawyerly blower of dog whistles. Drumpf,on the other hand, is a Freudian carnival of ego gone amok. As the Democratic sides separated into a catholic and protestant side, Drumpf's drumbeat of racist incitement overwhelmed not only the GOP primary race, but the entire 2016 election. The bitter harvest of ancient hate and a decade of racist incitement against one of the most accomplished of all American presidents is in. Now. In real time. Spring may be in the air, but in the American psyche, it's fall and the bitter harvest is in. Drumpf's race-baiting is now the defining feature of the 2016 election. Life happens while we are busy making primary plans. So, what does all of this mean for Bernie?

Traditionally, presidential elections generally involved, as Jesse Jackson says, an intra-mural round followed by the external competition. Faction A1 battles faction A2 on one side, faction B1 battles faction B2 on the other side. Thereafter, the winner of the A's competes with the winner of the B's. Drumpf however, is a joker candidate, and doesn't play by any rules. His self-inflicted Chicago disaster induced him to equate the multiracial young protesters with Bernie Sanders, the imaginary communist. Drumpf's runaway egotism could never allow him to reflect for even a moment that he himself had caused his disaster in Chicago. So he conflated all of his unhinged fears into an imaginary enemy, Bernie the communist and heaven only knows what else.

Suddenly, we have an unprecedented situation. We have faction A1 competing directly with faction B2 during the primaries. Drumpf is at the stage of the campaign where his GOP enemies have divided and conquered themselves. He monopolizes the MSM and the national attention. Clinton keeps doing the traditional front runner thing; she's ahead in the delegate race and pivoting to the centre. Except, as her endless gaffes last week demonstrated, she's no tiny dancer. She corners like a Mac truck on ice. One would think that the front runner on the other side, noticing the pivot to the general, would also pivot to keep up in the general while finishing the primary routine. Drumpf, however, is the proverbial bull in a china shop. If the bull was on meth. Drumpf decided to pivot to Bernie.

Drumpf is not capable of strategic thinking. He's all instinctive cunning. He's cottoned on to what we here already know: Bernie is the strongest Democratic candidate. By far. Picture yourself in an Andalusian stadium, at the moment when the bull decides to charge the matador. Whatever traditional map we have inside our heads of the proper way to do a presidential election, I think that we are in that Andalusian moment in the 2016 election. Which brings us to the critique by Another Peasant (I hope you don't mind me shortening it to AP) of my article yesterday called "Occupy Trump - it's happening."

That article was one of the most-read and most-commented on c99 yesterday. The discussion was vibrant and I learned a lot from it. After reading AP's cogent critique, I replied with an appreciation and a promise to respond after some reflection. Morning coffee sure helps and so here is the response. AP's charge is that an "Occupy Trump" meme would destroy Bernie's candidacy.

If you give them a non-stop choice between possible violence, screaming and yelling, and on the other hand, polite laying out of Bernie's message, guess which message will fill the bloody airwaves. We needed to concentrate that message, not dilute it with this new Nazis VS. Commies reality show.

For AP, the events of this past weekend and specifically the Chicago aftermath are an unwelcome distraction to the real, main business of the primary. It is an argument that emphasizes the opportunity cost of engaging with Drumpf's racist, violent carnival. If Bernie could ignore all that, he could focus on winning the primary and then the general. There is much to commend that argument. It would be a disaster should Bernie engage Drumpf "mano-a-mano" so to speak. I agree wholeheartedly. Consider the Andalusian metaphor. When the bull charges, it would be madness for the matador to charge the bull in return. That would indeed be the quick "way to dusty death."

AP proposes that the best way to persuade Trump voters is through reason and provides a wonderful recent example from an office of Bernie's Michigan campaign:

I only heard of one probable conversion, and it was a Trump supporter, who had never had Bernie's message laid out calmly, and politely, sans media filters, one human being to another. -Or did you think the Left was the only portion of this country tired of the status quo? Tactics like these protests deprive us of possible converts, and alienate the great American middle, in case you've forgotten about the General Election.

It is indeed true that calm reason often works in a one-to-one encounter in a safe, quiet place. It's one of the prime motivators for c99 after the mud wrestling at the GOS and we should daily ensure the preservation of c99 as a sanctuary for progressive discussion. All things being equal, it should work every time. "Aye, there's the rub." I'm seldom loath to press a metaphor, please bear with me. It's high noon in Andalusia. The bull charges. The matador...

There are many times and places for reason. For example, Bernie has truly grown as a debater. Clinton is a gifted debater, agile, slippery as an eel. She does the word salad answer so well that she would have graded aces in an Athenian school of rhetoric. Cicero in Rome would have loved her; although, sadly, certain domestic aspects would have been fairly familiar to him. Yet Bernie shines against her in debate and town hall formats because of his rugged authenticity, his growing grumpy charm, and increasing debate skills.

Bernie made a robust, reasoned demolition of Drumpf with Stephanopolous on ABC this weekend. It's about 3 minutes of impressive archery. I posted it yesterday and it's well worth watching. There he does precisely what AP advocates. He delivered a well-reasoned condemnation of Drumpf in a public theatre, one that should be replayed often. I think Bernie would destroy Drumpf in debate. Clinton would deliver her usual, stirling debate performance, yet I think that Drumpf would win the day through a combination of bellicosity and buffoonish trumpeting of all her spectacular public failures including being more correct on foreign policy, and, perhaps, some salacious dung droppings, things of which only elite circles would know. I think Clinton would dread a debate with Drumpf. On the whole, Bernie would run a superior general election campaign and would win every argument of reason. He would beat Drumpf by Goldwater proportions. So far, so conventional a victory by a democrat in a democratic election campaign. Except for the inconvenient truth of a growing racial bush fire.

Drumpf held a rally in the suburbs outside of Cleveland last night, nowhere near the inmost city. I think we've seen the last of Drumpf rallying in the heart of American cities. There were a few dozen protesters in the pouring rain and there were the usual (!) racist attacks on them. You can be assured that Drumpf rallies would be held in lily-white areas from here on out. From the safety of these white power bastions, Drumpf will continually lob unhinged, bombastic race-bombs and inflame passions on all sides to 1968 proportions. No matter what else happens in the "real"world of campaign politics. Drumpf will daily play emperor in his artificial coliseums. He will enjoy the sadistic process of sacrificing a handful of prisoners to the hearty cheers of the assembled racists. In Andalusian terms, the bull will charge from one end of the arena to the other, repeatedly until there is a decisive victory. That is what bulls do.

You are no doubt familiar with the ancient story of the scorpion who insistently persuaded the frog to carry him over the river crossing. When the frog first resisted fearfully, the scorpion noted, with sound reasoning, that if he did sting the frog during the crossing, they would both die. In midstream, the scorpion stung the frog. The shocked frog exclaimed in astonishment, "But you promised?,"
The scorpion replied, "Yes, but it is in my nature to sting."

To press yet another analogy, I think that, should Clinton win the primary, she would be the frog to Drumpf (or Cruz's) scorpion. Bernie though, is another creature entirely. Bernie is, to my Dutch African mind, a "ratel," a honey badger. The badger is one of the most amazing animals in nature. I promise not to waltz into another metaphor. The badger is rugged and armoured. Exceptionally persistent. Highly intelligent and cunning. Be assured that a badger would never agree to carry the scorpion anywhere. One cannot bully a badger. A badger would say, "Step aside, scorpion, I'm crossing the river." Should the scorpion refuse to cede ground, the badger would crush it on the way to the river bank. Before crossing.

Press that metaphor, Gerrit! We are at a moment in the primary races, where Drumpf is the scorpion, Clinton is the frog, and Bernie is something entirely new to the traditional story: suddenly a badger appears out of the brush, also heading for the river bank. One is a champion, if unprincipled, user of reason, and the other one is, well, a badger. Which one would you back over the scorpion? Further to the point, would you consider asking the badger to act like a frog in this matter before them? That, in essence is my point. As the harrassed student said in his book review, "After a lot of fine writing, he finally comes to the point."

Allow me to conclude with a sidebar. AP critiques my word choices in certain matters. One thing I do know, mainly because my family regularly point it out, is that I am notorious for having an extraordinarily casual relationship with the English language. Most people accept a language as given. They say the Torah has 613 commandments. Most languages are just like that. The rules of English are mere suggestions to me. Why on earth would one just accept it? I happily create my own words and phrases. I'll corrupt any word into a suitable transmogrification (thanks Calvin). Worst of all, I'll verbify any noun as I need it. AP condemns the phrase "Occupy Trump." I thought it was rather descriptive of the reality on the ground. Let me know if I should dump it.

AP also calls my creation of "peace warriors" an Orwellian concept. I'm kind of at a loss over this. There are only three possible ways to confront an adversary. The first is pacifism. One persuades through reason. The second is violent resistance. The whole "violence begets violence" catastrophe. (My oldest created her own word when she was little: "disastrophe," but that another rabbit hole entirely.) One of my favourite theologians is Walter Wink. He says that one cannot combat the myth of redemptive violence, which constitutes the bedrock of our civilization and America in particular, through violence. This is absolutely true. There is a third way to counter an adversary, especially a violent adversary. And make no mistake. Drumpf is a violent person. He is a bully and a cowardly one as 80% of them are. That way is one of nonviolent resistance, as practiced by MLK and Gandhi (and Jesus the Galilean Jewish holy man, but that is an historical excavation too far for now.)

In general, those who act in nonviolent resistance are called "protesters," which is truly half-arsed. Nonviolent resistance is directed at protest, but as a component of a multi-level strategy aimed at overturning the status quo and establishing a new level of consciousness and social justice in their society. I say "peace warriors" because I don't have another word to describe this. Yet. I say "peace" because a new consciousness can only become established through peaceful absorption, as for example in AP's Michigan office. A say "warrior" because there is a social justice victory to be won. It has to be won through struggle with a violent adversary. As my beloved grandmother would say, "social justice victories aren't for sissies." Ask the Tank Man of Tianmen Square. Gandhi said, "with a coward, one can do nothing." Ask Bernie, who had chained himself to two black compatriots back in the 60s.

The matador struggles with the bull in its violent charge. (An aside: I'm a 25-year vegetarian greenie. I'm on the side of the bull in the real Andalusian bullrings.) He or she beats the violent bull charges in a series of balletic sword stabs that drains the beast of its blood and energy and finally of its life. There is no other way for the matador to vanquish the bull, except in a series of confrontations that successively drains the bull of life. I use the notion of "peace warriors" in that kind of sense: a series of skilled confrontations with a violent adversary that successively drains their energy until the victory is assured. I'm open to any term that would describe this nonviolent confrontation and victory over a violent adversary. I would be mightily embarrassed, of course, if such a term is easily found in any dictionary!

I hope I've clarified some of how I see this political moment. Thanks again to AP for the critique. I hope that AP, you, and I could continue this discussion in the spirit of c99's free range of respectful dialogue.

Peace be with us, if we work for it with peaceful hearts.
gerrit