Boardman writes: "Elections have consequences, as the clich� goes, and those consequences are unpredictable, perhaps never more unpredictable than when no one wins the election - but someone takes office anyway. When that happens, the country is largely defenseless, as we learned so disastrously in 2000."
The Statue of Liberty crying. (illustration: The Greanville Post)
So This Is What a National Nervous Breakdown Looks Like?
11 December 16
Nobody Won the 2016 Election
lections have consequences, as the clich� goes, and those consequences are unpredictable, perhaps never more unpredictable than when no one wins the election � but someone takes office anyway. When that happens, the country is largely defenseless, as we learned so disastrously in 2000.
That was when we had five unprincipled Supreme Court justices to thank for promoting an actual (but uncounted) loser to the presidency. George W. Bush proceeded to reward the country�s wary trust by blithely ignoring warnings of a terrorist attack, then using 9/11 to jingo up the fear-laden public mood and urge us to go shopping while he (and a complicit Democratic Congress) started wars that have yet to end. (For reasons having nothing to do with decency or justice, Nancy Pelosi led the opposition to impeaching this war-criminal president.) For extra credit, Bush presided over a bipartisan wave of unchecked criminal capitalism that brought the economy to its knees and Democrats to the White House.
That didn�t help. Barack Obama used his �mandate� for hope and change to bail out the criminal capitalists and protect them from prosecution. With Nancy Pelosi�s collusion, he squandered whatever opportunity there was for an effective, single-payer health system, preferring to build a Rube Goldberg construct that coddles insurance companies without even insuring everyone. Obama provided little hope or change to Guantanamo inmates or drone victims, but he left war criminals and torturers unpunished (including himself, of course), while expanding Bush-era wars to other countries.
Now we have a wartime president-elect who didn�t win, and who goes unchallenged by the popular-vote leader who also lost. Roughly half the country is freaking out at the prospect of a future that seems as inherently dangerous and unfair as it is inevitable. Now those freaking out over a Trump presidency have some idea how some Republicans felt six months ago at the prospect of a Trump nomination (although #NeverTrump is as dead as the idea of acting on principle).
Since November 8, much of the country seems to have spiraled into a slough of despond, feeling helpless, directionless, uncomprehending and hopeless. Even the apparent winners seem joyless in their success, their triumph marked less by celebration than by anger, epithets, Nazi graffiti, shootings, and mad tweets. It�s as if everyone knows that there�s no one prepared or qualified to take power, but they�re going to take it anyway, and take it no one knows where.
Whatever we do, we�re along for the ride
There is, as yet, no organized resistance, although there seems to be a widespread, disorganized desire to resist. None of the establishment authorities, for all that some bewail the triumph of Trump, are actually, actively resisting him on principle (except where their own sacred cows might be led to the slaughter). The president is a joke (more on that in a moment). The Democrats in Congress put multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi back in power, and in the Senate they elevated the endlessly compromising and compromised Chuck Schumer. Democrats do not choose leaders who would provide bold, principled leadership. Republicans in 2008, faced with Obama, had the courage of their convictions (never mind what those convictions were), circling their wagons in open and constant defiance of the electoral majority. Democrats, lacking either courage or convictions, are behaving now like a species that doesn�t know it�s endangered and hunted. In general, Democrats have become an obstacle to achieving the common good, more than content to enjoy the perks of office while making occasional token efforts to achieve some minimal gain.
Failure, decades of their own failure, somehow seems irrelevant to Democrats institutionally. Hillary Clinton�s post-election behavior should be enlightening, even if it�s not surprising. How might a real leader have behaved on election night and after? Would she have bailed on her supporters and nursed her personal hurt? Or might she have swallowed hard, publicly acknowledged that this election was more about the country than her identity politics, and gone on to rally her followers to stand for the principles that matter to her, to them, and to the nation? She might have done the latter, but that would have required her to have principles, to embrace real change, to have a vision of something better than an elitist police state with fewer and fewer benefits for more and more people.
Another way to put it is that Hillary Clinton might have distinguished herself from the parody of a progressive presidency presented by Obama�s eight mostly feckless years in office. She chose, instead, to run on Obama�s �legacy.�
Whatever Donald Trump�s reality, he won the election by appearing to be a candidate who would bring real change to a people longing for it (enough previous Obama voters voted for Trump to determine the outcome). Yes, Clinton won the popular vote, an irrelevant fact that allows Democrats to remain in denial about their failures not only to serve the American people well, but to deny their failure to serve even their presumed base constituencies well. (Clinton�s dissing Black Lives Matter was as much a dog whistle to racists as anything Trump did or said; why was it so hard to take a principled stand against armed law officers killing unarmed black people for no apparent reason?) Remember when the Democratic Party was the party of working people? There is no such party any more.
Minority government is what we�ve had and what we�re going to get
Minority government has long existed in the US, because low voter turnout means that no presidency gets votes from much more than a quarter of the country�s eligible voters. Minority government has come to mean more and more, at least since Ronald Reagan, a government dedicated to serving a smaller and smaller minority of the population who are given more and more opportunities to loot public funds. The Pentagon�s unaudited, self-reported waste of $125 billion a year is only one of the more recent, grosser examples that can be found pretty much across the government from giveaway oil and mining leases to private prisons to immigration processing to charter schools to privatization in sectors across the board where the enrichment of a few dwarfs the false stereotype of the welfare cheat.
Responding to the Trump triumph with insult and denigration, no matter how valid, is worse than a waste of time. It is an exercise in denial. The Democrats lost this election in just about every substantial and meaningful way, not only by running a corrupt primary process, not only by expecting fealty to a hollow candidate, but by decades of withdrawal from meaningful engagement with too many deserving Americans. Any idiot knew, in 2008, that the country was in ferment and that that ferment needed to be addressed honestly and substantively. The scale of Democrats� failure to do that is measured by the rise of the Tea Party in 2010. The country has been hurting for a long, long time, like the tail gunner in Catch-22, and Democrats have treated only scratches when the body politic has its guts spilling out.
You can see this in official responses to fracking and oil pipelines with little regard for the future of the planet, or official responses to hunger and homelessness with little regard for the future of fellow citizens, or official responses to drugs and prisons with little regard for science or justice.
Perhaps the most glaring, obvious, cruel official response of this sort was to the governmental poisoning of the population (about 100,000) of Flint, Michigan. Why was this not a national emergency? When a state government accomplishes what amounts to a terrorist attack, why is it not worth the immediate, intense attention of the media, the environmental agencies, or the president? What kind of country settles for half-measures and leaves people still fending for themselves while being charged for a poisoned water supply?
That�s pretty much why no one won this election. There was no one to vote for. We�ve been in the wilderness much longer than we generally acknowledge. Bigots didn�t put us there. Misogynists didn�t put us there. White nationalists didn�t put us there. They all may contribute to keeping us there, but capitalists puts us there, and capitalists will keep us there until we develop more effective wilderness survival skills.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Yeah ..... this article was obviously professionally proofread to the most rigorous standards of a graduate of the Texas Educational System.
I think a good dose of LSD would give them all an improved perspective.
First is because I am from CA, which as a Blue "donor state" pays $60B/yr more in federal taxes than we get back in federal spending, we are subsidizing the very Red States who are dragging us all down. CA on its own would have the world's 8th largest GDP, and that $60B/yr could be spent here far better in fixing our roads, our schools, our energy and water systems, etc.
Second is that in an America that peacefully "Balkanizes" into more philosophically aligned nations wouldn't have a mostrous $1T/yr global military Empire anymore, we would get back to guarding our own shores without the foreign adventurism, again freeing up more money to help ALL of us, no matter which new "American Sub-nation" you reside in.
Third is Washington DC's complete dysfunction and actual outright corruption. Flush it down the toilet, and start over at the "Mini-State" level, at a minimum it should be more responsive to its people than the Federal Government is today.
If we aren't going to "Balkanize" like this, then at a minimum we need a new Constitutional Convention. But I would imagine these Red States would screw THAT up too just like they did the first Constitution by leaving open slavery, etc.
Be careful what you ask for. . . .
Plus, I think the best way for "change" to come to those States is for them to see the success of the alternatives. If a "Republic of California" became one of the strongest nations on the Earth just by implementation of some basic wise Progressive policies, those new countries would look at their hell-hole and decide to follow our example. But right now, they are PREVENTING wise policies for ALL of us through their control in Washington.
Agree. When I saw the headline, as a (rare)liberal native Texan and fan of Moyers & Co., I thought, I'll post this on FB, etc. But I'd be embarrassed to do so in its current uncorrected form. The absolutely valid message gets lost in annoyance at the repeated sentences out of context.
There are plenty of fine people living in Texas-just like any other state. In fact, when I used to live there, I never heard the kind of hate speech I see on this site today.
I said "TODAY".
"The LAST thing I want to hear from any Texan cretin or any histrionically anti-Fed from my or any other state is how uber-patriotic of an American they are."
Isn't that redundant?
I've read enough of Rand's work (teeth gritted all the way; she was a godawful writer who couldn't resist lecturing, indeed preaching, at the expense of actual storytelling) to know that ALL her writing seemed like a fever dream.
Isn't that a hoot ? And yet, quite darkly, a rejection of critical thinking is a totally logical - even predictable - outcome resulting from the assumption of a "platform" like anti-science to begin with.
Such willful and deliberate stupidity - such *aggressive* idolatry and pride in ignorance is not new to the World, but these collective boneheads certainly seem to take it to an incredible level.
This very "political platform" is nothing more than a thinly veiled and childish attempt to "legislate" the Texas secession from the Union that these people have, (perhaps sadly) never been able to effect in actuality.
Great reference to Texas "hero" Sam Houston above. It stops short of mentioning the fact that the *same day* that Sam Houston, President of the Republic of Texas *did* warn the Texas Legislature against the folly of "firin' up a war" with the Industrialized North, the legislature, in an apoplexy of the same wisdom and foresight that they seem somehow to *still* retain to this day, *DEPOSED* Sam Houston as President the same day he made those comments.
Sam Houston, after all, was one of the very few Texans who had actually *traveled* North to see for *himself* what was meant by the phrase: "Industrialized Military Force".
As ever, Texas fantasy prevailed. Out with Houston, in with ignorance and arrogance.
During the Civil War, the Union was defended by the Republicans and states' rights, nullification and slavery were defended by the Democrats. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the two parties switched sides. Now the Union is defended by the Democrats and states' rights, nullification and the former slave-states of the South are represented by the Republican Party.
The Republican Party at this time has embraced nullification. They are attempting to nullify the results of the 2008 and 2012 elections in which the voters elected and then re-elected President Obama. The doctrine of nullification was on the losing side in the Civil War. We must not let it be victorious now. The election in November, 2014, is all about nullification.
Be well.