RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: How the Coronavirus Pandemic Intensifies the Fight Over Voting Rights Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26684"><span class="small">Jelani Cobb, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 07 April 2020 12:15

Cobb writes: "Crises, even horrific ones such as the circumstance that the coronavirus has visited upon us, can nonetheless create opportunities for the leaders tasked with navigating them. The September 11th attacks empowered the George W. Bush Administration to pursue an ambitious (and wrongheaded) foreign-policy agenda that it would have otherwise had much more difficulty enacting."

Polling place in New York. (photo: Xinhua/Han Fang/Getty Images)
Polling place in New York. (photo: Xinhua/Han Fang/Getty Images)


How the Coronavirus Pandemic Intensifies the Fight Over Voting Rights

By Jelani Cobb, The New Yorker

07 April 20

 

rises, even horrific ones such as the circumstance that the coronavirus has visited upon us, can nonetheless create opportunities for the leaders tasked with navigating them. The September 11th attacks empowered the George W. Bush Administration to pursue an ambitious (and wrongheaded) foreign-policy agenda that it would have otherwise had much more difficulty enacting. The subprime-housing crisis allowed Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to enact financial reforms that would’ve been more vigorously opposed in the period before the crash. And, two months in, the COVID-19 pandemic has already given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the cover he needed to eviscerate democracy in his country (the principle applies to both democratic leaders and authoritarians—and, in the case of the current President of the United States, a man who is technically the former, with the mentality of the latter).

For the most part, Donald Trump’s attempts to tie the crisis to other parts of his agenda have been as clumsy and inept as the Administration’s response to the crisis itself. On March 10th, he tweeted, “We need the Wall more than ever!”—presumably to stem the spread of COVID-19, despite the fact that air travel was the primary means by which infected people were arriving in the United States. In a bizarre digression during a press briefing, last Wednesday, he held that the spread of the virus occasioned a renewed commitment to the war on drugs. There is, however, an area in which the novel-coronavirus pandemic dovetails exceptionally well with part of Trump’s agenda and that of the Republican Party in some states: voter suppression. From the outset of Trump’s term, his canards, such as his claim that three million people voted illegally in the 2016 Presidential election, have been used to bolster attempts to make voting more difficult. Speaking on “Fox & Friends” last week, Trump denounced aspects of the two-trillion-dollar stimulus package that are meant to shore up voter access in order to offset the impact of the virus on the upcoming elections. Overcrowded polling places and hours-long waits to vote have become a standard feature of American elections—a problem in normal times and a public-health hazard in the current one. Referring to provisions that Democrats pushed for, Trump said, “The things they had in there were crazy. They had things—levels of voting that, if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Among the “crazy” things Democrats proposed was funding for a nationwide vote-by-mail option for the Presidential election, to insure that people, particularly those in vulnerable populations, would be able to cast a ballot even if the coronavirus remains a significant health hazard in November. (Oregon, which conducts its statewide elections entirely by mail, has consistently high voter turnout, including in one recent election that witnessed an eighty per cent participation rate.) The bill ultimately included four hundred million dollars to fund voting by mail, a sum far below estimates for how much it would actually cost to launch a national program of this scale ahead of the election.

Some portion of the pandemic’s effect on voter turnout is tied to the nature of the problem itself. The virus has already caused the Democratic National Committee to postpone the Party’s national convention by a month, until August, and, as of Monday, has led fifteen states and one territory to postpone their Presidential-primary elections, along with other state and local elections held on the same day. The result is not only that the primary race between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders has been frozen—leaving their respective delegate counts looking like the score in a baseball game that’s been rain-delayed—but also that the eventual nominee will have spent at least two months of prime campaign time without being able to directly engage with voters he will need to motivate.

A more troubling dynamic, however, is seen in a case where the election had not been postponed. The Republican-led legislature of Wisconsin refused to postpone the primary from its slated date, on Tuesday, even though going out to vote would conflict with an ongoing stay-at-home order that Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, had issued. Evers criticized the legislators for forcing the public to “choose between their health and their vote.” (The legislature had also balked at Evers’s call to mail ballots to all three million registered voters in Wisconsin.) On Monday, he issued an executive order suspending in-person voting and postponing the election until June. Republicans filed a motion with the conservative-dominated Wisconsin Supreme Court to block the order, and the Court granted the motion. Ben Wikler, who chairs the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, told me of a potential implication of holding a vote in the middle of the pandemic: Republicans, owing in part to their faith in Trump, who downplayed the threat of COVID-19 for weeks before and during the outbreak in the United States, are still less likely to see the coronavirus as a serious threat.

Last week, Gallup noted a twenty-seven-point difference between Republicans and Democrats who were “somewhat or very worried” about being exposed to the virus. In theory, at least, that might translate into a Republican electorate that is less wary of showing up to polling places. The G.O.P.’s approach to matters of voting can be broadly described as efforts to curate the electorate in its favor. In Wisconsin, the pandemic may facilitate and amplify those efforts. All this is given added weight by the fact that retaining Wisconsin is key to Trump’s reëlection bid. Both the G.O.P. and the Democrats have been playing close attention to a state Supreme Court race there in which a Dane County Circuit Court judge, Jill Karofsky, is challenging the conservative Justice Daniel Kelly for a seat on a court that will likely hear an ongoing case regarding the legality of an attempt to purge more than two hundred thousand voters from the Wisconsin rolls ahead of November.

It’s difficult to predict how all this will play out in November. Biden has had comparatively low visibility in the past three weeks, yet he has paradoxically increased his lead over Trump in the polls. In other ways, though, the cumulative effect of the pandemic would seem to favor incumbents. Trump doesn’t have the power to postpone the Presidential election himself, which is set for November 3rd, and it is unlikely that Congress would do so. But state legislatures hold a great deal of sway in how their individual elections are run, and twenty-nine of the fifty legislatures in the country are controlled by Republicans, who have frequently opposed measures such as lengthening early-voting periods and making absentee voting (much less voter registration) easier. Both measures would reduce the likelihood that polling places become outbreak centers. Pairing mail-in voting with onerous voter-I.D. requirements would similarly (and unevenly) diminish the electorate. (In Wisconsin, the state Republican Party had been suing county clerks to prevent them from informing voters that, because of the pandemic and the Governor’s stay-at-home order, they could cite an “indefinite confinement” provision that would free them from the I.D. requirements.)

Like the epidemiological questions that have preoccupied us for the past weeks, the political questions confronting us are opaque, open-ended, and, to no small degree, frightening. An invisible microbe has illustrated, more than any of the other serial debacles of the Trump era, the immense dangers posed by a President with Trump’s limitations. It’s possible that his abysmal handling of the crisis will tank his reëlection chances. But it’s also worth considering the possibility that the same microscopic antagonist could facilitate a tide of voter suppression that would help him keep his job, even as he demonstrates how unfit he was for it in the first place.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: This White House Doesn't Give Two Shits About You Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35918"><span class="small">Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Tuesday, 07 April 2020 11:02

Moore writes: "Trump and the profit motive are murdering our doctors and nurses and citizens."

Filmmaker Michael Moore. (photo: Sacha Lecca)
Filmmaker Michael Moore. (photo: Sacha Lecca)


This White House Doesn't Give Two Shits About You

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page

07 April 20

 

rump and the profit motive are murdering our doctors and nurses and citizens. We’ve now been told that the National Stockpile of emergency equipment is there for the PRIVATE SECTOR to use to supply BUSINESS so that the PRIVATE SECTOR can SELL medical gear to hospitals for a PROFIT. That is what Pence and Jared Kushner and the Pentagon told the American people yesterday at the White House press conference. Are we going to put up with this? What are we going to do? This ignorant arrogant murdering bastard of a president must be removed from office — and we cannot wait until November. Every one of his enablers must be shut down too. We must rise up. We must be heard. I will help in any way I can. A nonviolent mass movement of millions can shut these people down, can force them to do what we tell them to do. Why wait until you’ve lost a loved one to act? This White House doesn’t give two shits about you. They told you this pandemic was a “hoax. “ Trump told you this virus was “like the flu,” that it was nothing, that it would be gone just like that. Months after he could’ve acted, he sits there today refusing to send the full help that’s needed, refusing to set up a national coordinated effort, refusing to declare a national lockdown, refusing even to keep his own hands off his own face. Trump, through stupidity or design, is out to kill us. This sounds like it can’t be happening. It is. IT IS. We need to use our collective smarts to survive. And we have no time. FEMA has just ordered another 100,000 body bags! They need a MILLION! Or more. History is full of people who just stood by and did nothing. Sometimes because they were paralyzed by fear, sometimes because they just didn’t believe they could make a difference. This is one of those moments when you must not be frozen in place. We’ve been told to “shelter in place.” But when that term is used in a school or mass shooting it means that once you shelter in place you must also immediately join with others to rush the shooter and take him down. If you just sit there or hide under your theater seat, he is going to go up and down the aisle and shoot you like the sitting duck you are. Trump is his own psychopath and he will not change so that you can live. Do you want to live? Do you want your parents and grandparents to live? What are you willing to do? Not with a gun, but with your brain and your guts and your ability to organize others. What is your idea? WHAT IS YOUR IDEA? Tell me! Tell us! Post it here. And then let’s organize and lead and ACT like our lives depended on it. Because they do.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Supreme Court's Disturbing Order to Effectively Disenfranchise Thousands of Wisconsin Voters Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51809"><span class="small">Ian Millhiser, Vox</span></a>   
Tuesday, 07 April 2020 08:13

Millhiser writes: "The Supreme Court's Republican majority, in a case that is literally titled Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, handed down a decision that will effectively disenfranchise tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters. It did so at the urging of the GOP."

A polling precinct. (photo: News Parliament)
A polling precinct. (photo: News Parliament)


The Supreme Court's Disturbing Order to Effectively Disenfranchise Thousands of Wisconsin Voters

By Ian Millhiser, Vox

07 April 20


American democracy is in deep trouble.

he Supreme Court’s Republican majority, in a case that is literally titled Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, handed down a decision that will effectively disenfranchise tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters. It did so at the urging of the GOP.

The case arises out of Wisconsin’s decision to hold its spring election during the coronavirus pandemic, even as nearly a dozen other states have chosen to postpone similar elections in order to protect the safety of voters. Democrats hoped to defend a lower court order that allowed absentee ballots to be counted so long as they arrived at the designated polling place by April 13, an extension granted by a judge to account for the brewing coronavirus-sparked chaos on Election Day, April 7. Republicans successfully asked the Court to require these ballots to be postmarked by April 7.

All five of the Court’s Republicans voted for the Republican Party’s position. All four of the Court’s Democrats voted for the Democratic Party’s position.

The decision carries grave repercussions for the state of Wisconsin — and democracy more broadly. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes in her dissent, “the presidential primaries, a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, three seats on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, over 100 other judgeships, over 500 school board seats, and several thousand other positions” are at stake in the Wisconsin election, which will be held tomorrow. Of all these seats, the state Supreme Court race, between incumbent conservative Justice Daniel Kelly and challenger Judge Jill Karofsky, is the most hotly contested.

The April 7 election is shaping up to be a trainwreck. Most poll workers have refused to work the election, out of fear of catching the coronavirus, which forced Gov. Tony Evers (D) to call up the National Guard in order to keep polls open. But even this measure appears woefully inadequate. In Milwaukee, election officials announced that the state only has enough election workers to open five poll locations — when the city would normally have 180 polling places.

Meanwhile, the state has received a crush of absentee ballot requests — about 1.2 million, when it typically receives less than 250,000 in a spring election. That’s left state officials scrambling to send ballots to voters in time for Tuesday’s election. And on top of all of these complications, a state law required all ballots to be received by election officials by 8 pm on April 7, or else those ballots would not be counted. 

Tens of thousands of voters are not expected to even receive their ballots until after Election Day, effectively disenfranchising them through no fault of their own.

In response to this brewing catastrophe, Judge William Conley, an Obama appointee to a federal court in Wisconsin, ordered the deadline for receiving ballots to be extended to 4 pm on April 13. In response to this order, the Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to modify Conley’s decision to require all ballots to be postmarked by April 7 or they will not be counted. 

The Supreme Court’s Republican majority granted the GOP this very specific request.

Again, many voters are not expected to receive their ballots until after this April 7 deadline. As Justice Ginsburg notes, “as of Sunday morning, 12,000 ballots reportedly had not yet been mailed out,” so the number of voters disenfranchised by the Court’s order in Republican is likely to be vast. The Court’s decision in Republican, moreover, is the culmination of a weeks-long effort by Republicans to thwart various efforts by Democrats to accommodate voters who might be disenfranchised by coronavirus.

The majority relied upon one of the most destructive voting rights decisions of the modern era

The majority opinion, which is unsigned, relies heavily on the Court’s previous decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006). Purcell is by no means a famous decision. It received far fewer headlines that the Court’s decisions striking down much of the Voting Rights Act or permitting partisan gerrymandering. But it’s proved to be one of the greatest thorns in the side of voting rights advocates. And the Court’s decision in Republican cements Purcell’s status as one of the greatest obstacles facing a voting right litigator.

Briefly, Purcell held that courts should be reluctant to hand down orders impacting a state’s election procedures as Election Day draws nigh. “Court orders affecting elections,” the Court warned in Purcell, “can themselves result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”

There is some wisdom to this vague guideline. Voters may, indeed, be quite confused if a wave of court orders are handed down close to an election. For example, if the Supreme Court of the United States were to declare, well after sunset on the eve of an election, that voters must mail their ballots by April 7 or be disenfranchised, such an order is likely to confuse some voters and lead to them being unable to vote.

In any event, there are good reasons why Purcell’s warning about courts deciding voting rights cases too close to an election should not be read as an inexorable command. For one thing, the consequences of a new voting law may not become apparent until that law is actually operating close to an Election Day. Voting rights advocates may not learn that voters are struggling to obtain absentee ballots, for example, until an election is close and many voters are complaining that they haven’t received ballots. If courts cannot intervene under these circumstances, many impediments to the right to vote will go unaddressed.

Similarly, as the Democratic Party unsuccessfully argued in its brief in the Republican case, court orders are not the only thing that can “result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.” In Republican, voter confusion and an incentive to remain away from the polls arose from “the COVID-19 pandemic and the ‘voter confusion and electoral chaos’ it is causing.” 

Until recently, the Democratic brief explained, “Wisconsin voters reasonably expected they would be able either to vote safely in person on election day or through a reliable, well-functioning absentee ballot system.” Those voters learned very close to the election that this reasonable expectation was wrong. And Judge Conley’s order was an attempt to alleviate the disruption caused by the pandemic.

Nevertheless, Republican treats Purcell’s warning about last-minute election orders as something very close to mandatory. “By changing the election rules so close to the election date,” the Court’s Republican majority claims, “the District Court contravened this Court’s precedents and erred by ordering such relief.”

“This Court,” the majority opinion added, “has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”

This conversion of Purcell from guideline to something close to a mandatory decree is likely to have sweeping consequences for future elections. It means that, if voting rights advocates discover in the final days before an election that a new state law is disenfranchising African American voters — or a pandemic keeps away most voters federal courts most likely may not intervene. It means that many problems that are unlikely to be discovered until Election Day itself will go unaddressed.

Republicans have fought tooth and nail to make it hard to vote in Tuesday’s election

The Supreme Court’s decision in Republican is the capstone of a weeks-long effort by the Republican Party to make it difficult for voters to actually cast a ballot in Wisconsin. Last week, Gov. Evers called the state legislature into session and asked it to delay the election. But the Republican-controlled legislature ended that session just seconds after it was convened. After Evers acted on his own authority to delay the election, the state’s Supreme Court voted along partisan lines to rescind Evers’s order. Republicans also rejected Evers’s proposal to automatically mail ballots to every voter in the state.

The background is that Republicans hope to hold onto a seat on the state Supreme Court, which is up for grabs in Tuesday’s election. As law professor and election law expert Rick Hasen recently noted, “only 38% of voters who had requested an absentee ballot in heavily Democratic Milwaukee County had returned one, compared with over 56% of absentee voters in nearby Republican-leaning Waukesha County.” So there’s at least some evidence that, if additional voters are unable to return their ballots, Republicans will be overrepresented in the ballots that are counted.

It’s also worth noting that, if Wisconsin had free and fair elections to choose its state lawmakers, Evers would most likely have been able to work with a Democratic legislature to ensure that Tuesday’s election would be conducted fairly. In 2018, 54 percent of voters chose a Democratic candidate for the state Assembly. But Republicans have so completely gerrymandered the state that they prevailed in 63 of the state’s 99 Assembly races.

There is far more at stake in Wisconsin, moreover, than one state Supreme Court seat. Wisconsin could be the pivotal swing state that decides the 2020 presidential election. The question of whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden occupies the White House next year could easily be determined by which man receives Wisconsin’s electoral votes.

And the Court’s decision in Republican suggests that the Supreme Court will give the GOP broad leeway in how US elections should be conducted.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: The Pandemic Makes the Bernie 2020 Campaign More Vital Than Ever Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 06 April 2020 13:06

Solomon writes: "There's no doubt that Bernie Sanders will do all he can to help defeat Donald Trump. That imperative would not be served by stifling a campaign that continually enhances public understanding of what will be necessary to finally guarantee healthcare as a human right - and create a truly humane society."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Greg Nash/Getty Images)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: Greg Nash/Getty Images)


The Pandemic Makes the Bernie 2020 Campaign More Vital Than Ever

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

06 April 20

 

ressure on Bernie Sanders to quit the presidential race is intensifying. Over the weekend, The Washington Post splashed a major story under the headline “Some Top Sanders Advisers Urge Him to Consider Withdrawing.” While sheltering at home, comedian Larry David couldn’t curb his enthusiasm for an end to the campaign, telling a New York Times columnist: “I feel he should drop out. Because he’s too far behind. He can’t get the nomination.”

OK, at this point it’s highly unlikely — though still possible — that Sanders can gain enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee. But the Bernie 2020 campaign has never been only about winning. It has always also been about strengthening vital progressive movements while widening public discourse and political space.

Like the movements fueling — and being fueled by — both of the Sanders campaigns for president, those campaigns have organized to challenge the dominant narrow, corporate-power concepts of what is possible or desirable. That has meant continually throwing down gauntlets against systemic injustices that routinely cause preventable catastrophes — individual, social and environmental.

By now, corporate media outlets often acknowledge that the Sanders campaigns brought into the political mainstream many proposals that were commonly labeled as “fringe” or “radical” just a few years ago. Positions like a $15-an-hour minimum wage, free public-college tuition and Medicare for All have reached center stage for the Democratic Party and the country as a whole.

Yet now, to hear mass media and the party establishment tell it, Sanders should immediately cease expanding the public discourse during this election cycle. Demands that Sanders quit the race are getting louder by the day — insisting that he function like a traditional politician rather than a movement candidate.

But those calls for normal political behavior are coming at a time when conditions are anything but normal. The coronavirus pandemic is a truly unprecedented life-and-death emergency on a scale so vast that it’s difficult to comprehend. The conditions — and timeworn assumptions — that have made it so deadly in the United States go far beyond the criminal negligence of top officials in the Trump administration.

For decades, assaults on the public sector, led by Republicans and often abetted by Democrats in Washington, have crippled government capacities to protect public health. While defending for-profit insurance, Democratic leaders have refused to support comprehensive healthcare coverage for all.

At a time when the structural failures of a corporatized society have never been more glaring and deadly, we desperately need Sanders’ voice to be heard far and wide. That can and should happen between now and June — a month when more than a dozen states are scheduled to hold presidential primaries.

The status of “frontrunner” does not change the reality that Joe Biden has failed to step up to the challenge of responding to the pandemic. Biden’s severely limited capacities to speak clearly — or to offer proposals commensurate with the extreme crisis — continue to be on display.

Meanwhile, consistent with his approach over several decades, the Sanders campaign has provided a flood of position statements, online messaging, virtual roundtables, vibrant interviews, and proposals that amount to the “boldest legislation in history.”

Solid reasons for Sanders to stay in the presidential primaries are hardly appreciated by party power brokers and big media outlets that have been hostile toward the Bernie 2020 campaign from the beginning.

There’s no doubt that Bernie Sanders will do all he can to help defeat Donald Trump. That imperative would not be served by stifling a campaign that continually enhances public understanding of what will be necessary to finally guarantee healthcare as a human right — and create a truly humane society.



Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.

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.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Democratic Party Must Harness the Legitimate Rage of Americans. Otherwise, the Right Will Use It With Horrifying Results. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35798"><span class="small">Jon Schwarz, The Intercept</span></a>   
Monday, 06 April 2020 13:06

Schwarz writes: "The political possibilities of this moment are different than anything we have ever experienced. We possess a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the United States a more humane country. But if we fail to seize it, we will face mortal danger from the right."

The anger of Americans. (illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept/Getty Images)
The anger of Americans. (illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept/Getty Images)


The Democratic Party Must Harness the Legitimate Rage of Americans. Otherwise, the Right Will Use It With Horrifying Results.

By Jon Schwarz, The Intercept

06 April 20

 

he political possibilities of this moment are different than anything we have ever experienced. We possess a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the United States a more humane country. But if we fail to seize it, we will face mortal danger from the right.

That’s not hyperbole. The anger of Americans, once they figure out what’s being done to them right now, is going to be volcanic. The fallout from 9/11 and the great recession of 2007-2010 will be imperceptible in comparison.

Not long from now, almost everyone will have a family member or friend who died of Covid-19, many of them suffocating in isolation wards with insufficient treatment, perhaps deprived of a ventilator that would have saved their lives. Huge swaths of the country are plummeting into desperate penury, even as they witness large corporations unlock the U.S. Treasury and help themselves to everything inside.

John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel “The Grapes of Wrath” describes a similar moment during the Great Depression, when people starved even as orchards of fruit were burned to make the food that remained more profitable: “Men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. … There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. … In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

We’re about to live this again, in more sophisticated ways. Then it was fruit being incinerated so no one could eat it. Now it’s cheap ventilators that were never built because a company called Covidien worried they would compete with their more expensive models. It’s N95 masks that were not available because President Donald Trump delayed invoking the Defense Production Act in order to protect corporate power. It’s tens of thousands of hospital beds being eliminated in New York and New Jersey because the surplus capacity cost money; some of those hospitals were turned into luxury condos. Now, as it was 85 years ago, human beings are being offered as a blood sacrifice to profit. Now as then, the resulting wrath will be towering.

What we know from history is that someone always shows up to harvest this level of ambient rage — but it can go in two directions. If people can be made “angry at the crime,” as Steinbeck wrote, there can be huge positive political changes. During the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt and unions organized the anger and used it to create the New Deal and the largest middle class in history. In unluckier countries, like Germany, Italy and Japan, the political left failed. The fury was organized by fascists, and directed at innocents.

It’s tough to be optimistic that today’s liberals can replicate Roosevelt’s success. The corporate-managerial-legal class that operates the Democratic Party fears anger and sees it as illegitimate as the basis for action. Having beaten back the threat of the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren presidential candidacies, both fueled by strong populist emotion, they dream of a technocratic politics purified of messy, fickle human feelings.

But the American right specializes in the politics of anger. If the Democrats refuse to harness the legitimate rage of Americans and direct it at those responsible for our predicament, the right will make this anger its own and will win.

To understand the stakes, briefly imagine two possible versions of America one year from today, with two different uses of anger. Let’s start with the anger we need, the kind that clarifies and motivates, and underlies all effective politics.

Blue 2021

The Democratic candidate — likely Joe Biden, but we know anything can happen in U.S. politics — beat Donald Trump going away.

The winning Democrat’s slogan was “Fighting Mad.” And that was the core of his or her campaign — both the unabashedly mad part and the demonstrated willingness to fight based on that anger.

The Democrat began the convention address — either in Milwaukee or from his or her basement with no one within 6 feet — by saying: “I’m running for president because I’m angry. And if you’re angry too, there’s nothing wrong with that. ‘Anger’ comes from an Old Norse word that means ‘sorrow.’ Every single one of us has known sorrow because of the thieves and incompetents who’ve been running this country. If you’re angry, then join me and together we’ll take that trash out to the curb.”

The Democrat told the truth without truckling about who exactly was to blame for what had befallen them. The overall Democratic story could be understood by regular people because it included what every story needs: villains to be angry at, and heroes to root for. And unlike the right’s stories, this story was true.

“We’re all in this together,” the Democrat declared. “And what that means is that the people who’re out for themselves are going to pay the price. When I’m president, we’re going to put all the president’s daily briefs online so everybody can see exactly how Trump screwed us. Politicians who made money off inside information on the coronavirus and profiteers who hoarded medical supplies are going to spend the rest of their lives in jail.”

Mobilized anger at the healthcare industry terrified Congress into passing Medicare for All.

Mobilized anger at the country’s poisoning by Fox News led to a congressional investigation of whether the network had knowingly misled Americans about the dangers of Covid-19. The documentation uncovered became the basis for lawsuits that bankrupted and neutered Fox.

Mobilized anger created a sea change in U.S. culture. The taboo against being honest about the anguish and failure all humans experience was shattered. Suddenly Americans realized they were surrounded by suffering just like their own, and much of it was the fault of political choices, rather than them individually being losers.

The example from the top made an entire young, tragedy-stricken generation see that being a liberal politician can mean being a normal, angry human being instead of a technocrat built in a Stanford lab. Suddenly new potential candidates were showing up from unions and grassroots activists rather than elite law schools.

More than anything else, the liberal embrace of anger in 2021 transformed progressive politics into a movement that was serious about power. If there were no people who were truly dangerous, who were hurting us and rightfully deserved our fury, why bother getting out of bed to get power in the first place? And why wield it to vanquish your foes if we’re all on the same team in the end? Anger finally unlocked a liberal capacity to tell the truth.

Red 2021

Donald Trump was reelected. What stunned the Democrats, CNN, and the New York Times even more than Trump’s victory is that he ran on the slogan “Healing America” — even as voluminous, exquisitely researched media output demonstrated that his catastrophic mismanagement helped the coronavirus kill a million surplus Americans.

Yet it somehow didn’t matter. Trump and the GOP’s mighty Wurlitzer settled on a suite of hazy stories, all of which the party’s base fervently believed even though they were mutually contradictory.

Such as, there had been mass deaths but they were the fault of Hunter Biden’s friends in China. Simultaneously, they argued that barely anyone had died and the numbers had been wildly exaggerated by the media to hurt Trump. The suffocation of the country’s small businesses could be blamed on Nancy Pelosi’s bailout of big business and Wall Street. Big business and Wall Street had valiantly kept us alive despite the Democratic hate for free enterprise. At the bottom of the right’s food chain, there were constant whispers that brown people from New York had streamed out of their warrens to purposefully infect the heartland.

What the stories had in common was that they featured someone to blame, someone who could be the target of valid but misplaced rage. By contrast, the stories told by the Democratic candidate and the corporate press were accurate but had no villains and no heroes, and hence were not stories in the normal sense at all, just a complicated conglomeration of facts that looked good on a blackboard but had no heart.

The Democratic candidate’s quiet campaign refused to get exercised about much of anything. When the candidate was asked whether he or she would investigate Trump’s dilatory response to the coronavirus at the beginning of 2020, the Democrat said no, because “I know Donald loves this country and even out of office we’ll need his shoulder at the wheel to beat this thing.” What about prosecuting senators for insider trading? No, the candidate explained, because “when I’m president the country will all pull together.”

With a terrifying resurgence of Covid-19 in the fall, and the Democrats failing to secure universal vote by mail, that November saw the lowest turnout ever in a presidential election. The Democratic base — confused, demoralized, and frightened — didn’t show up. Trump declared his modest win to be “the greatest landslide in history.”

The Republican base became even more rage-filled and vindictive in victory. “The Washington Post is trying to destroy America,” Sean Hannity began to declare each week. “Someone’s got to shut it down.” Two days later, a gunman infiltrated Post headquarters and was stopped just before he could open fire.

Trump was now free of all restraints, and he commenced an enormous bombing campaign against Iran. Protests were outlawed for public safety. Large numbers of Americans continued to die from the coronavirus, although no one was sure exactly how many because the government no longer released statistics on it. Fox began quietly, and then more and more loudly, claiming that opponents of the war were importing “biological bombers” from Iran to spread the disease. The stage was set for the classic collapse into authoritarianism, with the official outside enemies purportedly collaborating with the enemies on the inside.

No one knows today which path the U.S. will take. But it’s going to be one or the other: The right or the left will emerge as the champion of the coming American rage. All we can do now is try to make the anger and its consequences rational, based on an accurate understanding of the world and the unnecessary sorrow we experience. We need to make people angry at the crime.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 Next > End >>

Page 529 of 3432

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.

RSNRSN