Skip to main content

If You Don't Care About Winning This is Probably the Way to Go.

I'm in the process of writing a blog entry that's kinda gotten away from me and I've been distracted by a video I saw this morning. If you are a party first Democrat, Moderate, Neoliberal, or anyone else who still blames third party and non-voters for HRC's loss, even if it's just to yourself, please watch this video and think about why someone who's ambivalent about the party or to the left of the party might find it difficult to support the party's candidate.

The attitude expressed by the woman in the video and the purge of progressives from the DNC suggests to me that mainstream Dems have once again learned the wrong lesson from a loss (actually, many over the last decade). It seems that they've concluded that those free pony ideas Bernie offered suckered us into wanting things the party doesn't want to offer rather than understanding he suggested things that many need and that are utterly mundane in other countries. Instead of recognizing the pull of a true modern New Deal the DNC has basically decided we need to diversify our corporate superdelegates.

To add insult to injury, Perez also tapped several individuals who have lobbying or corporate-interest backgrounds—a move that has sparked criticism in the past. The pack of new delegates includes Joanne Dowdell, a registered lobbyist for Fox News parent company News Corp; Harold Ickes, a veteran of the Clinton White House; and Manuel Ortiz, a lobbyist for CITGO Petroleum Corp and Puerto Rican interests. At least 10 additional Perez-tapped superdelegates have previously been registered as lobbyists, Bloomberg reports.

Rather than focusing on a solid agenda for opposing the Republicans, a battle plan for protecting the votes of its base, or for chasing the votes of the huge swath of non-voters; and rather than making a visible commitment to its most faithful voting bloc the DNC is making a point to limit the scope of ideas, working from the assumption that voters don't really have a choice but to support their candidates.






How'd that work out last time? After the last election leftist are angry. They largely voted for HRC, thus the popular vote, but that's now being used as justification for hostage taking. On Twitter at least they're daring them to shoot the baby. I predicted that HRC would lose unless certain things were addressed. I covered these in my groundbreaking blogpost "Sometimes a Loss is Just a Time to Move On" (I'm experimenting with self-promoting adjectives). This is the way of more future losses or the narrowest of wins resulting in little progress before Republicans regain control again just to break things. What do you think?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is