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

If You Love Your People, Set It Free (or How an Identitarian Came To Prefer Universal Policy Over Identity Politics)

This post is late because I was in LA last week, where I made a point of walking as much as possible to enjoy my audiobook. Although I still have 20/20 vision I have been slow to accept that aging has made it more difficult to read, making it feel increasingly like a chore. In fully embracing this I've finally started looking for audiobooks I might find engaging enough to not be constantly distracted. For my trip I chose Mehrsa Baradaran's The Color of Money, which looks at the persistence of the racial wealth gap in the US.  It was incredibly striking and depressing listening to The Color of Money while accidentally walking through encampments of the unhoused, watching new encampments sprout up in the short time that I was there. This is who we've always been. If you have any doubt, the history recounted in The Color of Money makes it clear that capitalism has always been about extracting wealth from Black people and keeping poor people poor. On checking into Twitter I wa…

Why Are We Expending So Much Energy on Something Barely Half of Black People Want?

Presidential contenders are being asked about their support for reparations. One could be forgiven for assuming that reparations has broad support within the Black community, it seems like an easy bet. But only slightly more than half of Black people support the idea. So why has the idea suddenly gained so much traction? Neither Yvette Carnell nor Antonio Moore, originators of #ADOS (American descendants of slaves) have the following to drive a topic supported by less than a quarter of Americans into the national conversation. I suspect that it has everything to do with Bernie Sanders, the obvious frontrunner since announcing, and the ongoing attempt to portray him as racially blind and unaware. When asked directly about his support of reparations in 2016, Sanders answered, "Its likelihood of getting through congress is nil. Second of all I think it would be very divisive." He then went on to explain how his policies would have a disproportionate positive effect on the Blac…

Even Shitty People Can Support Good Things

If in observing this reality, noting that $31,600, before taxes, for 52 weeks of labor represents a raise for a significant number of Black and Latino workers you're inclined to insist we also need to confront racism, you are not the left. While personal bias can sometimes have deadly results, the numbers pale beside the exponentially larger number of deaths that are the result of the deprivations of capitalism. And I have yet to hear any effective method I might use for addressing bias within others that warrants adding it as a goal to the already monumental task of getting even subsistence level needs consistently met. Whether you consider yourself left or not it should be clear that the only potential candidate interested in transforming our political system towards one that considers the needs of the most vulnerable is Bernie Sanders. I want to say something that will be treated as controversial or apologist in certain circles but shouldn't be by anyone with any sense of …