Nearly a Year

So it's been nearly a year since the 2016 election, and about the same since my last post (which was thoughts on improving our election system as a bit of a retrospective on voting issues that led to Trump becoming president).

The nearly year of Trump as president has been interesting. It's difficult to sum up a year in a single blog post, but let's review a few of the most important events that stand out in my memory at this moment.

The year started with some mass mobilization for demonstrations and protests that in my view quickly fell apart. I haven't heard much from the Womens' March, or Science March, or any other group since then, which has been disappointing. It shows the events were knee-jerk rather than pushing for a real movement. Honestly, I wonder if the events were Democratic Party supported more to suppress coverage of progressive movements more so than for any purpose. I personally attended both the Womens' March and the Science March in Pittsburgh, and both events disappointed me. Very short, quick marches, with a few guest speakers that railed against Trump and said how important it was to elect Democrats. They were really campaign rallies. There was no discussion on keeping the movement going, on how to continue action, no calls for more people to run for office, certainly no discussion on the flaws of the 2016 Democratic campaign. I've still not seen a "post-mortem" for the Clinton campaign from Democrats, much less anyone at these type of events addressing the real issue, that the two-party duopoly is what gave us Trump (since it also gave the weak, corrupt candidate Clinton as the "opposition"). We have to break the two-party system, get big donor money out of politics, if we want to prevent this scenario again, but few "leaders" talk about it.

Trump has enriched his own pockets through his businesses that he has still never divested from. He and the GOP have been pushing for repealing the ACA ("ObamaCare"), which so far has been unsuccessful, but they're now trying to essentially defund large parts of it in their new budget and tax reform policy. The tax reform proposal is essentially a big giveaway to the ultra rich at the expense of social programs and healthcare funding. And Trump is playing a bit of a game of "chicken" with North Korea, pushing us to the brink of war in an effort to get a "better deal". While there has been pushback on it at the grassroots level, again I have not seen a very strong Democratic response to the proposals -- some Democrats have even voted FOR some of the GOP plans and Trump nominees, in what has been a very ineffective "resistance". In fact, Democratic politicians seem to be waxing nostalgic for Republican politicians of old such as George W. Bush rather than embracing progressives and Bernie Sanders. We also can't forget about the Democrats' pushing us to the brink of war with Russia too, with their blame of Russia for "hacking" the elections in favor of Trump as an "act of war". (Notice that this rhetoric has recently died down drastically as evidence came out that Russian oligarch businessmen were actually engaged in pay-for-play with Obama and Clinton to obtain a nuclear deal with the US starting in 2009, as reported by the New York Times. Sounds like it's becoming the pot calling the kettle black.)

While I'm not sure I'd call myself "surprised", the fact that a year after the election I'm still seeing attacks on Bernie Sanders and his policy disturbs me. DNC Chair Tom Perez (which itself was a big fight against Bernie-backed Keith Ellison, that had its own controverseries) recently purged progressives -- those that backed Bernie or Ellison -- from DNC leadership roles. He appointed Donna Brazile, who was caught aiding the Clinton campaign during the primaries and had to resign her position at CNN because of it, to the DNC Rules Committee which sets primary rules for 2020. Previous DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, who had to resign after emails were leaked showing her collusion with the Clinton campaign, is still a top Democrat running for re-election. All evidence points to the fact that the Democratic Party is preparing to defend itself from a progressive challenge, more so than combat the Republicans.

I think it stems from Democrats relying on the two-party system. They don't feel like they need to try, because liberals will vote for them if only to stop GOP from continuing power. They want to have their cake and eat it too, by keeping all of the corrupting donor money that influences their policies for corporations rather than the people, while still winning elections because you "have no other choice".

The year has convinced me that we will only get progressive reform in this country with a strong third-party push. Republicans and Democrats have absolutely no incentive to change when they are fine with the status quo -- they keep winning your votes because you think you have no choice, while they stay in power due to gerrymandering, and keep collecting all of that private donor money. We can march and protest and complain all we want, but they have no reason to take the American people seriously when they know at the end of the day most will continue to hold their nose and vote for the establishment.

We have to have a strong third-party. It's counter-productive to continue supporting the establishment. Either that third-party must become a major party, or it will grow to exert enough pressure that the Democrats and Republicans finally take the threat seriously and do it themselves to prevent that third-party takeover.

To build that third-party, it is critical that we talk with activists and voters more. Educate on American and world history, the history of the labor movement, progressivism, and socialism, and how third parties have been instrumental to many of the biggest leaps forward in American history. Find grassroots leaders dedicated to growing a third-party at the local level, for if we can win localities and begin implementing progressive policy,

My goal moving forward, more so than direct activism or protests, is this education. I believe we have to have educated voters united in a new grassroots third-party before activism or electoral politics can be effective at bringing change. Everything else is "jumping the gun" in some sense; if party leaders don't acknowledge your protests, nothing will change, and like I said, many of the protests I've been to recently have utterly failed at voter education or encouraging people to run for office, and so have been completely wasted efforts. We have to make education and networking a priority, think long-term, rather than knee-jerk reactions that don't accomplish anything and even sometimes are counter-productive.

I have been reading a lot recently, and have really enjoyed learning about history of politics and political philosophy. So I plan on writing future blog posts about recommended reading for progressives based on the things that I've found enjoyable and informative. Watch for those posts coming up! Please subscribe and check for updates. I'll be announcing these posts on Twitter @ProgressivePgh.

Why Focusing on Trump's Hate Speech May Be Counterproductive

OK, progressives, we need to talk. Every day, I get emails in my inbox like this one:

I don't think this type of campaign against hate -- which many organizations have adopted! -- is effective. I even wrote to MoveOn.org at one point expressing this point of view, but was overruled by the votes for this campaign. (I believe it was something like 80% in favor of Fight Trump campaign, which aside from its lack of effectiveness I think also took away valuable resources from promoting Bernie and his platform). Don't get me wrong, we should absolutely stand against hate, but simply pointing out Trump is hateful doesn't accomplish much in my view.

Firstly, this email points out that Clinton is losing to Trump, then deflects to fighting Trump's hate. Nowhere is there an acknowledgement that this could be part of Clinton's problem, and her lack of appeal. Do we have a reason to vote for Clinton, other than Trump has said a few racist things?

Let me give you a personal anecdote. Anecdotes by their nature aren't proof, but I think it illustrates my point. Much of my family is conservative and has been voting Republican since the Reagan years. I have a lot of policy disagreements with them obviously, but I still like to know what they think. When the subject of Trump comes up, I get basically two responses: (1) excitement that a "non-establishment" candidate won, instead of having the typical mediocre establishment candidates rammed down their throats like Romney and previous years, and (2) a quiet acknowledgement that Trump is a little bit crazy and racist, which they aren't happy about, but they accept. Seriously, when asked, many of his supporters will tell you they don't like his racism, but they support him anyway as the best candidate this election.

Let me say that again: Trump supporters know he is racist. Do they agree with it? Most of them do not. (I'm sure there are some neo-nazis and what not, but let's keep perspective that they are a very small minority). They don't like his rhetoric on muslims or immigrants. But they do think he is sincere about making the country better by not following the establishment or maintaining the status quo. And that is what they really want: the status quo to be broken. They want to see change, and they're willing to put up with racist comments if they get that change.

Now here's the important point: they support Trump over the Republican field this year (Bush, Rubio, etc.) because he was anti-establishment. They don't like him very much though, and would consider voting for someone else. Except the other major party nominee is now officially Clinton, which they despise, for much the same reasons as the Republican field -- she represents the establishment and status quo in the Democratic party. And when she campaigned against Bernie, she basically admitted it -- in her words, Bernie was too idealistic and radical and the plans would never work, and she was instead going to fight for essentially the status quo because change is too hard. You might disagree with that assessment, but keep in mind that this is what the average American heard when Clinton spoke.

When I ask "Well, what about Bernie?", I am surprised by the response. I fully expected a rant against socialism. What I got, from many family members, was instead: "I don't agree with his policies, but he seems like an honest guy that wants to change things, so I would vote for him".

Let me repeat that too: Some Republicans would vote for Bernie, because they view him as an honest anti-establishment candidate. They don't agree with him on many things, but what they primarily want is change.

So back to that email. We need to donate money and Unite Against Hate, according to the email. Who is that campaign directed at? Loyal Democrats will not vote for Trump and are already on board. So you'd have to target Republicans and Independents, which means you need to know: why are they voting for Trump? For change. They know he's racist. It insults their intelligence as voters to tell them "But don't you know he's racist?!?". Yes, they do know. Of course they know. And they've made the calculation that racism is the lesser of two evils when compared to the status quo establishment continuing. You very well might disagree with that assessment; I certainly do. But it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what they think.

If we are going to win them over voters from Trump, we have to give them a reason, show them why they can accomplish their goals through a different method. Currently, Democrats and progressive organizations are focusing their energies on "exposing" Trump. But that's counterproductive; Trump exposes himself on a daily basis, he doesn't need help. What we need is a very clear strategy and plan to present to these people that shows them a positive vision of the future -- a positive plan that leads to the solutions they are looking for, rather than the fearful solutions Trump is pushing. You fight darkness with sunshine. And so far Democrats have not made a good argument full of sunshine. Trump supporters know he is racist, but want anti-establishment. Clinton being the first woman nominee doesn't mean she isn't establishment and status quo. This is the reality. Ignore it at your peril.

The Democratic party is making a huge mistake not pushing for a much stronger progressive agenda that is inclusive of all Americans. A real progressive agenda that tells every single American -- we hear you. We know you're afraid. But if we stand together and form a strong government of the people, we can support each other and make it through this.

For this and other reasons, I predict Clinton will lose to Trump, unless she makes a major change to her platform and campaign. Given she chose the establishment Tim Kaine as her running mate, I doubt this will happen. In my opinion, we will have President Trump unless we rally together behind a true progressive agenda with Jill Stein and the Greens. Her platform is essentially Bernie's, and I think at the end of the day, many Republicans and Independents will cross over to vote Green for a positive future. Very few will cross over for a Clinton status quo presidency.

Do you agree? Disagree? Let me know your thoughts.