The Democrat’s Dilemma

    Joe Biden’s acceptance speech on Thursday night was by any measure perfect for the man and for the moment. It was delivered with compassion but also with clarity of purpose offering the electorate a clear choice between the dystopic vision offered by Donald Trump and a vision of hope for deliverance from the darkness of Trump’s message and the chaos and brutality of the past three years. It is a message that should resonate with everyone...not only with the Democratic base but those who call themselves independents and claim to withhold judgment until compelled to choose. 

        Despite the eloquence of Mr. Biden’s message it certainly did not and never will resonate with Trump’s base (so smitten with the mythic Trump that they collectively fail to realize the damage he has and will continue to reign down on their lives and their futures) and while one would hope that independents would grasp onto the life preserving message offered by Mr. Biden, the likelihood of their doing so is not so clear. While Trump’s governance and his message is clearly based upon dividing the nation and giving license to unleashing the very worst of human nature, the Republican message is more nuanced, continuing to target the grievances of so-called, “Middle America” that brought Trump far more votes in 2016 from the middle of the country, in particular, than anyone could have imagined could be cast for such damaged and dangerous human being. While those targeted may have legitimate grievance, particularly this year with so much familial and economic hardship impacting so many, including those considered to be favoring a continuation of the Trump presidency, the GOP seeks to convince the undecided electorate that, at least for “White America”, the Democratic message of inclusiveness is itself actually a message of division and exclusion, seizing upon concern heard throughout conservative media that by embracing the Black Lives Matter movement, the Democratic party has actually become anti-white. The Republicans will pull from Biden’s speech his eloquent plea for racial justice and seek to convince those they target that those passages and the notion itself is proof positive that a BIden presidency will be so focused upon social and racial justice that “White America” will be at risk of being left behind; that the policies to be enacted by a Biden administration will be pursued at the expense of “white” interests and that, in truth, there is no room in the large, Democratic “house” for “White America”. They will point to Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris as his running mate and argue that with Biden’s advanced age, there is a real chance that Ms Harris will become President during Biden’s four year term and that if that comes to pass she will pursue with even greater vigor policies that favor minorities the expense of white interests. 

        It is a dangerous strategy to say the least. The last four months of protests triggered in the immediate sense by the murder of George Floyd but truly a continuation of the struggle for equality that has been ever-present for more than the past one hundred and sixty years. The impact of those protests has been immediate, evidenced not only by the millions of people who have taken to the streets but by the response of corporate America to those protests. While many would argue that the response of corporations to the BLM movement is driven by greed (which is certainly is) it nevertheless should not be lost on anyone that so-called “Corporate America” made a choice to not remain silent; that when it spoke through its marketing message it was entirely on the side of social justice. Moreover, again at the risk of giving corporations too much credit, it is also worth noting that campaign contributions by corporations and their management to the presidential candidates favors Mr. Biden, driven, in large part, by their determination that their best interests lie in acknowledging and embracing Mr. Biden’s plea for social justice for it is that message which most clearly reflects the will of the people. 

        The challenge faced by the Democrats over the next two months will be to continue to speak to those people who may view the call for social and racial justice as either anti-white or exclusive of “white interests” that their interests are best served when everyone has an equal chance for happiness and security; that the chant of Black Lives Matter does not mean that White lives don’t matter despite what they might hear from Fox News, OANN or Breitbart. The task will regrettably not be an easy one. The stakes of failure are unimaginably high for a furtherance of a Trump administration, unleashed by a re-election will without question be the end of the American experiment if the last four years are any measure. One can only hope that despite the efforts of the right and its puppet media the voters either do not accept the dystopic product they are trying to sell or simply have had enough of the daily chaos and that their longing for a moment’s silence wins out.

America at its Core

The odds that the social upheaval we are currently experiencing will succeed in changing the very nature of this country are long and face a very steep uphill battle. The country was founded by very wealthy, slave owning White Christian men who, in their comradery, conspired to separate themselves from the British crown for the sole purpose of protecting their fortunes from the heavy taxation being levied on their wealth.

As with everything in the American experiment, the guiding principal has been and remains the accumulation and preservation of wealth. One need simply look around the room of this depiction of a gathering in Philadelphia to understand what these gentlemen meant by the seemingly noble words that they inscribed to announce their intention to seek independence…the “all men are created equal” principal which is thought to be ingrained into the very nature of what it means to be an America. The “men” they referred to applied not to anyone unlike themselves. Not women, not indigenous peoples, rarely Jews or other religious groups and certainly not Blacks upon whose backs their wealth was made. I dare say it was not even within the realm of consideration by any of these men to extend their recognition of their having been created equal beyond those in the room and those beyond for whose interests they spoke. All that they argued about was the mechanism for ensuring that their voices would be heard equally, whether they stood in that room in Philadelphia or on their plantations or homesteads up and down the eastern seaboard of what was to become the United States. That ethos and that ethos alone provided the framework for the construction and framework of the government that was to be formed as an outgrowth of their collective declaration that they would no longer pay tribute to a monarch an ocean away.

So strongly is this belief held that we have come to violence  on our own soil in its name twice over the course of our history, the first, of course, was in 1776 when we the nation took up arms to make clear our intention to separate ourselves from our British patrons. The second was in 1861 when the southern aristocracy concluded that their wealth, earned on the backs of slaves, was being threatened by a central, Federal government that, it was felt, had over-reached in its efforts to tax and otherwise control the agrarian economy upon which the southern aristocracy had built its fortunes. In both rebellions, it was not those who held the wealth who died on the fields of Chancellorsville or Gettysburg but, as always, common men who would not share in the fruits of victory should it come to pass.

 

It is this one single imperative…that the nation was founded for the sole purpose of facilitating the accumulation and preservation of wealth by a minority comprised of White Christian men…that has defined us through the centuries and continues to this day and it is against this very core imperative that we fight today to change our very nature. One can only hope that the short-term response to an epidemic of killings and harassment by citizens and police of the Black community will gain traction and result in what would be a seismic shift in the nation’s ethos. Aligned against any chance for change are forces which long concluded that any such change…indeed even the recognition that racism remains perhaps the one fundamental flaw in the nation’s construction…is a threat to a way of life so deeply ingrained in the nation’s basic founding principles that as before it is worth fighting against, even if that fight should turn to violence. The Republican party has spent years pursuing a “southern strategy” that not only succeeded in turning southern politics from a historically Democratic bias to one now fundamentally Republican and conservative, those efforts have now succeeded so well that the thought of violence is no longer an inconceivable. 

The Republican party has succeeded in gaining support from those individuals who are most in need of a strong centralized government that can and has provided subsidies for food, jobs, education, infrastructure and security. The incredible result is that tens of millions of southerners vote against their own self-interest by siding with a political party that has flexed its political muscle by awakening the ghosts of those plantation owners who so long ago controlled the southern economy and fought the federal government to keep the fruits of slave labor on the backs of poor southern whites who fought under the banner of the Stars and Bars. 

Having successfully pressed this strategy in the South, I suppose it is understandable, at least from an intellectual standpoint, that the Republican party would resist any pressure to acknowledge that what they are actually supporting when they stand with those southerners still lamenting loss of their “way of life”, is a way of life built upon the backs of slaves and the attitudes which fostered that way of life. While support for that way of life has waned in southern urban centers it remains alive and well in the rural south where those populations are most vulnerable to a "the-South-will-rise-again" pitch because educational opportunities have been reduced by Republican governments that press for smaller governments at the expense of those most in need. With such fertile grounds to conquer, the Republican party continues to press a fight over long-since resolved grievances, touting a "Lost Cause" past and, in so doing, finds itself standing with those who continue to long for a way of life which has long since passed from our national experience.

Perhaps it is this alone which drives the Republican refusal to acknowledge that the racism which sprung from that way of life still exists fearful that by doing so it will lose the support of this “base” which it has worked so hard to cultivate. Perhaps it is also its many patrons who continue to pour tens of millions of dollars into campaign strategies that continue to target these states as essential to any strategy for regaining the White House.

 

Those words were written in the throes of an unseemly Republican primary season while we were getting our first view of Donald Trump the politician. The past 3 ½ years have demonstrated clearly the damage that can be wrought by a government which has built its entire domestic policy structure around not only enforcing this philosophy but using it to great advantage, tearing the country apart for political gain. 

 

I conclude where I began. Make no mistake. Despite the passing of 250 years, little has happened to alter the fundamental nature of who we are as a nation. While we aspire to extend the meaning of “all men are created equal” to every living soul in the country, the truth remains that by and large the meaning of those grand words inscribed by the “founders” remains irresolute. The forces aligned against change are great and they are serious about ensuring that the principles first stated in the backrooms of meeting halls in and around Philadelphia so long ago remain unchanged. Still, the opportunity for real change exists. We stand at a crossroad which may very well determine the nation’s fate. We do appear ready to finally embrace an unfettered and broad interpretation of that one core principal. Whether we as a people have the fortitude to see it through against all odds remains the ultimate question.

 

 

Apocalypse Now?

It is hopefully too apocalyptic to say that society is on the verge of crumbling due to Covid-19 but what is not too soon to say is that what we are witnessing is an abject lesson in the destructiveness of Donald Trump’s attack on the underpinnings of our government and on the mainstream media. While our lives may hinge on the ability of the nation as a whole to abide by a unified adherence to strict measures to limit the spread of the virus, Trump’s unremitting attack on the media and upon anyone and anything that he views as not aligned with his malignant thinking and abject ignorance has turned what should have been a nation acting with unified purpose to one torn along political lines borne of  the paranoid distrust Trump has sown. Consequently while those who have understood who and what Trump is and what he represents adhere to procedures intended to reduce risk, those on the other side of the political divide not only reject those procedures, they flaunt their willingness to continue as usual regardless of the risk that they are creating for those trying to reduce that risk. It is a recipe for disaster. The danger that Trump has posed prior to our current situation...the rejection of norms, the attacks on the media and the constitution and the willingness…nay, the desire to tear the country apart for some perverse political and financial gain...is inconsequential in contrast to the threat that his behavior now poses to our very survival. How did we get here and how do we get out?

The Plot Against America?

With the announcement that Russia is interfering to aid the candidacy of Bernie Sanders and repeated comments by Donald Trump seeming to support Sanders’ candidacy, the question is naturally asked why? Why would the Russians favor Sanders and why would Trump be so supportive of Sanders? The easy answer is that both parties think Trump’s chances for re-election increase significantly with Sanders as the opposition. I offer a different reason for the support.

It has long been apparent that Russia has been engaged in a strategy intended to so damage the United States that it can no longer function in its traditional role as antagonist to Russian interests and a counterbalance to Russian desire to resume its role as a global power since the fall of the Soviet Union. When the strategy first took root can likely never be known. What we do know is that its clearest manifestation is the election of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016 and while it may be naïve to call the interference in the 2016 election Phase One (given the near certainty that that interference was simply one part of a many-phased strategy that had been in the works for many years), for purposes of this discussion the election is but the first phase of a forward-thinking strategy deployed by Russia with the ultimate goal of not only removing the United States from its traditional role, but to ultimately rip the country apart to such an extent that it will not soon recover thereby allowing Russian global interests to be realized.

The goal of Phase One was to ensure that Donald Trump would become President in 2016. His temperament, intelligence, incuriosity, lack of knowledge of the world around him, his vulnerability to manipulation explain, in part, why he was selected by Russia as the principal tool of its strategy. While the strategy during the post-convention period was to inflict damage on Hillary Clinton, the strategy pre-convention was designed to ensure that Bernie Sanders, Ms Clinton’s principal rival for the nomination, not receive the nomination. The Russians had bigger things in mind for Mr. Sanders, but allowing him to pitted against candidate Trump (as opposed to a President Trump) with a chance to win the general election was not something the strategy could allow. While I cannot speak to the methods employed by Russia to ensure that Sanders was not the nominee in 2016, the fact remains that rules were changed to undermine a Sanders candidacy and votes cast by so-called, “super delegates”..delegates not bound to a particular candidate... cast in secret which assured that Mr. Sanders would not gain the nomination and would have to wait another cycle before again seeking the nomination.

The result was a close election that turned on election results in several counties in several states that yielded to Trump the votes needed to secure election via the Electoral College.

The framework for the next Phase has been gradually taking form over the past few months. Not surprisingly, Sanders chose to run despite his advancing age and, predictably, the emotional fervor that accompanied his run in 2016 returned in spades and while he faces competition from the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobachar, Joe BIden, and, of late, from Michael Bloomberg, none, other than Sanders, has gained sufficient traction to overcome the emotional and “revolutionary” trajectory of Mr. Sanders who has returned to his uncompromising, belligerent attacks on the historic structure of American society. Not surprisingly, we now learn (assuming the claims are correct and themselves not a product of Russian disinformation) that Russia has been working to help Bernie Sanders gain the Democratic nomination. Understanding how sophisticated the Russian disinformation machine was in 2016 and how it has only improved upon that experience, it is not hard to see how such a strategy could aid Mr. Sanders.

Part and parcel with pushing Sanders to the front of a crowded field, Mr. Trump’s perceived principal rival, Joe Biden, was  victimized by a disinformation campaign that accused Biden of possibly illegal conduct in his dealings with Ukraine allegedly on behalf of his son. Though, as it turns out, the strategy need not have been employed as Biden appears to be his own worst enemy, the strategy nevertheless left Biden’s candidacy weakened to the point of it likely becoming untenable. With regard to the remaining candidates challenging Mr. Sanders, the Russian goal has likely been to sow increasingly hyperbolic dissension among the current group of candidates who are easily triggered to attack one another thereby removing a cohesive challenge to Mr. Sanders’ candidacy. The strategy also (successfully) served to drive other, deserving candidates out of the race early on in the process. Though significant questions surround Sanders’ candidacy…his age, his unyielding and uncompromising politics which, it is feared, are too extreme to attract mainstream, independent voters and his health…remain, he nevertheless continues to follow an arc that will, with near certainty, garner him the nomination and pit him against Donald Trump.

The outline of how the strategy plays out to the 2020 election and beyond continues to take shape. It is an interesting and revealing confluence when, on virtually the same day, Sanders obtains a significant victory in the Nevada primary and the National Security Advisor..a Trump accolyte, Robert O’Brien…makes statements announcing that Russia is not working to help Donald Trump but is working to help the Sanders’ campaign. The comments are a now-typical and (apparently) successful Trump strategy of distraction…directing attention to others to distract from the truth that it is Trump and not the accused target who is guilty of the accused of transgression.

It matters not whether the accusation…here that Sanders is being aided by Russia…is true or not. In Trump’s world which has now become our living nightmare, accusations of this type alone can and often do become an accepted truth, often to fatal effect.  With the current confluence of events…Sanders surging in the polls and the Trump administration announcing that Russia is helping Sanders to win the nomination and presumably the general election…the strategy then unfolds on two tracks.

In the first, Sanders successfully secures the nomination. With a relentless strategy dispensing disinformation through both social and mainstream media that is too interested in profit to protect the integrity of its platforms, Sanders, as with Trump in 2016, pushes through against all odds, and ultimately is elected President. At the same time, Trump, with Russian assistance, pushes a strategy to not only delegitimize Sanders but paint Sanders as a Russian asset who, with Russian assistance, has sought the Presidency, at Russia’s behest, to turn the United States into a Communist state. The notion, without question, is ludicrous. Still we should all be prepared for this line of attack from Trump and his Republican enablers. It is, after all, an easy argument for the GOP to make. They will clam that Sanders is pushing, without any sense of a willingness to compromise, a socialistic framework for governing with appearances on Fox and other right-wing news platforms that we should all be prepared to die before allowing the country to become a socialist state. Never mind that the governing framework at the heart of Sander’s politics is akin to a successful realization of this form of governing all throughout Europe where it is understood as Democratic Socialism. In this country, it is not hard to portray what Sanders is pushing for as not simply socialism but Communism (we heard Mike Bloomberg make the claim in a recent debate) drawing comparisons to the hybrid forms of communism followed in China but in the bygone days of the former Soviet Union. Playing into a nationalism that has seen an uptick in anti-semitism and the belief held by many that Jews are part of a cabal to control Christian lives, Sanders is Jewish. That fact, together with the candidates’ politics makes it an easy sell to portray Sanders as a Jewish Communist with ties to Moscow (after all he honeymooned in Moscow) who, with Moscow’s help is trying to gain the White House and turn the United States away from its historic roots.

So how does this answer the questions posed at the outset? Why would Russia support Trump and why would Trump support Sanders? To be clear, neither is providing this support with the hope that Sanders wins the Presidency so what is the endgame?

There are increasing fears that Trump, should he lose in 2020, will not leave office despite constitutional requirements that he do so. He has spent the entirety of his presidency building an army of the disaffected who appear ready to answer his call to protect him from ceding his office…the Dershowitz (and Nixonian) argument that if the president does it it is for the good of the country...in order to protect the country from President-elect Bernard Sanders. In the context of a Sanders versus Trump election, it is not difficult to recognize the real possibility of Trump refusing to leave office, citing, by then, the long established “fact” that Sanders is a Russian asset from whom the country needs protection rekindling Trump dystopic speech at the Republican convention and substantively repeated at his inauguration…that he alone is able to protect the country from (himself) the evil in the world.  Is it too far-fetched to imagine Trump ordering Sanders arrested? Probably but still…After all Sanders, it will be said, is a (Jewish) Communist who has had dealings with Russia in the past and was aided in his campaign for the Presidency by Russian intelligence services all for the purpose of destroying the American way of life.

It is not difficult to imagine how Trump’s base would respond to a call to arms issued by the White House to fight the Commuinst menace waiting to take his seat in the Oval office. While that alone is a frightening prospect, the impact that such a constitutional crisis would have on the country as a whole and in particular, upon the millions upon millions of Sanders’ supporters who fervently carried their candidate to victory and the hope of new tomorrow, would like put the country on the precipice of total collapse and fulfilling Russian aims of removing the United States from a prominent player on the world stage.  

Far-fetched? Probably. Possible? Time will tell. 

The Bright Light Rushing at You...

Make no mistake about what is happening in this country. It is no longer that a coup is taking place; a coup has taken place and has succeeded. The framers contemplated a multi-branch government which was designed to prevent one branch from assuming control of the government and instituting autocratic rule. That design did not contemplate the possibility that those serving the government would fail or refuse to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution; that while threats may arise, in the end those sworn to uphold the Constitution would ultimately honor that commitment and err on the side of protecting the country from despotic rule. Recent events have proven and are continuing to prove that the checks constructed by the framers have failed because one party has chosen, affirmatively, to cause that failure. The executive, for reasons which still remain unclear has been able to take control of the majority party in the Senate thereby removing any chance of reigning in the executive as it extends the reach of its power unchecked and unfettered. Consequently, as the executive co-ops and corrupts the Department of Justice by installing a toad as its general the chance for using the rule of law to control the executive is gone. When the executive strips away the intelligence services we are left unprotected against any damage the executive may invite from foreign intervention into our national affairs. Where this is leading is increasingly clear. Should the executive prevail in the 2020 election he will be unbound by any need for accountability that an election may require and with the Senate remaining unchanged in its numbers we can be assured that the Senate will abide the executive should he choose to not abide by the term limits imposed by the Constitution and insist upon remaining in office so long as he chooses to do so. Should he lose the election of 2020 the same risk exists; that he will simply refuse to leave office fully confident that the Senate will not only stand by and do nothing but will likely find apologists for the executive who will justify the executive's refusal to leave thereby destroying forever whatever might be left of the Constitution.

Be warned. This is a real possibility and one that we cannot and will not be able to escape.