Tag Archives: Occupy Wall Street

Joe. mentum.

Bernie’s out. I guess it’s no surprise. There really wasn’t a reasonable electoral path forward to the Democratic nomination after the crushing defeats on Super Tuesday and in subsequent contests in Michigan, etc. While there are still many voters yet to be heard from, the mainstream Democratic party has coalesced around their preferred standard-bearer, the somewhat limp-minded former vice president, whose halting commentaries from a foot or two in front of an IKEA backdrop are barely making a ripple, even in MSNBC land. 

I almost never hear from Biden until his watery opinions are being criticized by left commentators. What the hell kind of communication shop are they running there? Is this a presidential campaign or a race for dog catcher? Just this past Tuesday, as Wisconsin voters were queuing up to vote in the midst of a pandemic, thanks to their state Republican party, the most Biden could manage to say about this disaster was that the science should decide whether or not it went forward. Really? Best you can do, Joe? What the fuck. Are you sure you want to be president?

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

It just never ceases to amaze me how dedicated the Democratic party can be to its own self-immolation. We had more than twenty people to choose from on that debate stage, and we went with the guy whose turn it was … the guy who the party felt was due a spot on the top of the ticket, just as Hillary was in 2016, regardless of his skills as a candidate, his mental acuity, his political baggage, etc. This outcome sets us up for a serious fight in November, and it’s not clear to me how we can possibly prevail, given the degree to which Trump and the Republicans are dedicated to gaming this election nine ways from Tuesday. Trump is already setting the predicate for claims of voter fraud, spouting BS about voting by mail. This, combined with the COVID-19 scare, will make it all the easier for the GOP to claim either victory or fraud, and who knows what consequences will proceed from that.

In any case, I want to acknowledge Bernie Sanders’ remarkable contribution to American politics over the past ten years in particular. Since he made that long speech on the Senate floor in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Bernie has brought progressive politics to the fore in a way that simply has no parallel in the modern history of this country. Across a broad range of issues he has staked out a distinctly leftist position in such a way as to pull the Democratic party in our direction and away from the neoliberal consensus that has ruled it for several decades. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Regardless of who the Democratic presidential nominee is likely to be, Bernie has done a lot of the hard work of structural change since 2011. It is up to us to finish what he started.

luv u,

jp

No dogma.

All right. I am as cynical as just about any political observer on the left. And when it comes to centrist Clintonism, I find I have less and less tolerance as I get older. (Hearing Hillary talk about NATO, for example, is enough to send me through the roof.)

That said, I want to make a principled argument against the notion of clinging to the “Bernie or Bust” sentiment beyond the primary contests. I know that most politically active people focus heavily on candidates, sometimes at the cost of policy positions, and that Democrats in particular are accused of “falling in love” with their choices, as opposed to “falling in line” like the Republicans usually do (and they will … mark my words). My advice is not to redeem that particular piece of pundit fodder. As much as I love Bernie Sanders, I know that he would be the first to tell you to focus on the movement, not the man.

Either way you look at it, you lose.The most important component in the argument against “Bernie or Bust” is simply that we cannot afford eight years of one-party rule under the Republicans. This would have a hugely negative impact on the most vulnerable in our society, on the environment, on our brothers and sisters in other countries around the world, and more. The fate of the Supreme Court alone is enough reason to vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. Scalia’s replacement is only just the first slice; three or four more justices could step down in the coming years. If Donald Trump or Ted Cruz ends up being the person replacing them, say goodbye to any hope of social justice for decades to come. A Cruz court would make Roberts seem like Earl Warren.

There are plenty of reasons why voting for a Democrat in the presidential race makes a difference. But I think it is well to remember that voting is just one act; the Sanders campaign is showing us just how much we can accomplish when we stand up and make our voices heard. Like Occupy Wall Street, this movement seemingly came out of nowhere. We need to continue being not only its arms and legs, but its mind and heart as well, regardless of whether Bernie Sanders is the nominee or not. We need to push our political leaders forward, even when they are constitutionally reluctant to move in that direction, like the Clintons.

So, support Bernie, vote in your primaries, but in the midst of your hell-raising, mark your calendar for election day and vote as if your life depended on it. Because it kind of does. Then get back to the movement.

luv u,

jp

It ain’t broke.

Not that this is all that unusual, but I heard from various representatives of the Republican party and the “tea party” movement on NPR this morning. I really wonder why these right-wing types are so critical of NPR – the network is almost wholly devoted to providing them with outsized coverage. Every time they sneeze, Steve Inskeep is holding the rag. Sure, I listen to them regularly, because they have some good reporters, some good programs, and because they’re better than everything else on my upstate New York radio dial. But that’s a bit like voting for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Yeah, Barry’s a pretty lousy president; he’s just better by an order of magnitude than the object he was running against. Pretty low bar, frankly.

Low-bar radioWhat irks me, though, is the legitimization of truly extremist right-wing notions of governance (or lack of same) through what I’m sure NPR and other networks consider “balance coverage”. A brief example: yesterday there was a report on some research having to do with economic inequality and the degree to which people believe the federal government has an active role to play in addressing its effects. It was presented in the usual “this side thinks this, while the other thinks this” manner; specifically, 90% of Democrats believe the government should be involved in fighting inequality, while Republicans are evenly split. This was played as reinforcing the notion of a nation divided along party lines, but they buried the lead – by these percentages, it looks like a significant majority … maybe 60 -70% – agree that the government has an active role to play. Why the hell isn’t that the story?

The only reason why extremist tea party-type ideas significantly influence national policy is that they have an outsized voice in the national conversation. That’s why we are essentially cutting the long-term unemployed off at the knees, canceling their unemployment when there’s still three job seekers for every available job, slashing food stamps while cutting taxes on corporations and throwing more money at the Pentagon. Large numbers of unemployed people are a necessary component of capitalism – that keeps labor inexpensive and profits high. So to the free market fundamentalist, that system is not broken … it’s working just fine. And that is the point of view that will continue to drive the national conversation until, along with the tea party, Occupy Wall Street gets their own response to the State of the Union.

Color me disgusted.

luv u,

jp