RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Stalking, Gaslighting, Threatening Violence: The Abusive Shape of Hillary Clinton Hate Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37790"><span class="small">Amanda Marcotte, Salon</span></a>   
Tuesday, 08 November 2016 12:02

Marcotte writes: "The misogynist rhetoric toward Clinton has taken a different, more gendered form. Unfortunately, it's a form that is starting to uncomfortably resemble the tactics that abusers use to assert dominance over the women they target."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)


Stalking, Gaslighting, Threatening Violence: The Abusive Shape of Hillary Clinton Hate

By Amanda Marcotte, Salon

08 November 16

 

Men who rage at Hillary Clinton use the same tactics on her politically that abusers tap to dominate their victims

uring an ABC interview in 1994, Donald Trump told Nancy Collins that “putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing” because it deprives her of the “softness” he expects in a woman.

While he “allowed” his then-wife Marla Maples to work, he sounded regretful about allowing her that much freedom.

“And I have days where, if I come home — and I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist — but when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof,” he said, clearly unaware of how abusive that sounds.

There’s a direct line from Trump’s vision of sequestering a woman in the kitchen to the present-day crowds of conservative voters, boiling with their hatred of Democratic presidential Hillary Clinton, chanting, “Lock her up! Lock her up!”

The crazed right-wing reaction to a possible Hillary Clinton presidency evokes the hostile reception of the election of the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, which resembled strategies to delegitimize black citizenship in the Jim Crow era. Demands that Obama produce his birth certificate directly echoed poll taxes and literacy tests of the past. No matter how many birth certificates Obama could produce, conspiracy theorists like Trump, the current Republican presidential nominee, would say that they weren’t proof enough. Birthers don’t use the N-word, after all, but that’s what they’re saying when they demand to see the birth certificate.

No one is questioning Clinton’s citizenship. Rather, the misogynist rhetoric toward Clinton has taken a different, more gendered form. Unfortunately, it’s a form that is starting to uncomfortably resemble the tactics that abusers use to assert dominance over the women they target.

It might seem heavy-handed to point that out, but it’s not like Clinton’s right-wing haters are overly concerned about subtlety. And while most do manage to not yell “get back in the kitchen” at her, “lock her up” is a thinly veiled version of the same sentiment.

Abusive men use four general strategies to dominate their female victims: limiting their freedom, stalking and surveillance, gaslighting and threatening or even using violence to keep them in line.

Those are also the same four rhetorical strategies that Republicans have been using to delegitimize Clinton’s run and her potential presidency. These tactics may not seem sexist on the surface, but the overall pattern points to a tendency to treat Clinton like a woman who needs to be put in her place.

1. Limiting freedom

Abusers like to keep women trapped at home, where they can control them. They may discourage their victims from having outside relationships and sometimes even forbid them from working.

This misogynist urge, when translated to political rhetoric applied to Clinton, becomes pretty damn literal: Lock her up!

Trump openly threatened to jail Clinton during the second presidential debate, and his fans have been celebrating with costumes and images of Trump hauling Clinton around in chains. On Thursday, Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, literally held up a pair on handcuffs on MSNBC to threaten Clinton.

The supposed crime committed by Clinton is always vague to the men who wallow in the visceral pleasure of imagining her chained up. That’s because her real offense, in their eyes, is her feminism. If she won’t submit to male authority meekly, then they wish to drag her off, shackled.

2. Stalking and surveillance

Abusive men are big on constant surveillance. Abusive men may target women they’re not romantically involved with and stalk them — following these women around, letting them know they’re being watched, sending them messages that they have discovered private details about their lives.

Sometimes men will stalk the women they are involved with; they will often rifle through their phones, monitor their conversations and even hang around their workplace.

Monitoring a victim’s email is a widespread tactic of abusers.

Clinton’s haters are making it clear that if she persists in thinking she has a right to run for president,  she’ll hear the strains of The Police’s “Every Breath You Take” everywhere she goes.

The daily drip-drip by WikiLeaks of Clinton-related emails contributes to the problem, especially as the organization continues to publish messages that are politically irrelevant and are meant only to signal that the target’s every move or habit — including cooking details — is being monitored.

Congressional Republicans cannot hide their glee about how they intend, using a bunch of bullshit pretenses, to start subpoenaing everything they can about Clinton the second she sets a toe in the Oval Office. Anti-Clinton fanatics at the FBI keep leaking claims that they have real dirt on her, which is hard to believe since the leakers seem to be getting their leads from the folks at Breitbart.

Clinton has had right-wingers rooting through her panty drawer for two and a half decades now, and they haven’t found anything substantive. But actually finding something isn’t really the point of the nonstop surveillance. It’s about asserting control over her life.

Republicans can’t imprison Clinton, but they can fulfill the misogynist fantasy of strapping a woman to a desk and bombarding her for 11 hours with accusations designed to make her look and feel worthless (not that it has worked).

3. Gaslighting

An abuser controls, stalks and degrades his victim, but when the victim fights back, the abuser always says she had it coming. False accusations are lobbed at her head — that she’s crazy, cheating, stupid, is a bitch — and these accusations are used to justify the abusive behavior. He has to control her, you see, because she cannot be trusted.

Gaslighting is about putting the victim into a headspace where she doubts herself. She knows she isn’t crazy or cheating or lying, but the relentless accusations start to make her question herself. Is she crazy? Does he see something she doesn’t see? Surely he wouldn’t be making all these accusations all the time if there weren’t some reason for it, right?

Clinton appears to be immune to the gaslighting, but the strategy has proved effective for the right when the media covers (and thus amplifies) the false accusations. The relentless drumbeat of false accusations against Clinton has caused an air of suspicion to swirl around her, resulting in a media firestorm every time another false accusation is lobbed. That there is no evidence of this corruption hardly matters. As the gaslighter knows, simply accusing someone long and hard enough can be enough to stoke doubts about them.

4. Threatening violence

Some abusers hit their victims. Some merely let the possibility of violence hang in the air. Either way, the purpose is to keep the woman on her toes. She is afraid to resist him, out of fear that this will be the time he erupts in a cascade of violence on her.

As the election has drawn nearer, the number has surged of Republican men who can’t help but threaten Clinton with violence. Trump adviser Al Baldasaro also recommended death by firing squad for Clinton in August. During the Values Voters summit in September Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin insinuated a threat of bloodshed if Clinton were elected. At a recent fundraiser at the end of October, Sen. Richard Burr joked about shooting a “bull’s-eye” with Clinton’s picture on it.  Oklahoma state Rep. John Bennett suggested a “firing squad” for Clinton in a recent early November Facebook post.

It’s hard to remember this far back in the outrage-of-the-day cycle, but Trump himself made a “joking” threat on Clinton’s life in August:

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. And by the way, if she gets to pick her judges: Nothing you can do, folks,” Trump told a crowd in North Carolina. “Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know.”

And if his dinner isn’t on the table, he’s going to hit the roof.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
After This Election, Turn It Off Print
Tuesday, 08 November 2016 09:14

Taibbi writes: "Everything about the way our country is run depresses us. The polls consistently show that somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction."

Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a rally. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


After This Election, Turn It Off

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

08 November 16

 

mericans have long ranked among the world's happiest people. Pollsters consistently find that in our personal lives anyway, we're a cheery bunch.

The World Happiness Report, which counts such luminaries as economist Jeffrey Sachs among its editors, called us the 13th happiest country in the world this year. An AP poll from this past spring found that two-thirds of both Democrats and Republicans are satisfied with "their personal and family relationships, financial situations, careers, and work-life balance."

But ask us about politics, and all bets are off. On that subject, we're miserable. Everything about the way our country is run depresses us. The polls consistently show that somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Ask us about the presidential election, and the picture is equally bleak. The election frustrates over 70 percent of us. Most Americans feel "helpless" about the election, including over two-thirds of people under the age of 30. A Gallup survey earlier this year found that only one in three Americans believed the election process is working correctly, a record low.

No matter what happens Tuesday, it's an undeniable fact that our population is now divided into two irreconcilable groups, each of which violently disbelieves in the humanity of the other.

But that same population seems also to be addicted to hyper-provocative political media, whose purpose usually is exacerbating that very mutual hatred and disrespect.

It's no wonder that most people are unhappy with the direction of the country. Most Americans believe themselves to be surrounded within their own borders by the equivalent of military enemies.

Conservative America entered this territory long ago. Almost immediately after 9/11, right-wing media began marketing the idea that liberals and terrorists were morally the same.

Blue-state America, such propaganda insisted, was irredeemable. The only thing to do with liberals was to destroy them. Conservative writer Kurt Schlichter echoed the wisdom of the fictional Conan the Barbarian (hilariously, a real-life GOP politician) when he wrote about how to deal with the other half of American society.

"We must yearn to crush our enemies. To see them driven before us. To hear the lamentations of their womyn," he wrote with glee, not passing up the chance to make a "womyn" joke. The likes of Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh similarly urged followers to stay vigilant about the omnipresent liberal enemy.

Thanks in large part to Donald Trump, there's a whole new genre of blue-state propaganda that appropriates this same kind of language, only in reverse. "Donald Trump Can't Merely Be Defeated – He and His Deplorables Must Be Crushed," fumed The Daily Beast. "Trumpism Must Be Crushed. Here's One Way to Do It," echoed Greg Sargent in the Washington Post.

The rightist mantra holds that liberals are Godless, hate America, hate our men and women in uniform, and want to control all human behavior through the government. Therefore they are irredeemable and there's nothing to be done with them but eliminate them.

The new party line on the other side is that Republicans are racists, sexists, bigots and hatemongers. Therefore they're irredeemable and there's nothing to be done but fight and subjugate them.

There's a paradox in American national politics. The overwhelming majority of us only have one meaningful avenue of political expression. We can vote once every four years. Meaning, once out of every 1,461 days, we actually get to do something.

The rest of the time we sit around, glued to TVs and tablets and phones, bombarding ourselves with trolling messages and news reports about the Advancing Political Enemy.

Most of what we consume as political media these days is just an endless series of alarmist features detailing the bottomless iniquity of the Other Side. Some of it might be true, who knows. Maybe even most or all of it, in the case of Donald Trump.

But our capacity to do anything about what we read nowhere near matches the sheer quantity of negative messages we receive. So we end up with a hyper-stimulated population, overwhelmed on all sides by feelings of disgust, anger and impotence.

There are only two reasons why society would be organized to keep us paralyzed this way, in a perpetual state of manic antagonism.

The first is that this is the accidental by-product of a rapacious and nihilistic commercial media system, in which the financial incentives run in the direction of using anger to keep target demographics captive for advertisers.

Surveys show the happiest people of all in this country are age 54 and older. But those same people also happen to be the chief target audiences for cable news stations, particularly Fox.

These cable shows depend significantly on scare-tactic stories about waves of immigrants/liberals/terrorists descending upon the picket-fence America of their viewers' memories, and tearing it to shreds.

The TV network needs grandpa pissed off. Otherwise, he spends the afternoon feeding pigeons or horsing around with his grandkids instead of glued to ads for aspirin or casino vacations or home security services, in between news that the president is a Muslim born on Mars, or Acorn agents are hiding inside voting machines, or whatever.

The other possible reason for such divisive media is even more overtly political. If you want to keep any population from ever usefully focusing its energies in any direction, just keep its people geeked up on intramural hatreds and conspiracy theories. That way, they'll never get anything done.

That our political process was so easily reduced to a grotesque joke in the past year should tell us all something.

It showed that the people who run this country don't really care if we make a mess of our democratic rituals, provided we don't actually elect someone hostile to their interests.

Otherwise, mazel tov! So long as the population keeps going to work and spending money, nobody up there really cares what goes on.

If all this hatred and rancor were somehow suppressing consumption, if it caused people to stop cyber-shopping or buying crap in malls, there would be an immediate call for a national reconciliation movement.

But since all it's doing is splitting up families, undermining faith in public institutions, causing political gridlock and making Americans the laughingstock of the world, the powers that be just shrug.

Better to have us at each other's throats and making fools of ourselves than thinking about things that matter, like how wealth is divided up, who really has political influence or other such questions.

This election took 18 agonizing months to complete. It could have been done in five weeks.

The only people who benefitted from it taking so long were media companies that depend upon making us miserable as a moneymaking strategy, and politicians who escape general scrutiny when the population is divided.

This has been a terrible year for our country. American exceptionalism as a non-sarcastic idea is dead. Whatever our argument used to be for being a hegemonic superpower with the authority to meddle in the affairs of every other country, it's no longer valid. We're officially earth's most embarrassing people.

The rest of the world is laughing at us this week, when it's not busy being terrified by our ignorance, racism and incompetence. They see a rich country that is spiritually bankrupt, consumed by neurotic aggression and incapable of forgiveness.

We have a lot of real problems in this country, about which we should of course stay informed and vote sensibly. But maybe our biggest problem is the political process itself. Our version of politics dehumanizes and demeans all of us.

Maybe next time, we should shut it off. Try to think about politics only when it intersects with our real lives. Take walks. Spend time with our kids. Something, anything, but not this. There has to be a better way than this.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
This Election, Don't Forget That Roe v. Wade Is on the Ballot Print
Tuesday, 08 November 2016 09:13

Cohen writes: "With the polls showing a tightening of the race, it's time to face one of the impending realities of the choice - who is elected will determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned or whether abortion remains legal in all 50 states in the country."

An anti-abortion rights activist holds a crucifix and prays amid opponents and supporters of abortion rights. (photo: Tamir Kalifa/AP)
An anti-abortion rights activist holds a crucifix and prays amid opponents and supporters of abortion rights. (photo: Tamir Kalifa/AP)


This Election, Don't Forget That Roe v. Wade Is on the Ballot

By David S. Cohen, ThinkProgress

08 November 16

 

Abortion’s future legality is not just a hypothetical issue in this election.

ith the presidential election only one day away, the national conversation has turned from a rigged election to email security practices to early voting numbers. But with the polls showing a tightening of the race, it’s time to face one of the impending realities of the choice tomorrow—who is elected will determine whether Roe v. Wadeis overturned or whether abortion remains legal in all 50 states in the country.

This issue was briefly discussed during the third presidential debate where the candidates presented starkly contrasting views of abortion’s legality. Hillary Clinton said clearly that she would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would uphold Roe v. Wade and recognize the importance of women’s bodily autonomy. Donald Trump tried to dodge the question, but ultimately admitted that he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe and send the issue of abortion’s legality to the states to decide.

The debate moved on to other issues, as did the national conversation afterwards, but as people go to their polling places on Tuesday, it’s time to return to this one. Abortion’s future legality is not just some hypothetical issue that serves only to rally each party’s base. Rather, given the composition of the current Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade really does hang in the balance.

As everyone knows, the current Supreme Court has had one vacant seat ever since Justice Antonin Scalia died. On this eight-justice Court, there are five justices who support abortion rights (albeit to different degrees) and three who oppose them. Adding one more justice, regardless of the president, really wouldn’t do much to change the basic calculus about Roe.

However, the next president is very likely going to appoint more than just one justice. Three current justices are 78 years of age or older—Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83, Anthony Kennedy is 80, and Steven Breyer is 78. Time waits for no one, not even notoriously iconic Supreme Court justices, so there’s a very strong chance that one of these three, if not two or even all three, is not going to be on the Court for the next four years.

This is where the threat to Roe comes. Each of these three justices who are 78 or older is among the majority of the justices on the Court who support Roe. If one of them retires or passes away over the next four years, the incoming president will appoint not just someone to fill Justice Scalia’s seat but also someone to fill one of the three elderly Roe supporters’ seats. That means two new justices to either support or overturn Roe.

From there, the Roe math is easy. If Clinton wins the election, her two new justices would create a six-to-three majority on the Court in favor of Roe. However, if Trump wins, his two new justices would form a five-to-four majority to overturn Roe. The threat to Roe is real.

Of course, there’s a scattered history of Supreme Court justices not following the ideology of the president who appointed them, which means there’s always the possibility that a Trump-appointed justice does not actually vote to get rid of Roe (and vice versa for a Clinton-appointed justice). However, most justices do follow their appointing president’s ideology. This has been particularly true for those justices appointed over the past couple of decades, as they have rarely wavered, especially on major issues such as abortion’s legality.

Put this all together and it means that if Trump wins, Roe has a real chance to be overturned.

What would that actually mean for the country? Several states have laws that would immediately outlaw abortion, while others have laws that have been stopped by the courts but would soon take effect once brought to a court’s attention. Yet other states have legislatures that would almost immediately enact a new ban on abortion. According to a 2007 report by the Center for Reproductive Rights, 21 states are at high risk of banning abortion if Roe were overturned, and another nine are at some risk.

In this post-Roe America, abortion would be illegal in a large part of this country and legal, with a few exceptions, only on the coasts. We’ve been in a similar place before—in the years before Roe, when wealthy women were able to access safe, though illegal, abortions, but everyone else had to risk their safety and sometimes their lives, and doctors had to risk going to jail. From this history, as well as the experience of countries around the world, we know one thing for sure—women will always find a way to have abortions, no matter its legality; what legality changes is whether women will have them safely.

Given the current Supreme Court, this is one of the most important differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Tomorrow, you’ll be voting on whether Roe will survive and whether women will be safe.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Plan to 'Make America Great Again' Is Ethnic Cleansing Print
Monday, 07 November 2016 14:40

Gupta writes: "When Trump says, 'Make America Great Again,' his followers understand he is really saying, 'Make America White Again.'"

Donald J. Trump, campaigning in Las Vegas on Oct. 30, 'has shown that our message is healthy, normal and organic,' said Matthew M. Heimbach, a founder of a white nationalist group. (photo: Stephen Crowley/NYT)
Donald J. Trump, campaigning in Las Vegas on Oct. 30, 'has shown that our message is healthy, normal and organic,' said Matthew M. Heimbach, a founder of a white nationalist group. (photo: Stephen Crowley/NYT)


Trump's Plan to 'Make America Great Again' Is Ethnic Cleansing

By Arun Gupta, teleSUR

07 November 16

 

When Trump says, “Make America Great Again,” his followers understand he is really saying, “Make America White Again.”

tanding outside a just-concluded Donald Trump rally in Everett, Washington on August 30, Chuck and Denise, a middle-aged couple from Tacoma, said on the inside, “There was every nationality, every age range, young, old, Black, white.”

Chuck explained why they backed Trump “We’re old-fashioned. We need law and order back. Trump says he’s going to build the wall. The flies come in. The mosquitoes come in.”

I exchanged glances with my companion, Alexander Reid Ross, a journalist who studies the right.

Denise chimed in about Syrian Refugees. It’s a “huge” issue, she said. “It bothers me we are letting in 200,000 refugees. We have no idea what they’re doing. They are probably affiliated with ISIS. They were raised to hate us.” (By September 2016, 12,391 Syrian refugees had been resettled in the United States in the prior year.)

Chuck chimed in, “We’re opposed to Islam.” Alexander asked if they were Christian. They said yes, explaining they were non-denominational. Denise walked back their response, saying, “We’re opposed to radical Islam, the militants.”

Chuck was worried about coming to the rally. “We didn’t know about Black Lives Matter, if they would have guns.”

Denise complained about “Billboards we can’t read.” She said they welcomed Hispanics in their neighborhood, “But don’t try to twist it around and make it look like Mexico.”

Chuck was exasperated because he couldn’t express his opinion. “We’re the furthest thing from racist, but you end up looking like the biggest racist on the block.”

Inside the rally the 10,000-person capacity arena was two-thirds full and well over 99 percent white. Trump said slowly to cheers, “We’re going to take back the White House.” It was a play on “Take back America,” the Tea Party movement’s rallying cry of aggrieved whites.

Trump continued, “We will rebuild our inner cities and provide safety and peace to all of our citizens. American values and culture will be cherished and celebrated once again.”

John, 24, a waiter from Bend, Oregon, which has a Black population of .5 percent, said before the rally he didn’t like Trump because the media “painted him as racist and sexist.” After seeing him, John said, “It’s the opposite. I have a lot more respect for him. He has empathy. He talked about African-American children and inner cities.”

Blake Von Mittman, 21, a proud nationalist and member of the white supremacist Alt-Right, said, “I want prosperity for all the races in this country. We are cradling Blacks and minorities like they are daisies. The media should unify all the races.” He doesn’t mind people celebrating their culture, but, “They should celebrate privately, and not make it a national holiday like Black History Month or quinceañeras. It’s disgusting.”

He said of Nigel Farage, the ethno-nationalist leader of the the U.K. Independence Party, “He represents a more revolutionary-type mindset in the best possible way.” Von Mittman added, “I’ve never been a racist. I love all the races. Illegal immigration is a plague.”

Across the country, Trump fans express similar ideas in their own words. After 18 months of an extraordinarily bitter, divisive, and even traumatic election, it seems there is nothing new to say. But the media have missed entirely the essence of what Trump represents and why he has attracted such an intense following.

Trumpism boils down to one idea: ethnic cleansing. When he says, “Make America Great Again,” his followers understand he is really saying, “Make America White Again.”

While much of Trump’s platform is an ad hoc stream of viciousness, his core ideas involve eliminating entire groups from the public sphere. Millions would be physically removed. “Illegals” and Mexicans will be sent packing (the two are interchangeable in the minds of many supporters). He wants to shut off Muslim immigration through “extreme vetting;” Muslims here should be forced to register with the government and some mosques shut down.

His website is even more radical.

He has mentioned reducing immigration to “moderate historical averages,” which could only be accomplished by terminating immigration for decades or booting out 27 million immigrants. Now he says he would “suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.” This wording is so broad — no country can prove its screening is 100 percent effective — that Trump might be able to impose the type of severe controls under the 1924 National Origins Act that banned nearly all immigration from non-European countries. (Ironically, Mexicans were allowed in because they could be exploited as cheap labor, while bans on Asian immigration began in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act.)

Trump’s followers are clearly motivated by class and racial resentments, just as race and class are inseparable in the American experience. At a Trump rally last spring in Eugene, Oregon, the reasons his supporters cite for deporting 11 million immigrants involve jobs or taxes ? but it’s always stated in racial and nationalist terms. To Trump and his supporters, undocumented immigrants are parasites and responsible for major economic and social problems, not the “1 percent.”

Supporters said:

“Immigration is the biggest thing — not coming to this country and sucking us dry.”

“You can’t just walk over the border and suck off the system — you get food stamps, health care.”

“I hope he’ll build the job economy back up and I hope he’ll put up the wall, just for the illegals.”

“[I am] working to support other people’s way of life.”

Trump incites nativism and xenophobia simultaneously by claiming every other nation takes advantage of America through the “worst trade deals,” through sending their worst people, and through getting a free ride through military alliances. His supporters in Eugene echoed this with comments like:

“America [needs] to stop being taken advantage of like China does.”

“It’s time to take America back, bring our jobs back.”

“Bring back jobs, instead of losing jobs to others.”

“Illegal immigrants are driving down wages for lower-class workers.”

Trump presents trade, jobs, religion, and culture as a zero-sum game, and this attitudes trickles down to his grassroots. At a Trump victory party in Portland, Oregon, Jon Lovell, a construction worker, told me of a woman’s rental house he had renovated and how he tried to encourage her to “rent to a white family” instead of Hispanics.

Most Trump supporters don’t mention Muslims, but if asked they invariably favor a “temporary ban” and can’t or won’t say when it will be lifted. In Everett, Roger Birgen a retired navy vet, backed a ban, saying of Muslims,  “Don’t bring your religion and force it on me.” To cheers from the crowd, Trump recited the “snake poem,” comparing Syrian refugees to poisonous reptiles. (It’s in the vein of the Heathen Chinee Poem that was wildly popular during 19th century anti-Asian hysteria.)

The millions on board the Trump train believe Muslims and Mexicans are mortal threats to the nation’s safety, economic health, and cultural survival. From this perspective, the logical, indeed only sensible, solution is to cleanse the Republic of foreign goods, foreign entanglements, and foreign peoples.

Trump’s sinister tales are well-suited for his audience. A Gallup survey of more than 26,000 Trump fans concluded, “The racial and ethnic isolation of whites at the zip code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.” Likewise, a New York Times analysis of census data found the second-strongest indicator of support were among those who listed their ancestry as “American.” Then there is the fact that as the density of a county increases, which correlates with diversity, so does the likelihood that it goes Democratic. His voters skew older with greatest support among those over 65. And support for Trump aligns closely with racist attitudes.

Add in weak economies and declining life expectancies among middle-aged whites in many Trump strongholds, and this creates a scenario of whites who romanticize a racially pure past, live in homogeneous communities today, and envision their future slipping away. Trump has convinced many they’ve been robbed of birthright privileges that can only be regained by defeating alien threats. But Trump is not merely a mirror for what exists. Given Bernie Sanders’ considerable support in much of the Midwest now tilting toward the reality TV star, Trump is a lens focusing specific wavelengths of racialized rage.

When Trump supporters are asked, “When was America last great?”, a few point to the 1970s or 1980s, which is bygone enough to have acquired a rose-tinted nostalgia for younger voters. Many say the 1950s, but just as many want to turn the clock back to before FDR, the early 20th century, or even late 19th century. These are all times when legal apartheid and racial terror dominated the lives of Blacks, Chicanos, and Native Americans. And the turn of the 20th century was also a time when life expectancy was 47 years overall and 33 years for African-Americans.

Ethnic cleansing sounds extreme because it evokes images of armed bands of grim-faced men from the Balkans to the Congo massacring and violently displacing communities. But afflicted by national amnesia, we forget ethnic cleansing defines every era of American history and the most extreme forms, such as the genocide of Native Americans and Jim Crow, have been official policy.

There are many other examples. The 19th century was marked by anti-Chinese and anti-Catholic pogroms. Scholars say in the 1910s the Texas Rangers massacred “hundreds — if not thousands — of Mexican-Americans” in the state. This time was also the beginning of the “great migration” of African-Americans leaving the South for booming cities in the North. Racial and labor tensions led to scores of race riots during World War I and after, though many should be labeled pogroms. White vigilantes aided by local law enforcement who murdered hundreds of African-Americans in East St. Louis in 1917, up to 300 in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921, 237 people in Elaine, Arkansas in 1919, and an unknown number in Rosewood, Florida in 1923.

Meanwhile, thousands of towns from Maine to California and Texas to Minnesota were convulsed by ethnic cleansing. James Loewen, a sociologist at the University of Illinois, calls these whites-only burgs sundown towns, “because some of them posted signs at their city limits reading, typically, ‘Nigger, Don't Let The Sun Go Down On You In ___.’” Chinese, Jews, and other groups were often excluded as well “by force, law, or custom.” Loewen lists thousands of possible sundown towns. Cleveland, for example, is ringed by many such towns like Brunswick, Cuyahoga Falls, Broadview Heights, Hudson, and Chagrin Falls that are 99 percent white to this day.

In this light, Trump’s schizophrenic language about African-Americans makes sense. He is, of course, not trying to appeal to Black voters. Some polls have recorded zero percent support from African-Americans because of his racist history and calling their current lives “hellish.” He wants his followers to believe he and by extension they care about Black life and progress, as John, the waiter from Bend, Oregon, expressed. The aim is to inoculate his campaign against charges of racism even though that’s it’s defining appeal. He tells his audiences, “When Democratic policies fail, they are left with only this one tired argument: ‘You’re racist, you’re racist, you’re racist.’ It’s a tired disgusting argument.”

More significant, Trump’s hucksterism distracts from how he attacks Black political activity. He blames Black Lives Matter for police killings, said as president he would investigate the movement, and turned his RNC coronation into a minstrel show with Black speakers bellowing, “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter.” His “law and order” and “silent majority” slogans are taken from Nixon’s successful 1968 campaign that whipped up white resentment against the Black freedom struggle.

Trump’s falsehoods about voter fraud in Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Chicago are shrieking dog whistles to his white nationalist base. The right’s history of trying to eliminate Black political power has intensified in the last decade. But to restrictive I.D. laws and barriers to early voting, Trump is encouraging supporters to engage in outright intimidation of minority voters that is eerily reminiscent of Reconstruction-era suppression of Black voters.

This is another component of Trump’s ethnic cleansing: banish African-American voices and issues to the margins as much as possible. It takes place within a specific context. Every time there are Black political or social gains, such as with Reconstruction, the Great Migration, or the Civil Rights Era, there is a violent white reaction aided and encouraged by demagogic politicians. This time is no different except Trump has been in the forefront of the backlash. He staked his candidacy on delegitimizing the first Black president, demonized Black Lives Matter, and suggested using stop-and-frisk nationwide, in effect further criminalizing Blacks and Latinos.

If Trump is elected, he would likely have a Republican Congress and could solidify a hard-right Supreme Court majority, leaving few checks. He would have more power than George W. Bush and a far more extreme agenda. More significant, Trumpism isn’t about a static set of policies, it is a dynamic. Because he would rule like he campaigned, Trump would constantly pick fights to draw attention away from his disastrous policies. With a base clamoring for entire groups to be forced out of the country or public life, Trump would likely deliver with mass roundups and deportations of undocumented immigrants, bans on Muslims, and intensified repression of African-Americans. Racist vigilantes would have a White House that would look the other and social approval to carry out more extreme measures.

If Trump loses, ethnic cleansing would be impossible to implement without state power. It will be far less dangerous, but not disappear. States will try to carry out discriminatory policies, such as Arizona and Alabama have. And it will burst out as politicized mass shooters like Dylan Roof.

It’s already happening. A Kansas militia calling itself “The Crusaders” was thwarted in October from allegedly perpetrating an Oklahoma City-style massacre on Somali immigrants. They planned to time the attack to the day after the election so as not to affect it, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations put the blame squarely on Trump for encouraging “domestic terrorist groups to commit acts of terrorism and violence against our community.” The three white militiamen arrested referred to Somalis as “cockroaches” and wanted to kill them because they “represent a threat to American society.” They hoped a bloodbath would “wake up” a lot more people to “decide they want this country back.”

Those words could have come straight out of Donald Trump’s mouth.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Nine Ways the US Voting System Is Rigged but Not Against Donald Trump Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35798"><span class="small">Jon Schwarz, The Intercept</span></a>   
Monday, 07 November 2016 14:37

Schwarz writes: "Donald Trump is right - the U.S. voting system is totally rigged! It's not rigged against him, though. It's rigged against people without much money, and people who are members of any number of minority groups."

Voting. (photo: Stephen Maturen/AFP/Getty Images)
Voting. (photo: Stephen Maturen/AFP/Getty Images)


Nine Ways the US Voting System Is Rigged but Not Against Donald Trump

By Jon Schwarz, The Intercept

07 November 16

 

onald Trump is right — the U.S. voting system is totally rigged!

It’s not rigged against him, though. It’s rigged against people without much money, and people who are members of any number of minority groups.

Some of the rigging is by design, and dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers. Some of it is simply a byproduct of an economic system where the top 0.1 percent have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Some falls somewhere in between.

Add it all up, and it constitutes a gigantic obstacle to regular people using their purported power to run our purported democracy.

Here are some of the ways in which the voting system is rigged, few of which are ever discussed in American elections — which some might say constitutes its own kind of rigging.

  1. You have to register to vote.

Between one-quarter and one-third of American adults, up to 50 million people, are eligible to vote but aren’t registered to vote.

That’s ridiculous. Why do American adults have to take a special, extra step to govern themselves?

Many other countries, including France, Italy, Chile, Israel, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, all register everyone to vote automatically. Not coincidentally, they have much higher voter turnout than we do.

The unregistered are younger, poorer and less white than registered voters. They’re also more likely to support progressive political policies, such as a higher minimum wage and a financial transactions tax.

The good news is that five states — Oregon, California, West Virginia, Vermont and Connecticut — now have near-automatic voter registration, and many other states are considering it. Hillary Clinton has called for the federal government to push all states to make it happen.

  1. Election Day is a work day

The less money and power you have, the harder it is to take time off from work to vote.

Many states now have early voting, but some do not. Even if you can vote early, the rules are different everywhere and often change. We should expand and standardize early voting but also, as Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed, make election day a national holiday.

  1. Gerrymandering and geography

In 2012, a slight majority of Americans voted for a Democrat for their congressional representative. Nevertheless, 54 percent of the elected representatives were Republicans.

This was thanks to both gerrymandering and the tendency of Democratic voters to live in dense cities. Currently Republican state legislatures use computer software to pack Democratic voters into as few districts as possible, creating the characteristically bizarre gerrymandered shape. But computers can also be used to create districts that look “fair” — i.e., compact and contiguous — and these would still put Democrats at a disadvantage because Democrats have by choice packed themselves into a few small places.

This is a problem that may not have an easy answer. Gerrymandering is to some degree in the eye of the beholder. Cities are probably going to remain highly Democratic. Some people believe it would be best to turn states into “multimember districts,” so that if the state sends seven representatives to the House, everyone in the state would get seven votes and would choose their top seven candidates.

  1. Many felons can’t vote.

6.1 million Americans can’t vote this year because they’ve been convicted of a felony. 2.2 million of them are African American; in Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia more than 1 in 5 black adults can’t vote.

No other country works like this. The solution here is simple: As in France, Germany, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Peru, Poland and Romania, everyone should be eligible to vote, including those convicted of felonies and even those currently in prison.

  1. Voter suppression.

Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of today’s conservative movement, cheerfully explained in 1980 that “I don’t want everybody to vote. … Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Republicans have taken this perspective to heart for decades, and are doing their best again in 2016 to reduce the number of people voting. Popular methods include purging voter rolls of eligible votersreducing polling times and placesrequiring photo ID to vote and voter intimidation.

  1. No Instant Runoff

Instant runoff voting, which was recently used in the London mayoral election, lets third-party supporters vote for their first choice without fear they’ll act as spoilers and help elect their least favorite candidate.

Here’s how it works: Voters rank as many candidates as they like in the order of their preference, from first to last. If a candidate gets a majority of first choice ballots, he or she wins. If not, the last place candidate is eliminated – and his or her votes are distributed to the candidates who were the second choice of the eliminated candidate’s supporters. And so on. (If this sounds confusing, a Minnesota Public Radio video explains it in a clever way using post-its.)

In terms of this election, a Jill Stein voter who loathes Trump and lives in a swing state can’t vote for Stein without helping Trump. With instant runoff voting, such a Stein supporter could rank Stein as his or her first choice, Clinton as his or her second, and Trump last or not at all.

There is a built-in bipartisan consensus against any such move, however, since it would weaken the two-party duopoly that runs U.S. politics.

  1. The Senate

The Senate hugely magnifies the power of small states. Deep red Wyoming, population 582,000, has two senators. So does deep blue California, with a population of 38.8 million, 66 times greater than Wyoming’s.

That is so rigged!

The Senate’s ability to slow or stop change is why it was created in the first place. As James Madison, the main author of the Constitution, put it in 1787: “Our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation” and “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” The Senate, Madison said, should be the part of the government designed to do this.

  1. You can’t vote for the Federal Reserve

The U.S. economy is like a car with two gas pedals and two brakes. Congress controls one of each, but the Federal Reserve controls the others.

Its seven governors are appointed by presidents to 14-year terms. Even worse, the Federal Open Market Committee, which controls interest rates, is made up of the seven governors plus five members who are presidents of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. The regional presidents are chosen in a process that’s largely controlled by banks.

  1. Corporate America is more powerful than politicians

As John Dewey, one of America’s most important pro-democracy philosophers, wrote in 1931, “politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.”

This could be seen most clearly in the 2008 Wall Street bailout. Not only did the biggest banks have the power to destroy the U.S. economy in a way no politicians ever could, they easily forced the entire political system to stop everything and give them what turned out to be trillions of dollars.

On a smaller scale, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump hope to slash the tax rate on multinational corporations even though I’m guessing this is not one of your top priorities.

Whew, that’s a long and depressing list. But don’t give up: That list used to be much, much longer, yet regular people have been successfully fighting to shrink it for 240 years. There’s no reason to believe we can’t make it shorter still or eventually eliminate it altogether.

So go vote! There’s a reason this list exists, which is that democracy is powerful and dangerous and lots of people want to limit it. Don’t let them.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 Next > End >>

Page 1837 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