Monday evening an unknown individual inside the United States Supreme Court leaked a draft decision written by Justice Samuel Alito which would explicitly overturn the landmark decisions Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This would mean the end to a guaranteed federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and at least 22 states, including Missouri, would almost immediately ban abortion entirely. This has been the animating force behind the conservative legal movement for the last two generations and this is their grand triumph which will only embolden the court to go even further. The language of Alito leaves the door open for reconsiderations of Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized same-sex marriage and Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual intercourse, and if you compare his dissent in Obergefell to his draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization it’s not hard to imagine the Court deciding to also “Send the issue back to the states”. The Constitution of the United States of America is in the hands of 6 members of the federalist society, we are entering a new era of American politics.

President Biden has made clear that his administration has no plans to protect abortion access. In a statement the morning after the leak, the President said, “If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.  At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.” It’s important to be clear about two points. The first, is the most important and it is that the president’s party almost always has a bad midterm. Data from fivethirtyeight.com shows a familiar pattern (that I also wrote about in 2021 here) “Overall, in the post-World War II era, the president’s party has performed an average of 7.4 points worse in the House popular vote in midterm elections than it did two years prior. Therefore, since Democrats won the House popular vote by 3.0 points in 2020, Republicans can roughly expect to win it by 4.4 points in 2022 if history is any guide…Indeed, in the 19 midterm elections between 1946 and 2018, the president’s party has improved upon its share of the House popular vote just once. And since 1994, when (we would argue) the modern political alignment took hold, the president’s party has lost the national House popular vote in six out of seven midterm elections — usually by similar margins (6 to 9 percentage points) to boot.”

It took 9/11 for George W. Bush and Impeachment for Bill Clinton, as well as voter coalitions that no longer exist, for them to break history. It is extremely unlikely that President Biden, given his approval ratings, economic conditions, and redistricting will outrun history. The second point is, when Democrats had 60 Senators there were not enough votes to codify Roe into law. In 2022 there are not realistic opportunities to win 60 Senate seats, meaning the only avenue to codifying Roe or expanding the Court or any potential remedy would be through abolishing the filibuster which cannot find 50 votes in the US Senate. Currently in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is campaigning for the lone anti-choice Democrat in the House while he has a viable progressive challenger in Jessica Cisneros. This is the state of our opposition party, these individuals are the last line of defense.

There are some who have used this dark moment which represents the greatest contraction of civil rights since the end of Reconstruction to deliver an “I told you so”. These people would like to do historical revisionism about the 2016 election and have taken to blaming the left-wing in this country for the state of the Supreme Court. Generally, it’s not worth engaging in this discourse, but I’ve decided to do so today if not for the sole reason that these narratives are actively hindering the success of any centrist let alone any liberal project in this country. Candidly, we are rapidly approaching different entirely preventable disasters and we shouldn’t waste any more time promulgating useless ideas. So, I’m willing to address the skyscraper sized elephant lurking around this discourse, What if Hillary Clinton had won. It’s probably the most frequent hypothetical among liberals, and my read of the alternative is blessed by hindsight but is not informed by omniscience. This is what I believe would’ve happened, it is not exhaustive of everything that could’ve happened.

It’s important to note that Clinton didn’t lose because of insufficient support from the left. In 2008, Clinton did 13 public campaign events for then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders did 41 public campaign events for Clinton during the general election. In 2008, 25% of Clinton primary voters supported Sen. John McCain. In 2016, only 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump, meanwhile 13% of Obama’s 2012 voters supported Trump. Clinton lost because she was the most unpopular Democrat to run for President in the history of modern polling and would’ve been the most unpopular candidate period if not for Donald Trump. In terms of ideology, it’s hard to remember now but a critical number of voters wrongly perceived Trump to be more moderate than Clinton. To imagine a world in which Clinton wins the election is not difficult because in spite of her weak electoral performance and rock bottom approval ratings, she very nearly did win. Let’s imagine that James Comey does not release his October letter which hurt Clinton among late deciders and Clinton narrowly wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida bringing her to 307 electoral votes. Let’s assume, for Clinton’s sake, that her improved margin extends down ballot which would mean victories in the Pennsylvania and Missouri Senate races and probably an additional 2-3 house seats. This would give her the exact same evenly divided Senate the Biden has but a GOP controlled House. So, what would have happened to Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat?

President Hillary Clinton would submit her nominee to the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit or Jane Kelly of the 8^th Circuit. The nomination would advance deadlocked from the committee, NeverTrump Republicans like former Sen. Jeff Flake would not adopt their current faux moderate posture without Trump as a foil but would return to the vapid anti-Clinton rhetoric that dominated the 90s. It is likely that Republicans would filibuster this Supreme Court nomination, led perhaps by Sen. Ted Cruz who would now likely be heir-apparent for the 2020 nomination or Sen. Jeff Sessions who instead of being disgraced former Attorney General would be an ideological leader in the GOP Conference. Even without the filibuster, the nomination is in jeopardy as Sen. Manchin is non-committal about supporting the nominee and no GOP Senator wants to cast the deciding vote in favor. Senate Majority Leader Schumer undertakes an effort to abolish the Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, it fails 47-53 with Senators Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin voting with all Republicans. President Clinton is forced to withdraw her nomination and through a compromise with Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley nominates then Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, a “moderate” Republican. He is confirmed with all 50 Democrats and 16 Republicans voting in favor. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointed by Reagan, opts not to retire while Democrats control the Senate and Presidency. Justice Ginsburg again postpones retirement, fearing that she too will be replaced by a conservative compromise candidate.

In 2018, Democrats suffer sweeping loses in the midterm elections. Republicans elect Josh Hawley in Missouri, Rick Scott in Florida, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, and Kevin Cramer in North Dakota just like in our reality. However, Republicans also pick up West Virginia and Montana while holding Nevada as Democrats narrowly squeak by in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. There is no special election in Minnesota, Democrats don’t force Al Franken to resign and launch at attempt to discredit the MeToo movement as liberal figures like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey find themselves accused of sexual misconduct. This is done partially to protect the tenuous Democratic majority, but also to discredit renewed criticism of former President Bill Clinton as his connections to child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein become public knowledge during a special counsel investigation lead by Robert Mueller was launched by the House early in the administration. On January 3^rd, Mitch McConnell becomes Senate Majority leader once again with 55 seats. Democrats make gains in the House, although still in the minority they make gains in the suburbs bringing their numbers just above 200.

In 2019, Several Republicans announce their candidacies for President including Sen. Ted Cruz fresh off his double-digit re-election, Governor Nikki Haley, and Sen. Tom Cotton while Speaker Paul Ryan forms an exploratory committee before ultimately deciding against a run. Donald Trump is speculated to be a potential candidate, but instead successfully pivots his failed run for President into a New York Times best-selling novel with accompanying docuseries chronicling his rise to the GOP nomination self-describing as a “populist revolutionary”. Clinton herself faces a spirited primary challenge from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (the lone member of the Senate to endorse Sanders in 2016), and he wins the New Hampshire primary as well as a few caucuses, but he is never seriously close to overtaking Clinton and she wraps up the nomination before mid-March. The pandemic still rages across the globe in 2020, in the United States the pandemic is made worse by a severe economic recession. President Clinton and the GOP Congress deadlock on several fronts and settle on a relief package that mirrors the 2009 recovery, however it is not passed until May leaving millions scrambling to compete for resources from overwhelmed nonprofits. Infections are lower than our current reality because Clinton never disempowers the CDC and is prepared for a pandemic level event, but anti-lockdown activity begins earlier and is more violent as people are animated not just by anti-science conspiracy but also anti-Clinton sentiment. In September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, and Republicans hold open her seat for the duration of the 2020 Election. President Clinton is likely defeated, not since the election of 1820 have there been 2 successive 2 term presidents of the same political party. If Clinton did win re-election, it’s hard to imagine Democrats having better midterm prospects in 2022 than what they face today. When she does lose, Republicans appoint Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida or perhaps law professor Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Anthony Kennedy retires shortly thereafter, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh is elevated to his seat. Roe and Casey are functionally though not explicitly overruled in a 5-4 decision, with Sandoval joining the liberal minority in dissent.

Seeing as a Clinton victory might not have been enough to avoid our current reality, what would’ve needed to happen to avoid this nightmare? You don’t have to get into butterfly effect level science fiction or have had psychic super power to be able to imagine how things could’ve gone differently. If:

1. At any point between 2009 and 2015, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had opted to retire, abortion rights, voting rights, labor rights, and many civil liberties would not be facing near certain annihilation. In 2013, Ginsburg had battled cancer twice by the age of 80 and the political environment in Washington was increasingly polarized. It was clear to contemporary writers that should Republicans capture the Senate, something they were heavily favored to do given the history of midterm elections, because of rising partisanship it would be unlikely that a liberal successor could be confirmed. At the time, the balance of the court was 3 hard right conservatives, 2 center-right conservatives, and 4 liberals. The few liberal victories of the 21^st century were generally 5-4 decisions, and the disappearance of any justice would have a dramatic impact on constitutional law. Furthermore, the disappearance of a liberal justice would of course mean a hard right turn in the court at least until a conservative vacancy appeared. Ginsburg, understanding the stakes of her decision opted not to retire. When she died, as an attempt to shield her legacy perhaps realizing the disastrous effect of her decision to not retire, sheepishly relayed a message that she knew would not be honored. Ginsburg had no reason to believe her replacement would not be a woman, as President Obama had nominated both Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg had no reason to believe that her replacement would be less liberal, as Sotomayor actually disagreed more with Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts than Ginsburg did in the 2019 term. There was no reason for Ginsburg to do what she did, and that decision more than anything else is responsible for this moment.
2. In 2014 and 2010, Democrats lost several close Senate races and spent tens of millions of dollars on blowout losing races. If the party had decided to abandon clear losers and directed that spending elsewhere, Democrats might’ve had a Senate majority in 2016 when Scalia died. Which would’ve meant a liberal Supreme Court, not just a not as far right one, but a genuine liberal majority which hasn’t existed in generations. Let’s look at the 2010 races, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR-D) spent $12 million for 37% of the vote, Gov. Charlie Crist (FL-I) and Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL-D) spent a collective $23 million to receive 29.7% and 20.2% of the vote respectively, and Robin Carnahan (MO-D) spent $10 million to receive 40.6% of the vote. Meanwhile Democratic Senate candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania failed by less than 2% of the vote. What might an extra $45 million split between the two of them have meant? So, what about 2014? Mark Pryor (AR-D) spent $14 million to receive 39% of the vote and Alison Lundergan Grimes spent $18 million to receive 41% of the vote. Meanwhile, Democrats lost Alaska, Colorado, and North Carolina by less the 2.3%. If those races had broken Democrats way, they would’ve certainly had enough votes to Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, this pattern has only intensified as Democrats burned a whopping $250 million dollars to be beaten by double digits in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama while losing several close House races.
3. In 2009, Democrats could’ve attempted to codify Roe. For 3 months, Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and then just shy of it the rest of that congressional term. There were likely enough Pro-Choice Republicans to overcome the objections of Anti-Choice Democrats, and even if compromise legislation had to be crafted it is a near certainty that it would’ve been better than our current system which has allowed states like Texas and Mississippi to ban abortion without outright doing so. It certainly would’ve been better than allowing a conservative court to decide the fate of abortion. But the fault on this one doesn’t lay solely with Harry Reid, but with President Barack Obama. In 2007, he said at a speech to Planned Parenthood that the first thing he’d do as President was sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would’ve codified Roe. Before he’d been President 100 days, it had been completely dropped from his agenda and he said of the bill that it was “not my highest legislative priority” and apparently not a priority at all.

That leaves just one burning question, what can we do now? Some of you will be tempted to say “vote!” or some variation of “elect more Democrats”. I’d like you to just consider this, for a moment. In 2018, more than half of Americans could not name a single Supreme Court Justice. Although most Americans (71%) blame Vladimir Putin and Oil companies (68%) for the rising cost of oil, however a majority also blame President Biden (51%) and Democratic Party policies (52%). Most voters don’t perceive politics through the lens of obsessive partisan observers, and often are more likely to see correlations and be unaware of longer-term trends. This is all to say that there is a critical mass of voters who will say “Why should I be convinced that my support has mattered or will matter? I’ve always voted for Democrats, and they just beat Trump so why is this happening.” If Abortion rights disappear while Democrats control congress and the Presidency, the fine details will be lost and I don’t think it’s logical to assume that the response among voters will be a Democratic surge. Although, you should support candidates who support abortion rights when given the opportunity. It’s important to keep protesting, donate to abortion funds to support people who are going to have trouble finding access, and testify against state efforts to criminalize abortion.  But beyond that, what else is there? Not much that isn’t 10 years too late. What’s really important is for the left to develop a sense of our place of history and work towards a long-term vision for society. The right knows who they are and where they are going and have been working for it since the New Deal. We must have that same determination and will or there will come a day when we wake up in a country that we do not recognize as our own. We may already be there.

The post Would President Hillary Clinton have saved Roe? Probably Not appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the lessons of the presidential defeat of the Democrats in 2016 is that Hillary Clinton paid minimal attention to the voters who “had no identity.” We’re actually talking about those who are not part of the mosaic of the identity politics that has become fundamental to the Democratic Party ever since the 1960s.

These people excluded from the mosaic are often known as white, sometimes as poor whites, or even as angry whites. But Donald Trump took a page out of George Wallace and Richard Nixon’s playbook in 1968 and referred to them as “forgotten Americans.” There is nothing demeaning about that and it has the cachet of other identity groups of including a victim status.

But there was a time when the so-called forgotten Americans were in the political tent of the Democratic Party. It was a time when identity was based more on economic well-being rather than ethnic identity. It was at the time that Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1932 and he saw that the route to getting America moving again was not trickle-down economics, but rather priming the pump from the bottom. Having the government be the distributor of income to those who were poor was much more efficient and effective than leaving it to unrestrained capitalists. In fairness to Republicans, it must be said that FDR’s distant cousin Theodore Roosevelt took many steps in his 1901-1909 presidency to curb the abuses of unbridled capitalists.

In his book Listen Liberal, Thomas Frank argues that the Democratic Party has gotten away from its roots as champions of the economically oppressed and become much more concerned about protecting professional classes and ethnic minorities. He wisely points out that there is no logical reason to exclude the “forgotten Americans” from the coalition except that they are an easy punching bag for professionals and minorities. “Forgotten Americans” and those who speak on their behalf are constant fodder for late-night comedians and elitists elsewhere in our society.

Democrats seem to have learned part of the lesson. They are making more of an effort to “talk the talk;” to include “forgotten Americans” in their lists of special interest groups. This is not without difficulty for Democrats. As Thomas Franks points out in his previous book, What’s the Matter with Kansas, “forgotten Americans” are concerned about something besides the economic considerations that were so fundamental to the New Deal and even the Great Society. They have become joined at the hip with so-called “values issues.” Barack Obama may have summed it up best at a time when he thought that he was off-the-record, and he talked about those Americans who “cling to God and their guns.”

What would help Democrats would be if their leaders would do more of “walking the walk” with those among us, of any ethnicity, who are getting short-changed. For Democratic leaders such as Obama and Hillary Clinton, this could mean going back to their roots – what they did in their twenties.

Barack Obama was a community organizer. He walked the streets on the south side of Chicago where tenants were being taken advantage of by the Housing Authority. On a daily basis, he worked with the very people that the New Deal Democratic Party wanted to help.

Certainly, Barack Obama is entitled to a break after the stresses of the presidency, particularly with the vitriolic hate of Republicans like Mitch McConnell. But does there come a time when Obama can step away from the life of fund-raisers and hobnobbing with the likes of Richard Branson and instead live in a world where he is closer to the people who are most in need of the Democratic Party.

In her twenties, Hillary Clinton worked for the Children’s Defense Fund and also as an attorney for the Senate Watergate Committee. She was clearly in the legal trenches for those who were oppressed. Her “Goldwater Girl” days were long past, and she was a champion for social justice.

It is not unprecedented for a former president or presidential candidate to get back in the trenches. Look no further than Plains, Georgia and Jimmy Carter.

What would it say, what would it mean to the Democratic Party and those who run with under its banner if Barack Obama spent a couple of days a month knocking on the doors of economically depressed people and used his legal skills to provide protection for them? What would it mean if Hillary Clinton argued cases for the Children’s Defense Fund?

It would be interesting if Obama and Clinton re-acquainted themselves with “the other America,” if even on a limited basis. The message to Democrats should be that our constituents include everyone, and we never should be above being with “the people.”

The post Obama and Clinton can lead way for Democrats to get back to their roots appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Donald Trump unfortunately is already more consequential than any US President since Ronald Reagan. Trump will reshape our judiciary, he has already reshaped our tax code, and next year he will have an opportunity to undo much of the Great Society and New Deal. There are some things we may not be able to restore, at least not for a long time, such as the dignity of the office. We can’t exactly bottle back up whatever Trump’s candidacy let out, it’s here now and we’re going to have to live with it. However, we can learn from what’s happening and discern what it means to live in this strange and foreign land that was once America. I don’t know exactly what Trump is or what the hell is happening with our politics, but 2017 gave me some time to reflect and this is what I’ve come up with.

1. Donald Trump won the hearts of Republicans, Trumpism did not

1. 1. There’s a line from Hillary Clinton’s book What Happened (which if you haven’t read, you should) that muses on the notion that the Republican ideology is bankrupt, she says “Trump came along and pulled back the curtain on what was really going on. We learned that many Republican voters didn’t have any problem with big government, so long as it was big government for them…. He promised to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, while abandoning free trade and getting tough on bankers, in direct contradiction of Republican orthodoxy. Instead of paying a price for it, he swept away all his more traditional GOP rivals”. Some have argued that Trump’s victory was a result of cultural resentment from white voters who felt out of place in a country that is increasingly becoming less white. But after witnessing calamitous loses in Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama, and close special elections in Kansas, Montana, and South Carolina of all places…a common theme persists. No matter what campaign strategy is employed, embracing Donald Trump, attempting Trumpism without Trump, etc… voters who approve of the President’s performance are voting for Democrats. Considering that the President is still attacking Hillary Clinton and so are his supporters suggests that for many Trump supporters 2016 was about hating Hillary Clinton which inevitably had to lead to a self-rationalization of supporting Trump. How else could people support someone who brags about sexually assaulting women, insults veterans as well as their widows, and seems to be “temperamental” at best and a complete loon at worst? It becomes easy if one can always pivot back to Hillary, who some viewed as evil incarnate and use their hate for her to renew their support of him. However, Hillary Clinton is not on the ballot in 2018, and the Trump-McConnell-Ryan policy proposals are massively unpopular. Trumpism is toxic, and quite a few Republicans are going to be damned if they do and damned if they don’t when it comes to the decision on whether to run towards or away from Trump. When Hillary Clinton eventually fades from the national memory, we’ll see whether Donald Trump can even survive politically.

1. Ivanka & Jared will not save us
   1. Remember when the conventional wisdom, at least on Morning Joe, was Ivanka & Jared Kushner were the adults in the oval office? That the President respects his daughter and values the counsel of his son-in-law and therefore would be less inclined to act the way he had during the campaign because they would moderate him or perhaps even get him to adopt liberal stances on climate change or equal pay? That did not happen and will not happen because as it turns out, Trump’s children and son-in-law are actually sycophants. When Ivanka declared “there’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children” after learning of the accusations against Roy Moore, the President still endorsed him and recorded ads for him. It is time to accept that they are complicit in the disintegration of our democracy and are only interested in maintaining their proximity to power because they’re using their connection to the President to enrich themselves. Ivanka and Jared are not seriously interested in the future of this country, but when Jared is indicted by Robert Muller I’m sure we’ll hear about how everything he did was in the national interest. Ivanka is not a friend of any working woman, and she could not be as she continues to lavish praise upon her serial sexual harasser father about how good he is to women. We progressives do not have allies in the White House, and if we did they certainly would not be Ivanka and Jared who have only used their influence to get the President to obstruct justice and fire James Comey to keep Jared out of prison. They are not democrats, they are plutocrats.

1. Republicans Politicians Speak Loudly and Carry a Twig

1. 1. Jeff Flake, the esteemed senator from Arizona, wrote a book defending his idealized version of conservatism, donated to Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama and gave a speech on the floor of the senate criticizing Trump for destabilizing our country. Susan Collins, the esteemed senator from Maine, made a point of emphasizing how important it was that people in her state had access to healthcare which has been made possible by the affordable care act. Bob Corker, the esteemed senator from Tennessee, stated he could never vote for a bill that increases the deficit and all but said that President Trump was mentally unbalanced. John McCain, the maverick, sunk the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare because he believes in our institutions and that government needs to operate under regular order. Would you believe all those people abandoned everything honorable about them that was previously mentioned to vote for a tax bill that was not conservative, repealed the individual mandate in Obamacare, increases the deficit, and definitely wasn’t passed under regular order? The entire GOP conference would probably rather Trump wasn’t President, they find time to go on MSNBC to criticize the President so they can have nice articles written about them in the New York Times or Politico about how they’ve put party before country. But these senators have the same policy goals of the President, and their disagreements are about style and not substance. That is why we cannot rely on them to stop a dangerous judicial nominee, protect undocumented children, or any children for that matter as CHIP slowly is running out of money. They are Republican senators and come what may, they will support the President.

1. Donald Trump is in Charge

1. 1. We thought Mike Pence ran the White House. Then we thought Vladimir Putin ran the White House. Then we thought Steve Bannon ran the White House. Then we thought Reince Priebus ran the White House. Then we thought Jared Kushner ran the White House. Then we thought John Kelly ran the White House. But now we know, and perhaps we always knew but the prospect was so terrifying that we pushed it away from us, that Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States and runs the White House. That has been put on full display during the Korean missile crisis when Trump said, “If forced…we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea”. If Trump decides to launch a nuclear weapon, he can. John Kelly can fire the Mooch a million times over, but should Trump take a course that essentially causes the destruction of the Korean Peninsula and puts the United States in the crosshairs of several ICBMs, it won’t matter that John Kelly was chief of staff. Donald Trump is leading (rather poorly, but leading all the same) his party in the direction he wants them to go. Mitch McConnell will keep trying to repeal Obamacare not because he likes being embarrassed, but because the President wants to keep trying. Does Paul Ryan want to deport immigrant children? Probably not, but what Ryan wants is inconsequential because Trump has no real interest in renewing DACA therefore it won’t be on the docket. Whether or not Trump knows what he is doing is still in the air, but we must concede that he is making the decisions behind closed doors because nobody but him would allow this much chaos.

1. Trump Supporters are Deplorable, but not Irredeemable

1. 1. The third of America that still supports Donald Trump after a year of his defending white supremacists, throwing tantrums on twitter, posturing for nuclear war, endorsing child molesters, insulting flood victims, and embarrassing this country on the world stage…they are actually deplorable. When it was 2016 and there was still some debate about how Donald Trump would lead if elected coupled with the specter of a Clinton presidency, I could have understood supporting Donald Trump. He promised he would be presidential and his rhetoric of supporting infrastructure, protecting social security, and being “pro-LGBTQ” suggested a more moderate presidency than what we received. However, we’ve had a year and we know what we’re getting and there’s no excuse for still supporting Trump. Because supporting conservative policies and supporting Donald Trump are actually not mutually exclusive, it is possible to do one and not the other. Sen. Jeff Flake is a prime example. He is Mr. Conservative, he was the tea party before there was a tea party and he does not support the President. Therefore, people are consciously making the choice, absent of Hillary Clinton and presented with a number of alternatives, to support Donald Trump. Now here’s what matters, there’s absolutely no way around these people being deplorable however they are all redeemable and that’s true if we look at Trump’s approval rating. His approval rating is still above water in states that he won in 2016, but they’ve taken quite a dip. In West Virginia, he’s lost 20 points. In Indiana, he’s lost 22 points. In Missouri, he’s lost 16 points and the trend is the same in every state. Just looking at his approval numbers, we see that while Trump’s approval has been in the high thirties for several months. That might look as if nothing has changed, but there is a difference between “strongly approve” and “somewhat approve”. At the beginning of his presidency, nearly 30% of Americans strongly approved of the President but by the May that number was barely 20%. Those “Strong Approvers” still approve of the President, but they’re less fanatical than they once were. Some die-hard Trumpers are now ambivalent about the President even if they haven’t reached the point of disapproval. People who voted for the President aren’t regretting their votes because many of them still passionately hate Hillary Clinton, but they are bothered by the behavior of their candidate. So, we have to believe that facts actually do matter as well as policies and how the media covers politics. Because Hillary was wrong when she called Trump supporters irredeemable, because even though they may never be liberals if we don’t give up we can turn them away from Trumpism. That said, the fact that it is taking this long is disheartening but at least we know it’s possible and in 2018 perhaps we can crack through even more.

The post What I’ve Learned After a Year of Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This past Monday, Hillary Clinton formally announced her post-2016 election plans. She will be establishing a political organization aimed at funding “resistance groups” that are standing up to President Donald Trump.

On the one hand, we can have empathy for Clinton because of the pain of losing 2016 presidential election. But among the reasons why she lost was the fact that she was virtually inseparable from big money and the people who have it. Unlike her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, she did not raise the bulk of her money from individuals. Rather she consistently went to wherever the big money was, whether it was on the west coast with George Clooney or on the east coast on Wall Street.

When it comes to money for political purposes, Democrats are going to have to move beyond Hillary Clinton. For that matter, they are going to have to also move beyond Barack Obama. If you’re talking about “resistance,” what could you be resisting more than the entrenchment of big money?

Bernie Sanders showed that you can fund a campaign “by the people.” Barack Obama might have been able to do it in 2008 but he chose to forgo public financing and went where the big dollars were.

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party is the party of yesteryear, or at least we should hope that it is. If she were to turn her personal clock back fifty years and be the student she was at Wellesley, she would probably agree. Somehow, in her evolution, both as an individual and as a Clinton, she became enamored with money and the accouterments that surround it. For the base of the Democratic Party – the working poor, the non-working poor, the middle class, professionals, progressives, it is time to move on. The kind of communication that is necessary in political movements and campaigns is relatively inexpensive. There is no need to rely on mass mailings and television advertising is become less effective.

One of the reasons that Barack Obama’s Organizing for America was such as failure is that what was supposed to be a political movement to support his policies became just another fund-raising enterprise. Asking for money is a pain in the ass for everyone. It promotes false bragging and unseemly begging.

Democrats need to walk the walk along with talking the talk. That means acting in a fashion that is commensurate with the way in which its primary constituencies live. It need not be elitist. It is essential that it is real and honest.

Most of the money that Hillary Clinton would raise for resistance groups would be tainted, and if the organizations are really grassroots, that money would not be needed. Hillary Clinton has done a great deal for the country, particularly in her younger and less varnished years. While she has a clear understanding of what was done to her in the 2016 election, she is very unenlightened about what she did to herself. Until she can reach that level of understanding and acceptance, she is of very little value to the Democratic Party and the country. Let’s hope that she takes time away from secluded circles and can reconnect with her roots. Then it will be time to listen.

The post Please, Hillary, spare us appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Remember when you might have thought that Donald Trump was a Democrat at heart? We know that he was once pro-choice, that he had little to do with “Republican values” and that doing business in New York required closer relationships with Democrats than Republicans.

When Ted Cruz accused Trump during the 2016 Republican presidential debates of not truly being a conservative because of his “New York values,” was Cruz on to something?

When Trump supported Hillary Clinton’s senatorial races in 2000 and 2006, did he not have a flirting interest in the Democratic Party?

According to Ballotpedia, prior to 2011, Trump donated more money to Democrats than Republicans. But after 2011, Trump contributed only $8,500 to Democrats and $630,150 to Republicans.

His switch to giving primarily to Republicans came four years prior to his announcing his own candidacy for president in June 2015. Was there something that occurred around 2011 that gave Trump cause to distance himself from Democrats and solidify his affiliation with Republicans? And whatever the reason might have been for his switch in political loyalties, did it have anything to do with his personal and financial ties to Russia?

Ah, how much easier it would be to investigate what happened after the first decade of the 21st century if we had access to Trump’s tax returns. But we don’t, and as we all know, that has nothing to do with any decision or non-decision made by the Internal Revenue Service.

What we do know about 2011, is that two years earlier, Democrat Hillary Clinton really angered Russian President Vladimir Putin. On March 6, 2009, she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red button with the English word “reset” on it. She and the Obama Administration were concerned by the Russo-Georgian diplomatic crisis and then the Russo-Georgian war. If the U.S. was going to disapprove of Russia’s behavior, it was offensive to Putin, especially when he interpreted the U.S. as scolding Russia like a little child.

CNN reports,

Back in 2011, Putin faced the biggest protests the country had seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He had served two terms as president, the maximum allowed, and in 2008 had become prime minister, in a maneuver that allowed him to effectively hold power while his ally, Dmitry Medvedev, was president. Then he announced — to much anger, but little surprise — that he would seek a third term as president. Three months later, the opposition erupted in fury when his party won a landslide victory in legislative elections amid allegations of fraud.
Then-Secretary of State Clinton openly sided with the protesters. “The Russian people, like people everywhere,” she said, “…deserve free, fair, transparent elections.”

Putin knew that Clinton would likely run for president of the United States in 2016. He was angry with her and feared possible interference on her part in Russian affairs. It should be no surprise that he would want someone other than Hillary Clinton to be the new U.S. president. Russia had already been actively involved in trying to influence elections in other countries. Specifically, with the Ukraine, they had maneuvered to have American political operative Paul Manafort become a top aide to pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych, who was running to become president of Ukraine.

Manafort succeeded in that task, but he had never been involved in a U.S. presidential race. Why did Donald Trump choose Manafort to be his campaign chairman? This is one of dozens of questions that can mildly be called oddities in the tangled web of close connections between Donald Trump and Russia.

The central question remains. Did Donald Trump’s movement away from the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party have anything to do with his relations with Russia? Did Russia make its financial help to him contingent upon him walking on the other side of the street from Hillary Clinton?

In 2017, we know that in terms of temperament and thinking, he is much closer to Republicans than Democrats. We also know that Barack Obama’s skewering of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner put Trump in a mood for revenge. But is it possible that he never would have landed in the Republican camp had it not been for his relations with Russia and Putin’s desire to manipulate him? These might be questions that investigative reporters with resources might want to study. Where did Trump’s “New York values,” go and why did they seem to disappear?

The post Did Trump become a Republican because of his Russia troubles? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Are you having post-election buyer’s remorse? There are many reasons people did not cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. Some people, including myself, generally lean Green-Left, but we actually found several of Trump’s policy positions put forth during the election to be more appealing. Mrs. Clinton is a staunch defender of the status quo (hardly a leftist perspective). She primarily ran against Trump’s flagrantly flawed character. Whenever she got any sort of a lead in the polls, she lunged to the right. These numerous ideological differences may have encouraged many well-intended voters to vote for Jill Stein, the Libertarian, not vote at all, or even support Trump. Now that we know about his major appointments and have witnessed several pronouncements via Twitter and elsewhere, let’s revisit those issues where Trump provided more hope than Clinton.

Before getting started, please note that this dreary review is not meant to be snarky about those who did not vote for Hillary. I have a lot of sympathy for alienated voters, non-voters, reluctant Trump voters, and Trump supporters who may already have doubts. The political system is rigged to favor the rich.

I erroneously voted for Nader in 2000 instead of Gore and did not want to make the same mistake again, so I reluctantly voted for her. Trump appears unstable and is congenitally dishonest. He launched his Presidential campaign by promoting the odious, racist Big Lie that President Obama had been born outside the United States. His casual, misleading retraction revealed his complete contempt for facts. Thus, I never took seriously any of his campaign positions. I hoped he was lying about the most awful ones, such as the nonexistence of climate change. Overall, the good stuff is being discarded while the worst stuff is metastasizing on the table.

Massive nuclear war

Trump claimed he would work with Russia, while Hillary supported NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, a policy her husband began. She might have shot down Russian planes in Syria by the end of next month. But Trump merely switched “official enemies.” We are now supposed to hate China more than Russia. A 2016 update of Orwell’s 1984. Given Trump’s inherent volatility, the risk of massive nuclear war appears greater than under Clinton. Trump’s proposal to re-escalate the nuclear arms race is frightening.

No second Cold War

Clinton appeared to want another Cold War with Russia. The only thing worse than a Cold War is a Hot War. Now, we probably will have Cold War II with China. Hardly an improvement. Neither Party seems interested in peace.

Smaller wars

Trump claims he will not revisit Obama’s greatest foreign policy accomplishment, the deal with Iran. But who would more likely invade Iran? There are a lot of aggressive people in the Trump Cabinet, while there would have been different members of the War Party in the Clinton Cabinet. Neither leader would do much for the Palestinians. Once again, Trump’s bellicose personality suggests he is a greater threat to world peace.  But don’t forget that Obama has bombed seven countries and probably sent special forces in many more, while Hillary has always been inclined to use violence.

Free trade

Just as I am not a fan of unregulated markets, I oppose unconditioned trade and open borders. Trump stopped TPP, while Obama would probably have pushed it through Congress as Secretary Hillary feigned disapproval. However, Trump’s plan to impose a huge tariff on Chinese goods suggests that his trade policy will be part of his (hopefully only) Cold War against China. Jobs probably will continue to flow to most other countries. Already, the increased value in the dollar makes it less attractive to manufacture products in the United States.

Immigration reform

The Democrats were going to serve their corporate masters; Clinton advocated, “open borders” and Schumer said it was one of the first things they were going to do after their hoped-for victory. I doubt if it will be all that different under Trump. There may or may not be a wall, but the wealthy want illegal and legal immigration to reduce labor costs, increase labor competition, and weaken unions. You can be sure no employers of illegals will face legal sanctions.

Drain the swamp

Trump attacked not just the Clintons’ corrupt behavior but also the appalling ethics of the Beltway. He frequently mocked his Republican opponents for their subservience to people like him.  However, his appointments of political hucksters and leaders from Goldman Sachs indicate business as usual or worse.   His personal conflicts of interest are astounding, rivaling or exceeding the Clintons’ grubbing for money while she was Secretary of State.  So far, it does not look like there will even be “an appearance of propriety.”  It would be real progress if Trump, unlike Obama, indicts a few corporate criminals. Given the appointments, what are the odds? Perhaps a bit better than under Clinton.

The Fed

Trump talked about taming the Federal Reserve Board, the institution that primarily implements “socialism for the rich” while Congress maintains “capitalism for the poor.” But will there even be a real audit of that secretive institution dominated by private bankers? The Goldman appointments indicate “No.”

Personal corruption

Trump claimed he was so wealthy that the elite would not capture him. True, they will have more than usual trouble controlling his outbursts, but he won’t resist their giving money to his family and creating immediate financial opportunities for his businesses. It will be interesting to see how much his family’s wealth has increased by the end of his Presidency.  I am sure he is envious of Putin’s billions.

Infrastructure

There was a possibility that Trump would have created a substantial infrastructure program. But Republican opposition in Congress may prevail. Do you think he cares? Our best hope may be that one of his children enters the construction business.  Either way, any decent Trump proposals will probably share the same fate as any reasonable Clinton initiatives.

The ACA

Trump once supported “single payer,” the cheapest, best solution to providing national care. But his cabinet appointments indicate millions of Americans’ health and finances will soon rapidly deteriorate.

Jobs

Trump asserted he would enable the working and middle class to have better jobs. Clinton only wanted to tinker. While talking about reducing student loan debt, she failed to mention that her husband received millions to promote a for-profit educational institution that extracted millions from the desperately underemployed. Given Trump’s appointments, it looks like the average person will have to wait at least four more years before they have a President who actually cares about them.

LGBT

The President-elect has been quite good on LGBT rights. Peter Thiel spoke at the RNC. Trump said the Supreme Court should not revisit the gay marriage decision. This position is the remaining glimmer of decency, similar to Clinton’s support. There was a passing hope that Trump could convince his base to let go of this stupid, divisive issue. But Senator Cruz is proposing an Orwellian Bill that will undermine vital First Amendment rights (along with many other constitutional rights) by permitting business owners to discriminate against gays for “moral reasons.” It will be OK to keep African-Americans out of your public restaurant if their patronage violates your “religious liberty.” Will Trump speak out against this divisive, dangerous bill? Will he veto it? Will he closely vet Supreme Court nominees to prevent legalized gay bashing and racism? With Hillary, we wouldn’t need to ask these questions.

Helping poor minorities

“What have you got to lose?” While the Democratic Party elite has not made a serious effort to ease the plight of the urban poor for decades, it looks like every average person will lose a lot over the next four years: the ACA, workers’ rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, HUD, public services, and on and on and on.

Character

A lot of people, including myself, disliked and distrusted Hillary Clinton. When Trump won, those who despised Clinton might have been temporarily pleased, thinking, “At least that lying, greedy, militaristic Hillary and her corrupt, sexually predatory husband will not regain power.” Yeah, but Trump’s a lying, greedy, sexually predatory Wildman who may be inclined to replace our beloved republic with an authoritarian or Fascist State.

The bad stuff

We haven’t even considered all the bad things he said he would do that he will do and all the bad things he will do that we haven’t heard about yet. Nor all the venomous, greedy, and cruel legislation that Clinton might have vetoed.

It already looks like it was a grave mistake not to vote for Clinton. I certainly would already be second-guessing that tempting decision. If you did not support Hillary, don’t feel too guilty. It is never shameful to vote your conscience, and there are more powerful ways to move society in a more humane direction than periodically casting a vote. We must organize, developing community-based institutions that provide companionship and direction. To paraphrase Joe Hill, “Don’t mourn the election, organize!”

The Left always tends to finger point and sub-divide. If we are going to deal with looming catastrophic environmental problems, terrorism, religious fanatics, class and racial divisions, and the threat of war (including nukes), we need a much bigger tent, extending deep into the Republican Party’s current base. Then anti-democratic garbage like voter suppression, the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College won’t matter. It will not be easy to get there. Even this brief essay pointed its finger (and we know which one) at both Clintons.

But there may be some good effects resulting from this rapid deflation of fragile, desperate hope. If Trump had made an effort to extend his political support by helping most people instead of doubling on austerity economics (socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor), he might have created a much broader base, enabling him to fulfill many other, even more odious and dangerous aspirations that may lurk within.

The post Buyer’s remorse? Perhaps you should have voted for her appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last week Bernie Sanders penned a powerful a powerful editorial piece for the Boston Globe, entitled “Here’s What I’ll Do the Day After the Election.” In it Sanders outlines the policies—rather than the people—at stake in today’s election.

Bernie reminds us that this election is about more than defeating Donald Trump. Yes, this election is certainly about the historic moment of electing Hillary, the first woman president. But it’s about more than that. It’s about staying the course, building on Obama’s legacy, and fighting with optimism for the progressive agenda.

Here’s what Bernie had to say:

“I am currently working as hard as I can to see that Donald Trump is defeated, that Hillary Clinton is elected president, and that Democrats gain control of the US House and Senate. The day after the election, working with millions of grass-roots activists, I intend to do everything possible to make certain that the new president and Congress implement the Democratic platform, the most progressive agenda of any major political party in the history of the United States.”

Here are the main points of that Democratic agenda:

-Overturning Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United

-Expanding Social Security

-Breaking Up the Big Banks

-Public Colleges and Universities Tuition Free for the Middle Class

-Rebuilding Infrastructure

-Pay Equity for Women

-Taking Action to Combat Climate Change

-Raising Taxes on the Wealthy and Large Corporations

-Lowering Prescription Drug Costs

-Universal Healthcare

-Reforming Criminal Justice and Immigration Systems

Bernie Sanders continues:

If this election has taught us anything, it is that the American people are sick and tired of the economic, political, and media status quo. They are tired of a rigged economy in which millions work longer hours for lower wages while 52 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. They are tired of billionaires like Trump and large profitable corporations not paying a nickel in federal income taxes while the middle class pays their fair share to support governmental services. They are tired of a corrupt campaign finance system that allows billionaires like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and others to spend hundreds of millions to elect candidates who will represent the wealthy and the powerful. They are tired of corporate media that focus on political gossip and look at elections as personality contests, rather than provide for a serious discussion of the major crises facing our country.

The anger and frustration of the American people, all across the political spectrum, is palpable. They want a government that represents the needs of working families and not just billionaires. They want bold action to rebuild the shrinking middle class, not inside-the-beltway palliatives written by corporate lobbyists.

Okay,everybody.  It’s time to exhale and get ready to go to work.

The post Waiting to exhale: The day after the election, by Bernie Sanders appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Soon after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, he convened an economic summit in his home town of Little Rock, AR. He saw the biggest challenge that he would face upon assuming the presidency would be to jump-start the economy.

If Hillary Clinton is elected this November 8, and if there is no gratuitous challenge to the results from one Donald Trump, then she too will likely work to make good use of the transition period, the time between Election Day and the inauguration on January 20, 2017.

Candidates are generally cautious in talking about the transition prior to the election, but we know that they all do. Similarly, journalists, pundits, bloggers as well as lobbyists and potential job seekers engage in the parlor game well before the election even takes place.

Here are three suggestions for items of study that could be very beneficial to a President-elect Clinton during the transition.

1. Counseling about her propensity for secretiveness and non-transparency
2. Advice from President Obama on how he minimized corruption in his administration for eight years.
3. Discussion with futurists about how technological and social changes in the economy may lessen the demand for jobs performed by humans and what can be done to begin transition to a “fourth-wave” economy.

Suggestion number one may seem jarring. Let me clarify that I mean counseling in the generic sense, seeking and receiving advice. While it may be that Clinton could benefit greatly from professional counseling on her defenses (as most of the rest of us might at some points in our life), it would not be politically helpful for her to enter therapy at this time. But what would be acceptable and very helpful would be for her to seek out friends and others who have expressed concern about her repeated instances of “getting behind the curve” because she is slow to disclose. In many ways, this could be less risky than assumed because thirty years of evidence has shown that despite numerous extensive investigations, she has never been found guilty of any major transgression.

But despite a career record of honesty that far exceeds most politicians, it cannot be denied that millions of Americans do not see her as trustworthy. Yes, part of this can be attributed to the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but she has repeatedly provided them with fodder to continuously advance this meme. Hillary Clinton needs to sit down for some conversation from which she might want to get up and leave, but it would do her well to engage. It is not necessary for her to understand any or all of the psychological reasons why she “clams up” and does not disclose. What is necessary is for her to have close advisors who can tell her when a lack of disclosure portends poorly for her and how to actually disclose in a timely and willing fashion. It does not have to be that different from a parent reminding an adolescent who has been a little carefree with money to make sure that he or she gets correct change after a cash transaction. In the case of Ms. Clinton, she must go through a checklist of presidential items where without change she might opt for less transparent than is necessary. The follow-up would be for her to seriously consider alternative actions that would allow her to stay in front of the curve.

President Obama could probably give her good advice in this regard and also tips on keeping her administration as “clean” as possible. No other president in modern history has been as scandal free as Barack Obama. There are a few tricks to his trade, such as not hiring former lobbyists onto the White House staff (a promise generally well-kept). Hillary Clinton would do well to look for fresh faces. As a way of better connecting with those who currently support Trump, she might want to go a little lighter on politicians and even academics. A labor secretary who is union-bred would be very helpful as would a transportation secretary who has not been a mogul. She would do well to follow advice from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on consumer and fair practices issue. A clear break with “business as usual” would be very helpful to her.

Finally, Clinton would do well to consult with futurists on how society is changing. Her husband rode the “Third Wave” (the initial digital age) that Alvin Toffler wrote about in 1970 in Future Shock. In many ways, it is remarkable that unemployment in the United States is only 5% in light of the out-sourcing, automation and computerization we have experienced since the 1990s. But we are now seeing on the horizon a new wave of inventions and practices that will potentially eliminate jobs in an unprecedented fashion. Will driverless cars mean the end of truck, bus and cab drivers? Will computers be able to do new forms of analysis and interpretation such as reading X-rays? Is the teaching profession further endangered by computerized learning? Will the metal fabrication of tomorrow be so automated that we will hardly remember what steelworkers were?

The bigger question is: What will human beings do when there are fewer and fewer jobs? How will we “earn our keep?” In one sense we will all be richer because more goods and services will be available. But what if that happens without us earning money? Do we need to re-define jobs and do we need to think of income as opposed to salaries or wages?

These are difficult questions, but addressing them becomes more urgent every day. It would behoove Clinton, if she becomes president, to look well beyond the twenty-four-hour news cycle or even the trade deals of today and look at the trade winds of how humankind is changing as we move further into the twenty-first century.

There will be little time to wax philosophical about these three issues once Clinton takes office.  She needs to quickly redefine what it means to be the “best and the brightest” and how she can most effectively be part of that.

The post Three things Hillary can do if she wins the election appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Politicians have been using code words for many years [Remember “states rights,” one of the all-time classic code words, meaning institutionalized segregation and racism?] In 2016, we may have established a new record: It seems that there are more new “dog-whistle” words and phrases in this cycle than in any previous era.

I’m going to attempt to list and analyze some of these new words later in this post. But first, a definition and a bit of history.

Wikipedia defines political code, otherwise known as “dog-whistle politics,” as:

…Political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is often used as a pejorative because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle messages are frequently distasteful to the general populace. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

But you knew that already.

You may not know—as I didn’t—that, in 1981, infamous Republican political trickster Lee Atwater described the evolution of political code—specifically “states rights”– in a very non-academic, realpolitik [and highly offensive] way that we all can understand and abhor: Wikipedia quotes him as saying:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N—–, ” “N——,” “N——-..” By 1968, you can’t say “n——-” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N—-. n—–.”

That’s about as direct a definition as you can get. And that way of speaking in political tongues has not gone away. The difference today is that there’s a lot more of it.

But to get back to academics just for one paragraph: You may vaguely remember your high-school or college years, when some English professor or another tested you on rhetorical terms, one of which was “metonymy.” That’s the figure of speech that replaces the name of a thing with the name of something else with which it is closely associated.  Example: Using “the Crown” to refer to the English monarchy. [Remember learning the differences between metonymy and simile, metaphor and synechdoche? Yeah, me neither.]

Anyway, political code words and phrases are examples of metonymy.

So, here are some of the newer examples of political code words and phrases, with my personal, unofficial, un-dictionary-ike translations:

Make America Great Again

Translation: Preserve the dominance and unquestioned political ascendancy of white males. Keep America ‘pure. Stop letting immigrants ‘steal’ our jobs. Stop letting these pesky women, with their ideas about equal pay, gain power in the boardroom and in politics. Let’s go back to the days when white people ran the country and we didn’t have to attend to the needs of minorities or even associate with them or acknowledge ‘their’ existence.

Broad-shouldered defense

Republican Mike Pence slipped this in during the 2016 Vice Presidential debate.Translation:“Men are better warriors. Women [Hillary Clinton, of course], with their narrower shoulders, weak female bodies and yukky monthly menstrual cycles, aren’t manly or aggressive enough to stand up for America. Women do not belong in the military—they are destroying morale.

Passionate

Donald Trump and his surrogates use this term to describe his followers.Translation: angry, alienated, willing to call people names, prone to using racial, xenophobic and misogynistic slurs and even resorting to violence.

Deplorables

Hillary Clinton used this label to describe some of Trump’s supporters. See ‘Passionate.”

Stamina

Trump says that Hillary Clinton lacks the stamina to be President. Translation: Testosterone, balls, masculinity. Basically, she’s a woman: They bleed from their ‘whatever.’.

The Presidential look

According to Trump, Hillary doesn’t have it. Translation: Only men can be presidents.

Alt-right

The term du jour that attempts to sanitize, with a new name,the extreme right-wing of the Republican party. Translation: People, organizations, websites, bloggers and news outlets that espouse extreme, radical, white supremacist, nativist hate. Much more muscular than the Tea Party. Not to be confused with traditional Republican conservatism, which is mild and wimpy by comparison.

Locker room

Caught on tape bragging about his own entitlement to engage in sexual assault, Trump dismisses the conversation as locker-room talk. Translation: Boys will be boys. This is normal conversation and behavior for males. We brag to each other about our sexual predilections, fantasies and conquests, and no one thinks there’s anything wrong with that. People who complain about it are wimps [not masculine like me]. Get over it. Women lie about sexual abuse all the time. Sexual abuse is not a problem.

Temperament

This code word has different meanings when used by Trump and by Hillary Clinton.

Translation for Trump: She’s a woman. They cry. They complain. They’re weak. They lie. It’s all their fault. They’re ball-breakers and should just go back to changing diapers, getting our dinner on the table on time, and stop trying to take our power away from us. Also, see “stamina.”

Translation for Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump is psychologically unstable, thin-skinned, can’t take any criticism. His anger is out of control. He throws public temper tantrums. He’s an emotional 6-year-old who should not be trusted to use mature judgment when given the power of the presidency. He’s dangerous and unfit for public office. Bat-shit crazy and out of control.

Smile

Republican haters of Hillary Clinton, as well as political pundits and commentators [some of them women], have variously advised her to “smile more,” and “smile less.” Translation: Woman. Too ambitious. Not nice, not ladylike. Too strong. Too weak. Not attractive the way a lady should be. I just want to ogle women [the ones I think are attractive enough for me] and not have to listen to their “ideas.” Out of place in a world where males should be in charge. Too wonky for a woman—stop worrying your pretty little head about these things, little lady. And not just you, Hillary–all you gals. Just be pretty for me and serve my needs–that’s your job–be happy with what you’ve got..

Politically incorrect

Donald Trump and his minions claim that it’s a virtue to buck the prevailing norm of political correctness.Translation: We can be as offensive as we want to be. We can insult minorities, shame women, incite violence, and make up our own facts. We’re “outsiders,” so we don’t have to care about being diplomatic, or displaying common decency or courtesy. That’s for suckers, losers and touchy-feely left-wingers. We’re entitled to say anything at all, and who cares who gets hurt or whether we are permanently undermining the civility that is a basic underpinning of a democratic system. We won’t play by the rules. We’re having a tantrum, and you can’t stop us.

One final comment:  Although code words are still very much in play–and we can expect more in the days and years to come–the dog-whistle world seems to be evolving. While coded language can be and is used to hide real sentiments, there’s a simultaneous trend toward just coming right out and expressing whatever offensive thing comes to mind at the moment. At least the use of code words served as a tacit acknowledgement that it was societally unacceptable to say some of this stuff outright. The way things seem to be going, it’s becoming more normal for people to talk openly and unabashedly about–and even act on–their worst impulses. And that may be even scarier than the code words themselves.

The post New political code words: an unofficial glossary appeared first on Occasional Planet.

During the first Presidential debate of 2016, the one issue that Trump “won” was trade. Clearly, Hillary Clinton needs a better answer on this issue—particularly because it’s an issue that resonates in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Clinton should not allow Trump’s simplistic ideas on trade to stand. Nor should she sit by while he threatens to “tear up” all of our existing trade agreements.

Trade agreements come in many different forms. According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, we engage with 154 nations in the World Trade Organization, and we have individual free trade agreements with 20 additional countries.

I do not pretend to understand trade agreements, but I think that Hillary Clinton does. So, if I were asked to contribute a few lines to a new answer to Trump on trade, here’s what I’d suggest:

“Trade between nations is a complicated issue. There are no simple answers. We have trade agreements that are multinational—such as the WTO—and we have 20+ agreements that are between just the US and one other country. Each of these agreements is negotiated separately, so you have to study up on the particulars of each situation and each relationship. There is no one-size-fits-all.”

[She could add some facts about special situations with particular countries here.]

“And, by the way, there is a reason that we call them trade ‘agreements.’  They are the results of conversations, collaborative problem-solving and good-faith negotiations. For them to work, both sides have to agree. We don’t create trade agreements by dictating the terms to our trading partners.

“And, finally, when a potential president threatens to ‘rip up’ all of our existing trade agreements,’ our trading partners start feeling uneasy. As a former Secretary of State, I can tell you that that is not a good idea.  As I said at the debate, ‘Words matter.’ We need our friends and allies to feel that they can trust us to keep our promises and to negotiate in good faith.”

Just an idea.

The post What Hillary could say about trade agreements appeared first on Occasional Planet.