RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Trump's Appetite for Destruction: How Disastrous Convention Doomed GOP Print
Saturday, 23 July 2016 10:41

Taibbi writes: "Hell, yes, it was crazy. You rubbed your eyes at the sight of it, as in, 'Did that really just happen?' It wasn't what we expected. We thought Donald Trump's version of the Republican National Convention would be a brilliantly bawdy exercise in Nazistic excess."

Donald Trump speaking at a rally. (photo: Charlie Leight/Getty Images)
Donald Trump speaking at a rally. (photo: Charlie Leight/Getty Images)


Trump's Appetite for Destruction: How Disastrous Convention Doomed GOP

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

23 July 16

 

ell, yes, it was crazy. You rubbed your eyes at the sight of it, as in, "Did that really just happen?"

It wasn't what we expected. We thought Donald Trump's version of the Republican National Convention would be a brilliantly bawdy exercise in Nazistic excess.

We expected thousand-foot light columns, a 400-piece horn section where the delegates usually sit (they would be in cages out back with guns to their heads). Onstage, a chorus line of pageant girls in gold bikinis would be twerking furiously to a techno version of "New York, New York" while an army of Broadway dancers spent all four days building a Big Beautiful Wall that read winning, the ceremonial last brick timed to the start of Donald's acceptance speech...

But nah. What happened instead was just sad and weird, very weird. The lineup for the 2016 Republican National Convention to nominate Trump felt like a fallback list of speakers for some ancient UHF telethon, on behalf of a cause like plantar-wart research.

Was one of the headliners really Ultimate Fighting chief Dana White, head all swollen and shouting into the microphone like a man having a road-rage dispute?

Was that really General Hospital star and Calvin Klein underwear model Antonio Sabato Jr. warning gravely that "our rights have been trampled and our security threatened" by President Obama's policies? And were there really two soap stars in the lineup, the second being Kimberlin Brown, of The Young and the Restless, who drove a spear through the grave of Henny Youngman with an agonizing attempt at warm-up humor?

"Many of you know me from one of your favorite soap operas," she said. "But since we only have one life to live?.?.?.?I decided to follow other dreams!" Punchline: She grows avocados now, and loves Donald Trump.

There were four categories of speakers. First, the Trump family members, including poor wife Melania, whose speechwriters pushed her into a media buzz saw on opening night.

Then, there were even a few Republican politicians who seemed to want to be there voluntarily, people like crazed Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, who came off like a shaved and slightly angrier version of Yosemite Sam. Ex-candidate Ben Carson emerged from a grain-storage chamber somewhere to connect Hillary Clinton to Lucifer and say things about transgender people so outrageous that even Orrin Hatch rushed to their defense.

The third group consisted of Republican officials who had no choice but to be there. People like Republican Party chief Reince Priebus and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan rarely spoke Trump's name and seemed pained throughout, aware they might spend eternity giving each other back rubs in hell as punishment for participating in this event.

The rest were basically personal friends of Trump's who owed him a favor.

The nominee seemed to mine the very bottom of his Rolodex for the exercise, to the point where we even heard a testimonial from Natalie Gulbis, the world's 492nd-ranked professional woman golfer.

"The first time I played golf with him, in 2005, I shared two things I had told countless CEOs, billionaires and politicians before him," said Gulbis. The two things sort of turned out to be one thing, i.e., that she wanted to open a Boys & Girls Club and she was tired of having such business ideas rejected.

"Those words previously fell on deaf, albeit well-intentioned ears," she went on. "But that day was different. They finally fell on ears that cared enough to take action." Trump funded her Boys & Girls Club!

"Trump's ears cared?" cracked a nearby reporter, stuffing his face with yogurt peanuts while Googling "Natalie Gulbis naked" on his cellphone.

Then there was Scott Baio. Scott Baio, ladies and gentlemen! Not the Fonz or Richie or even Pinky Tuscadero, but the man who played Chachi, a gimmick character in a show about an America that never existed, a time when there were no black people and the last gasps of our apartheid state were called Happy Days.

Republicans have been selling a return to that mythical Fifties golden age for the past half-century, but it took Donald Trump for the sales pitch to come out as such extreme comedy. Make America's Days Happy Again!

Trump had Baio in the convention lineup just days after wired-on-Jesus former Congresskook Michelle Bachmann described the nominee as a man with "1950s sensibilities," who grew up in an era when "even?.?.?.?Jews would say Merry Christmas." Why can't we go back to those days?

"Let's make America America again!" is how Baio put it in his speech.

The next day, Baio labored through a confused and contentious appearance on MSNBC with host Tamron Hall. The headline that emerged from that uncomfortable segment involved Hall confronting Baio over a tweet in which he appeared to call Hillary Clinton a "cunt." But the real shocker came at the beginning of the interview.

"Did you write your own speech?" Hall asked.

"I did," said Baio. "I was asked to do this Thursday. I wrote my speech in church on Sunday morning."

Donald Trump did not nail down Scott Baio, perhaps Earth's most conspicuously available actor, as a speaker for opening night of the Republican Party Convention until four days before it started!

It didn't get any better when the so-called professional politicians spoke. As if in one voice, they all repeated a mantra more appropriate for a megachurch full of Rapture-ready Christians than a political convention: We are not safe, the end is nigh, run for the hills and vote Trump on your way out.

"There's no next election – this is it," screeched Rudy Giuliani (or "9/11's Rudy Giuliani," as he is jokingly dubbed in the press section).

The former New York mayor's "there are terrorists trimming their beards under your bed as we speak" act has been seen a million times before by this political press corps, but even that jaded group was stunned by the hysterical heights – or depths? – to which he rose/sank in his appearance for Trump.

"To defeat Islamic extremist terrorists, we must put them on defense!" he shouted, with his usual bluster at first.

Then, suddenly, in a frenzy of violent hand gestures, Giuliani found another gear. "We must commit ourselves to unconditional victory against them!" he bellowed, with a flourish that could only be described as Hitlerian. It was a daring performance that met with some roars on the floor, but also plenty of murmuring.

The thing is, the convention crowd wasn't exactly the fevered revolutionary rally the press had been predicting for months. It was, in fact, a sadly muted affair, with many delegates quietly despairing at what had happened to the Grand Old Party.

The Republican Party under Trump has become the laughingstock of the world, and it happened in front of an invading force of thousands of mocking reporters who made sure that not one single excruciating moment was left uncovered.

So, yes, it was weird, and pathetic, but it was also disturbing, and not just for the reasons you might think. Trump's implosion left the Republican Party in schism, but it also created an unprecedented chattering-class consensus and a dangerous political situation.

Everyone piled on the Republicans, with pundits from George Will to David Brooks to Dan Savage all on the same side now, and nobody anywhere seeming to worry about the obvious subtext to Trump's dumpster-fire convention: In a two-party state, when one collapses, doesn't that mean only one is left? And isn't that a bad thing?

Day two of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, a little after 6:30 p.m. Roll has been called, states are announcing their support for the Donald, and the floor is filled with TV crews breathlessly looking for sexy backdrops for the evolving train wreck that is the Republican Party.

Virtually every major publication in America has run with some version of the "Man, has this convention been one giant face-plant, or what?" story, often citing the sanitized, zero-debate conventions of the past as a paradise now lost to the GOP.

"The miscues, mistakes [and] mishandled dissent," wrote Elizabeth Sullivan in Cleveland's Plain Dealer, "did not augur well for the sort of smoothly scripted, expertly choreographed nominating conventions our mainstream political parties prefer."

The odd thing is that once upon a time, conventions were a site of fierce debates, not only over the content of the party platform but even the choice of candidates themselves. And this was regarded as the healthy exercise of democracy.

It wasn't until the television era, when conventions became intolerably dull pro-forma infomercials stage-managed for the networks to consume as fake shows of unity, that we started to measure the success of conventions by their lack of activity, debate and new ideas.

A Wyoming delegate named Rick Shanor shakes his head as he leans against a wall, staying out of the way of the crews zooming to and fro. He insists dissent is always part of the process, and maybe it's just that nobody cared before.

"It's beautiful," he says. "You've got to have the discourse. You've got to have arguments about this and that. That's the way we work in the Republican Party. We yak and yak, but we coalesce."

The Republican Convention in Cleveland was supposed to be the site of revolts and unprecedented hijinks on the part of delegates. But on the floor of Chez LeBron, a.k.a. the Quicken Loans Arena, a.k.a. the "Q," it's the journalists who are acting like fanatics, buttonholing every delegate in sight for embarrassed quotes about things like Melania's plagiarism flap.

"The only safe place to stand is, like, in the middle row of your delegation," one delegate says, eyeing the media circling the edges of the floor like a school of sharks. "If you go out to get nachos or take a leak, they come after you."

A two-person crew, a camera and a coiffed on-air hack, blows through a portion of the Washington state delegation, a bunch of princely old gentlemen in zany foam tree-hats. The trees separate briefly, then return to formation.

Meanwhile, the TV crew has set up and immediately begun babbling still more about last night's story, Melania Trump's plagiarism, which Esquire's Charlie Pierce correctly quipped was a four-hour story now stretching toward multiple days.

Nearby, watching the reporters, one delegate from a Midwestern state turns to another.

"This is like a NAMBLA convention," he says with a sigh. "And we're the kiddies."

Outside, it's not much better.

The vast demilitarized zone set up between the Q and anywhere in the city that contains people is an inert, creepy place to visit. Towering metal barricades line streets cleansed of people, with the only movement being the wind blowing the occasional discarded napkin or pamphlet excerpt of The Conservative Heart (the president of the American Enterprise Institute's hilarious text about tough-love cures for poverty first littered the floor of the Q, then the grounds outside it).

Thus the area around the convention feels like some other infamous de-peopled landscapes, like Hitler's paintings, or downtown New Orleans after Katrina. You have to walk a long way, sometimes climbing barriers and zigzagging through the multiple absurd metal mazes of the DMZ, to even catch a glimpse of anyone lacking the credentials to get into this most exclusive of clubs: American democracy.

Concepts like "free speech zones" or the idea that the general public may not come within a half-mile or so of the actual event seemed insane when they were first introduced years ago. But the public has since become inured to the notion, which perhaps is a reason the protests here have been far tamer than in years past.

In 2004, the first year that both parties were unembarrassed enough to actually use the Orwellian term "free speech zones," there were large demonstrations for and against issues like the Iraq War, and the zones themselves.

But this time around, it is only the press that turned out in massive numbers, apparently hoping to catch a repeat of 1968, when a violent street ruckus upended the Democratic Convention. But 1968 was exactly the sort of televisable show of dangerous dissent these zones are designed to preclude.

Eleven a.m., Day Three, Cleveland's Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument. Rumors had circulated that something big was going to happen here this morning, like thousands of Latinos building a human wall around the Q.

But at the appointed time, there are just a few dozen protesters wearing hand-painted burlap "Wall Off Trump" costumes?.?.?.?and about a million journalists.

The joke in the past few days had been that there were 10 cops for every reporter and 10 reporters for every protester. But under the monument at this moment, you can actually see the math.

"Welcome to the photographers' convention!" seethes videographer James Woods, a.k.a. James FromTheInternet (no relation to the unhinged actor).

An executive producer at the popular indie press outlet act.tv, the burly, bearded Woods is a fixture on the protest circuit, a one-man TV production unit who has been spotted chronicling everything from the Ferguson riots to anti-war marches to the unrest that rocked New York after the Eric Garner grand jury.

Woods came to the RNC on the off chance that some real anarchist craziness might finally happen. But he was quickly dispirited when it became a scene where everyone in America with a blog or an iPhone showed up to take selfies while "covering" the historic event, a kind of journo-tourism.

"It's like everyone who's been sitting around for four years decided to scrape the dust off their cameras and show up here," he says, shaking his head.

After a brief attempt at an interlocking-hand "wall" that stretches for perhaps 15 people, the anti-Trump group begins moving in a single row toward the Q, chanting, "Wall off Trump! Wall off Trump!"

They are followed, no joke, by groups of reporters six or seven rows deep on both sides. And when a pair of pro-Trumpers show up quietly holding American flags along the street's edge, they are suddenly set upon by photographers in search of a confrontation.

One of the pro-Trumpers, a 31-year-old Los Angeleno named Shawn Witte, is walking in silence carrying a flag. "Just fucking walking," as he puts it. But the mass of reporters, detecting him, seem anxious to clear a lane between him and the human wall, perhaps hoping they will bite one another or something.

The day before, Witte says, the same thing had happened. When he went outside with his flag, reporters rushed back and forth between Witte and some Black Lives Matter protesters, pointing them out to each other.

"Everybody in Black Lives Matter, they were cool with it," Witte says. "They were like, ‘Right on, man. I don't agree with what you're saying, but you have a personal right.' Media was trying to hype that shit up."

The 1968 narrative never materializes, much to the obvious chagrin of the monstrous press contingent (the "human centipede of bastards," as one sketch artist dubbed them). Handfuls of protesters do their thing peacefully, on the permitted side of the DMZ, and it is weak-beer TV no matter how you look at it.

That the press seemed let down by the lack of turmoil on the streets was odd, given that the Trump convention itself was, after all, a historic revolt.

Thirteen million and three hundred thousand Republican voters had defied the will of their party and soundly rejected hundred-million-dollar insider favorites like Jeb Bush to re-seize control of their own political destiny. That they made perhaps the most ridiculous choice in the history of democracy was really a secondary issue.

It was a tremendous accomplishment that real-life conservative voters did what progressives could not quite do in the Democratic primaries. Republican voters penetrated the many layers of money and political connections and corporate media policing that, like the labyrinth of barricades around the Q, are designed to keep the riffraff from getting their mitts on the political process.

But it wasn't covered that way. What started a year ago as an amusing story about a clown car full of bumbling primary hopefuls was about to be described to the world not as a groundbreaking act of defiance, but as a spectacular failure of democracy.

The once-divided media class now came together to gang-troll flyover America for its preposterous decision, turning the coverage of the convention into a parable on the evil of letting voters make up their own dumb minds. This was the Fatal Attraction of political coverage, a warning disguised as a story: Look what happens, you rubes, when you step outside the lines.

One of the great propaganda successes of the past few decades has been the myth of the liberal media. The idea that a monolithic herd of leftist snobs somehow controlled the news spread in part because of a seemingly key but really irrelevant demographic truth, i.e., that most individual reporters lean blue in their personal politics.

Moreover, from All the President's Men to The Insider to Good Night, and Good Luck to Spotlight, Hollywood portrayals of the media always involve prudish conservative villains upended by chain-smoking/disheveled/wisecracking lefty heroes, Robert Redford's amusingly hunky representation of then-Republican Bob Woodward notwithstanding.

But whatever their personal leanings, influential reporters mostly work in nihilistic corporations, to whom the news is a non-ideological commodity, to be sold the same way we hawk cheeseburgers or Marlboro Lights. Wars, scandals and racial conflicts sell, while poverty and inequality do not. So reporters chase one and not the other. It's just business.

Previously, at conventions like this, pundits always played up the differences between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, religion, immigration), while ignoring the many areas of consensus (trade, military spending, surveillance, the Drug War, non-enforcement of financial crime, corporate tax holidays, etc.).

Any halfway decent boxing promoter will tell you the public must be made to believe the fighters hate each other in order to sell the fight. The fighters also must be hyped as both having a good shot to win. Otherwise, why watch?

The same principle applies in politics. Or at least it did, until Donald Trump arrived in Cleveland.

Thanks to Trump, we in the media can no longer cast politics as a sports story, because the illusion that both sides have a compelling chance at victory is now a tougher sell.

Instead, we will sell it as a freak show, a tent full of bearded ladies and pinheads at which to gape. Next to sports, freak shows are what the media do best, so it'll be an easy switch. Shows like Anderson Cooper 360° will become high-tech versions of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo or The Biggest Loser, destinations for Americans to tune in for a bit to feel superior to the mutants debasing themselves onscreen.

And it's here that the irony of a reality-TV star like Donald Trump winning the nomination comes full circle. Trump won because he grasped instinctively that the campaign trail was more TV show than democracy.

He rolled through primary season simply by being a better and more magnetic reality character than the likes of Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush. (You couldn't build a successful reality show around those pols even if you locked them in a hyena cage with Ryan Seacrest and Tila Tequila.)

Then he went to his convention, and his lineup of speakers, minus the handful of "real" politicians who held their noses through the thing, read suspiciously like an episode of The Apprentice or Flavor of Love. His celebrity guests were a bunch of D-listers ready to eat snails, walk on coals, swap wives or (in this case) publicly support Donald Trump to keep their fading celebrity alive.

The big exception was Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson, an actual huge star who scored cheers attacking the media.

"It's been a rough year for the media experts," he said. "They don't hang out with folks like us who like to hunt, and fish, and pray, and actually work for a living. I don't even know if they know how to talk to people from Middle America."

It was hard to listen to Robertson's defiant spiel and not wonder at the fact that both he and his most ardent fans probably still have no idea that he was put on TV to be laughed at. Duck Dynasty viewers think they're the experts on hunting, but actually they're the hunted ones, just another dumb demographic to be captured, laughed at and force-fed commercials for Geico and Home Depot by the Smart People in New York and L.A.

Trump's voters will almost certainly share the same fate. They will be mined by cable news shows for their entertainment value before ultimately being held up as dangerous loons whose noisy little revolt will serve as the rationale for a generation of Democratic Party rule at the White House level.

Of course, the republicans blew the one chance they had to save themselves. They could have turned the internal discord to their advantage and held an open convention of ideas, dispensing with the pretense of unity and presenting themselves instead as a big enough tent to embrace and accept many different viewpoints.

Trump should have invited his fiercest critics, the Mike Lees and George Wills of the world, to come onstage and explain why they so fervently disagreed with his tactics and rhetoric. He even should have stopped short of demanding endorsements from all of them. A smart Donald Trump – such a thing is difficult to imagine, but let's say – would have given his opponents a forum to just whale away at him, even removing time constraints. It would have helped make Trump look more like presidential material.

And this would have accomplished two other things.

First, and most important, it would have rescued the immediate future of the party in the highly likely event that Trump goes on to lose in November.

The Republican leadership from Ryan on down could have walked away from this convention with their pseudo-dignity intact, having spoken out against Trump's more naked and vulgar form of racism, standing instead on the principle of a more covert, more subterranean, more dog-whistle-y form of race politics – you know, like Mitt Romney lecturing the NAACP about black people wanting "free stuff."

Second, it would have made for a fascinating run-up to Trump's final address. Here was a man famous for being so thin-skinned that he stays up at night tweeting insults at judges and editors of New Hampshire newspapers, giving the world's biggest stage to his critics.

Then he could have ascended the podium on the concluding night and delivered his apocalyptic argument, which he'd describe as believing in so strongly he stacked it up against his fiercest critics. And he'd have plenty of fodder to swing back at, with decades of Republican inaction, corruption and failure to save American jobs to use in service of his case for a radical change of leadership.

Alas, exactly the opposite happened, and everybody, to the last speaker, came out looking smaller than before.

Priebus and Ryan hanged themselves at the start, endorsing Trump despite clearly not wanting to do so. If Trump loses, they go down the drain of history as pathetic quislings. In the unlikely event that Trump wins, a triumphant Donald would replace them at the first opportunity with horses or WWE ring doctors or anyone who didn't make such a big show of being reluctant supporters when the chips were down.

Some say Ted Cruz was the only winner, given that he came the closest to openly defying the nominee. Cruz refused to endorse Trump, giving a remarkably poisonous and self-serving speech in which he preened like a bully wrestler and told people to "vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket," instantly drawing boos from the crowd. Chris Christie, another quisling whose career will soon be over, felt compelled to shake his head in disbelief, while Cruz went on to repulse the crowd with his 10 gazillionth recitation of his Inspirational Family History, including what trail reporters derisively call "the underpants fable."

"Love of freedom has allowed millions to achieve their dreams," he said. "Like my mom, the first in her family to go to college, and my dad, who's here tonight, who fled prison and torture in Cuba, coming to Texas with just $100 sewn into his underwear..."

"Fuck your mom!" grumbled someone in the cheap seats.

"You suck!" shouted another.

Trump should have let this all play out, but instead he tried to screw with Cruz's rhythm by entering the hall mid-speech and giving a thumb's-up. Later, Cruz's wife, Heidi, was heckled by Trump supporters who yelled, "Goldman Sachs! Goldman Sachs!" at her, which was both amusing and kind of revolting. Why not yell it at her husband?

But even Cruz wasn't denouncing Trump's belittling of Mexicans, veterans, the Chinese, the disabled, Jewish people, Megyn Kelly's wherever, Carly Fiorina's face, Super Bowl 50 ("Boring!") or any of the hundreds of other groups, people and things targeted by the nominee in the past year.

Instead, the next day, Cruz said that he was not "in the habit" of supporting candidates who attacked his family. This was a sensible enough position but not one that particularly marked him as having stood on principle, especially given that his politics are basically identical to Trump's, minus the oddball insults. If Cruz turns out to be the one Republican who survives this mess, that will be the cruelest blow of all.

By the time Cruz's speech was done, it felt as though an improbable collection of America's most obnoxious, vapid, mean-spirited creeps had somehow been talked into assembling at the Q for the sheer novelty of it ("like X-Men, but for assholes" is how one reporter put it).

As for the subsequent speech by VP hopeful Mike Pence, there's little to report beyond that it happened and he'll someday regret it. Pence redefines boring. He makes Al Gore seem like the Wu-Tang Clan. His one desperate attempt at a Hillary takedown – calling her "the secretary of the Status Quo" – was so painful that people visibly winced in the stands. And when it was all over, he left Trump hanging for an excruciating unexecuted air kiss that immediately became the most mocked thing on Twitter since anything ever. It was a mathematically inexpressible level of Awkward.

All of these awful happenings left only one possibility for salvation: Trump's speech. Unfortunately, by Thursday the multitudinous letdowns had already dented the TV ratings and all but wiped out the possibility of a saving last-night performance. But if anyone could make a bad situation worse, it was Trump. If only for that reason, it was worth attending.

The buzz in the hall on the final night was that Trump might screw things up – how could he not? On the primary trail we had never seen anything like him: impulsive, lewd, grandiose, disgusting, horrible, narcissistic and dangerous, but also usually unscripted and 10 seconds ahead of the news cycle.

We could never quite tell what he was: possibly the American Hitler, but just as possibly punking the whole world in the most ambitious prank/PR stunt of all time. Or maybe he was on the level, birthing a weird new rightist/populist movement, a cross of Huey Long, Pinochet and David Hasselhoff. He was probably a monster, but whatever he was, he was original.

Then came Thursday night.

With tens of millions of eyes watching, Trump the Beltway conqueror turtled and wrapped his arms around the establishment's ankles. He spent the entirety of his final address huddled inside five decades of Republican Party clichés, apparently determined to hide in there until Election Day.

And not just any clichés, either. Trump ripped off the Republican Party's last-ditch emergency maneuver, a scare-the-white-folks spiel used by a generation of low-

charisma underdogs trailing in the polls.

Many observers called it the most terrifying speech they'd ever seen, but that had a lot to do with its hysterical tenor (the Times amusingly called it "almost angry"), the Mussolinian head-bobs, the draped-in-flags Caesarean imagery, and his strongman promises. It was a relentlessly negative speech, pure horror movie, with constant references to murder and destruction. If you bought any of it, you probably turned off the tube ready to blow your head off.

But it wasn't new, not one word. Trump cribbed his ideas from the Republicans he spent a year defaming. Trump had merely reprised Willie Horton, Barry Goldwater's "marauders" speech, Jesse Helms' "White Hands" ad, and most particularly Richard Nixon's 1968 "law and order" acceptance address, the party's archetypal fear-based appeal from which Trump borrowed in an intellectual appropriation far more sweeping and shameless than Melania's much-hyped mistake.

He even used the term "law and order" four times, and rehashed a version of Nixon's somber "let us begin by committing ourselves to the truth" intro, promising to "honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else."

In place of Nixon's "merchants of crime," Trump spoke of 180,000 illegal immigrants roaming the countryside like zombies, hungry for the brains of decent folk.

"The number of new illegal-immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015," he cried. "They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities, with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources." The tragic story of Sarah Root, killed by a released immigrant, was just Willie Horton without the picture.

He mentioned cities in crisis, a rising crime rate, and an opponent who promised "death, destruction, terrorism and weakness" for America. His argument really came down to that: Vote for me or die.

As for his populist critiques of money in politics and the pay-for-play corruption in both parties that made up so much of his stump speeches, the same critiques that Bernie Sanders used to throw a scare into Hillary Clinton, they took a back seat in crunch time.

Trump was always just smart enough to see that the same money backs the Jeb Bushes and Hillary Clintons of the world. But he never had the vision or the empathy to understand, beyond the level of a punchline, the frustrations linking disenfranchised voters on both the left and right.

Presented with a rare opportunity to explain how the two parties stoke divisions on social issues to keep working people from realizing their shared economic dilemmas, Trump backed down. Even if he didn't believe it, he could have turned such truths into effective campaign rhetoric. But such great themes are beyond his pampered, D-minus mind. Instead, he tried to poach Sanders voters simply by chanting Bernie's name like a magic word.

In the end, Trump's populism was as fake as everything else about him, and he emerged as just another in a long line of Republican hacks, only dumber and less plausible to the political center.

Which meant that after all that we went through last year, after that crazy cycle of insults and bluster and wife wars and penis-measuring contests and occasionally bloody street battles, after the insane media tornado that destroyed the modern Republican establishment, Trump concluded right where the party started 50 years ago, meekly riding Nixon's Southern Strategy. It was all just one very noisy ride in a circle. All that destruction and rebellion went for nothing. Officially now, he's just another party schmuck.

Archibald MacLeish once wrote a poem called "The End of the World," about a circus interrupted when the big top blows away. The freaks and lion-tamers and acrobats are frozen mid-performance, and the "thousands of white faces" in the audience gasp as they look up at the vast sky to see, after all the fantastical performances in the ring, the ultimate showstopper: emptiness, an endless black sky, "nothing, nothing, nothing – nothing at all."

Trump's finale was like that. When we finally pulled the lid off this guy, there was nothing there. Just a cheap fraud and TV huckster who got in way over his head, and will now lead his hoodwinked followers off the cliff of history.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
By Picking Anti-Abortion Tim Kaine, Hillary Is Testing Feminists' Loyalty Print
Saturday, 23 July 2016 08:51

Caplan-Bricker writes: "After months of speculation that Hillary Clinton might select Sen. Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, creating the first-ever two-woman ticket, or perhaps Labor Secretary Tom Perez, a civil rights lawyer who would've been the first Latino VP, her choice of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine will bitterly disappoint some of her most progressive supporters."

Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. (photo: ABC News)
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. (photo: ABC News)


By Picking Anti-Abortion Tim Kaine, Hillary Is Testing Feminists' Loyalty

By Nora Caplan-Bricker, Slate

23 JULY 16

 

fter months of speculation that Hillary Clinton might select Sen. Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, creating the first-ever two-woman ticket, or perhaps Labor Secretary Tom Perez, a civil rights lawyer who would’ve been the first Latino VP, her choice of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine will bitterly disappoint some of her most progressive supporters.

It’s not just that Kaine, like all 47 veeps in our nation’s history, is a white dude, not a “first” who could have driven home just how historic Hillary’s candidacy is. He’s also, at least in his personal views, opposed to abortion due to his Catholic faith—a symbolic kick in the teeth for the feminist organizations that faithfully championed Hillary over Bernie throughout the long primary season. “Is Clinton a progressive? Not if she chooses Tim Kaine,” Jodi Jacobson of the reproductive rights site Rewire wrote Thursday.

That’s not to say that Kaine is running to be a heartbeat from the presidency while nursing a secret plot to overturn Roe v. Wade. Like Vice President Joe Biden—another Catholic, personally anti-abortion Democrat—he’s said that he supports the Supreme Court ruling that established a woman’s right to choose; also like Biden, Kaine has seemed to drift leftward on the issue of late. But his personal beliefs have sometimes seemed to influence his public policymaking, making his selection an optical, and perhaps actual, move toward the center for Hillary.

The Tim Kaine who has represented Virginia in the Senate since 2012 has seemed several shades more liberal on reproductive rights than the Tim Kaine who led the state as governor from 2006 to 2010. As Politico wrote in a deep-dive about Kaine’s “abortion predicament” earlier this month:

Kaine has tried to cultivate an image as an abortion-rights champion. He’s pleased reproductive rights’ groups with a perfect voting record. He’s railed against GOP attempts to defund Planned Parenthood. And he’s celebrated in their legal victories, including last week’s Supreme Court ruling tossing out a Texas law that tried limiting a woman’s access to abortion clinics.

But it’s hard to know whether Kaine’s new look reflects his own changing attitudes, or the changing shape of the Democratic Party. In 2005, he ran for governor on promises to promote adoption, reduce abortion, and support the farce that is abstinence-only sex education. While in office, he backed a so-called partial birth abortion ban, which prohibits a certain method of mid- and late-term abortion, though he supported exceptions in cases where a woman’s health was endangered. He also supported a parental consent law that requires minors to get a parent’s signoff before obtaining an abortion—and though that law theoretically includes a “judicial bypass” option, teens are often prevented from using it by misinformation, as the Huffington Post has reported.

Kaine also bears some responsibility for Virginia’s “informed consent” law, which, among other things, requires women seeking abortions to submit to a medically unnecessary ultrasound. He said in 2008 that the law would provide “women information about a whole series of things, the health consequences, et cetera, and information about adoption.” But the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-reproductive rights research organization, has found that many states provide women with “incomplete or inaccurate information,” and that laws like the one Kaine shepherded into Virginia’s constitution often amount to “informational manipulation” of women in already vulnerable situations.

In 2007, NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Virginia an “F” in its annual reproductive freedom report and called Kaine a “mixed choice” governor. Two years later, Kaine incensed local and national women’s rights groups by signing a law that allowed the sale of “Choose Life” license plates whose proceeds went to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. “It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women's health,” Nancy Keenan, then-president of NARAL, said at the time.

How much should progressives care that Clinton picked Kaine, a man who has loyally voted with his party on abortion in the Senate, but who created barriers for women in the state of Virginia? After all, it’s possible that he could spend four or eight years as V.P. and never touch the issue. In a smart piece on Kaine, New York magazine’s Ed Kilgore argued that his critics’ motivation is largely philosophical: “[I]n recent years, there's been a trend among pro-choice folk that's less friendly to the old ‘personally opposed to but’ pivot, or to any other attitude that condemns abortion morally while tolerating its legality. More and more feminists are insisting on recognition of abortion as a routine medical service like any other, if not an actual social or moral good.”

Still, symbolism matters in politics. As a popular moderate from a battleground state, Kaine is a savvy choice in lots of ways, and Clinton may have correctly calculated that, after all her years advocating for women’s rights, feminists will stand by her regardless. But it’s hard to get excited about Kaine. Worse, his selection begs the question of whether, on an issue that had seemed so near and dear to Clinton’s heart, we can be sure that we know where—or at least how firmly—she stands.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Real Reason the RNC Was So Angry Print
Saturday, 23 July 2016 08:42

Gupta writes: "Despite the talk of 'Make America Safe Again' at the Republican National Convention, the real message in Cleveland was that Obama is to blame for growing racial divisions that are weakening America."

A heated argument between free-market capitalists and socialists in Cleveland on Thursday. (photo: Marcus Yam/LA Times)
A heated argument between free-market capitalists and socialists in Cleveland on Thursday. (photo: Marcus Yam/LA Times)


The Real Reason the RNC Was So Angry

By Arun Gupta, YES! Magazine

23 JULY 16

 

From Obama to Black Lives Matter, everyone is talking about structural racism—something Trump’s supporters don’t want to own.

espite the talk of “Make America Safe Again” at the Republican National Convention, the real message in Cleveland was that Obama is to blame for growing racial divisions that are weakening America.

Darryl Glenn, Republican candidate for Senate in Colorado, called Obama “the divider-in-chief” and said the country is “more racially divided today than before he ran.” House Speaker Paul Ryan castigated “the other party” for “always playing one group against the other as if group identity were everything.” Texas Rep. Michael McCaul alleged, “Obama and Hillary apologized for America and allowed jihadists to spread like wildfire.” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions rebuked Obama for capitulating to lawlessness in not cracking down on undocumented immigration.

In accepting the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump himself emphasized this theme: “The irresponsible rhetoric of our president, who has used the pulpit of the presidency to divide us by race and color, has made America a more dangerous environment for everyone.”

These claims are dubious at best. But the Republican Party exists in an elaborate fantasy land ruled by group hatred and fear of the other. It wants to lay on Obama’s doorstep centuries of racism, as well as the deteriorating race relations of late. In effect, the right blames Obama for the results of its own racist arguments, which picked up steam in the 2008 election when they slammed him as a Muslim “palling around with terrorists.”

Nearly two presidential terms later, that’s still a popular opinion on the right. After he stepped down from the speakers’ platform at the RNC, former underwear model Antonio Sabàto, Jr., told ABC News that “we had a Muslim president for seven and half years.”

Although they’re confused about the details, Republicans are correct that the Obama era has changed how many Americans look at race. It wasn’t something the president necessarily intended, but social movements like Black Lives Matter have forced him to address the reality of structural racism. This has legitimized the Black Lives Matter movement—even if its adherents are understandably dissatisfied with his tepid approach—and pushed mainstream media to report, analyze, and investigate the myriad threads of racism woven into American society.

Obama’s presidency didn’t start out this way. He campaigned as a post-racial candidate, which he first articulated in his star-making speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He said, “There's not a Black America and White America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

By glossing over the primacy of race in America, Obama gave a pass to the right’s seething racism. The Tea Party movement spawned just weeks into Obama’s presidency as a White backlash. Its leaders were obsessed with cutting the national debt as cover for slashing social spending, whether “entitlements,” health care, housing, food stamps, or public education. The Tea Party paints itself as race-neutral—“equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of result” is a favorite catchphrase. But its racial resentment is extreme. Among strong Tea Party supporters, for example, an extraordinary 73 percent believe “blacks would be as well off as whites if they just tried harder.” Among strong opponents of the Tea Party, only 33 percent agree.

Obama validated the Tea Party agenda in seeking a grand bargain with Republicans to reduce the national debt by cutting the bedrock retirement programs of Social Security and Medicare. In fact, that was Obama’s agenda even before the Tea Party existed.

What first altered the debate was Occupy Wall Street, which flipped the script from austerity to economic inequality. Then Black Lives Matter—which was mothered by raised expectations, digital media, and horrific police killings of Black people—forced Obama to acknowledge that structural racism is real.

The right is furious that Obama haltingly admits African Americans possess “a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away,” whether disparities under the law or persistent prejudices in everyday life. The combination of peaceful direct action, modest victories in holding police and prosecutors accountable, Obama’s defense of Black Lives Matter, and an opening in the mainstream media to examine the persistence of structural racism in America has chipped away at the power of the police, the right, and White supremacy.

A backlash was inevitable. It has taken forms like the RNC’s cavalcade of hate, phrases like “All Lives Matter,” and the campaign to label Black Lives Matter a terrorist organization. Unfortunately, the reaction has been abetted by the indefensible and horrific killings of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge. But the Black Lives Matter movement is an increasingly nimble and strategic movement, if an unwieldy one. Chapters and leaders quickly condemned the police killings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. More significant, Black Lives Matter pivoted to occupying the facilities of police unions in Washington, D.C., and New York City, as these organizations reflexively defend cops who kill, no matter how heinous the act.

For Black Lives Matter to achieve far-reaching changes in America, it’s important to remember there is not an invisible “only” before the phrase. This helps to counter the truly divisive slogans like “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter,” but it also reminds us that the movement must be multiracial to tear down White supremacy.

It would be easy to dismiss Republican whining that it’s Obama and Black Lives Matter who are divisive, if only because the right is defending a racist social hierarchy. But there is also a kernel of truth here. There is a divide in America between those who want a just system for all, versus those who want a revival of White nationalism. This RNC has clarified that divide and raised the stakes for social movements.  

Understanding the impunity with which police kill Black and brown people is the tip of the iceberg. Black lives have to matter in every facet of society, including employment, health care, education, housing, community, food, transportation, and leisure. In this regard, Bernie Sanders was on the right track when he began adding stronger action on policing and mass incarceration to his modest social democratic policy proposals.

What’s needed is a massive redistribution of resources over generations to rebuild Black, brown, and working-class communities so they have the freedom and self-determination so long denied them. It’s a long journey, but Black Lives Matter has already helped America take a few more steps down this road.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Abortion Is Not a Privilege Print
Saturday, 23 July 2016 08:40

Excerpt: "On June 27, the Supreme Court invalidated the onerous anti-abortion laws known as Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers (TRAP). The anti-abortion movement claims these laws - which have proliferated since 2010 - protect women's health."

Pro-choice advocates and anti-abortion advocates rally outside of the Supreme Court, March 2, 2016, in Washington, D.C. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Pro-choice advocates and anti-abortion advocates rally outside of the Supreme Court, March 2, 2016, in Washington, D.C. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Abortion Is Not a Privilege

By Olivia Cappello & Kate Castle, Jacobin

23 JULY 16

 

The fight isn’t over to make abortion free and accessible to all women.

n June 27, the Supreme Court invalidated the onerous anti-abortion laws known as Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers (TRAP). The anti-abortion movement claims these laws — which have proliferated since 2010 — protect women’s health. But in Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, the court rebutted this claim, declaring that Texas’s abortion restrictions place an undue burden on and substantial obstacle in the way of women seeking abortions.

By siding with the freestanding clinics that perform nearly every abortion in the United States — in 2011, 94 percent of all abortions occurred at these establishments, even though they represented only 47 percent of abortion-providing facilities — the Supreme Court stood with abortion patients and the providers who serve them.

This moment matters not only for Texas women, but also for the entire reproductive justice movement. Between 2011 and 2015, states enacted 288 abortion restrictions. Just since the start of 2016, another thirty-eight restrictions have been passed.

The anti-abortion movement has deftly painted abortion clinics as substandard, dirty, and morally bereft because they are uniquely isolated from the rest of our healthcare system. The average American does not come into contact with abortion providers the way that they do dentists, primary care physicians, or specialists. So abortion clinics — and the procedures that take place there — remain shrouded in mystery, allowing restrictions like those in Texas to seem eminently reasonable.

The Whole Womans Health decision exposed anti-abortion legislators’ deceptions. Moreover, the case highlighted new outlets for activists and advocates to fight back — and to fight for more.

A New Wave

Abortion advocates are rightly hailing the court’s decision as a turning point in the struggle for real abortion access. After the decision, multiple states’ restrictive laws fell: the Supreme Court denied Mississippi’s and Wisconsin’s appeals, permanently blocking admitting privilege restrictions; Alabama’s attorney general admitted that the enjoinment of a similar law would stand; Planned Parenthood announced its intention to challenge TRAP laws and other restrictions in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Texas. And many more states can expect challenges: as of June 1, 2016, twenty-eight states have some kind of TRAP law on the books.

Recent victories in cases covering abortion restrictions beyond TRAP laws have also bolstered the reproductive justice movement. A federal judge blocked the enforcement of Indiana’s 2016 “reason” ban, which prohibits abortions performed on the basis of the fetus’s race, sex, color, national origin, or potential or diagnosed genetic anomaly.

The same judge also blocked the state’s requirement that aborted fetal tissue be buried or cremated the same way as human remains. Other federal courts blocked bans on the use of public funds for abortion providers and their affiliates in Florida, Utah, and Kansas — including those that do not perform abortions.

Other restrictions — like highly burdensome waiting periods and counseling requirements — have become a key target for abortion advocates. These restrictions delay care, which is often compounded by the travel requirements and provider shortfalls that the Supreme Court cited as substantial obstacles in Whole Womans Health.

Advocates also plan to challenge laws banning certain kinds of abortions: medication abortion, dilation and extraction (D&E) procedures — the most common second-trimester abortion — and abortions performed twenty weeks post-fertilization.

The Center for Reproductive Rights’s suit on behalf of Louisiana’s two remaining abortion clinics offers a preview of these new battles. Their complaint challenges the eight 2016 anti-abortion laws enacted by Governor John Bel Edwards, which cover everything from restrictions on fetal tissue donation to a ban on state funding for abortion providers and businesses that work with them.

Notably, the providers refute Louisiana’s claim that D&E endangers patients — there is no safer way to perform an abortion after fifteen weeks — and asks the federal court to weigh the benefits and burdens as prescribed in Whole Womans Health.

Finally, the suit attacks Louisiana’s seventy-two-hour waiting period. Abortion remains the only procedure subject to a waiting period, which has been shown to do nothing more than force women to delay their abortions, often raising their costs and risks. According to the complaint, “No other Louisiana law prohibits a competent adult from granting informed consent to any other medical procedure for any period of time, let alone three days.” This and future challenges to waiting periods send a powerful message that women must make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.

As these lawsuits move forward, reproductive justice advocates know that they cannot rely on the courts alone. Legislative buy-in will be essential, and organizations are already shopping bills to legislators in states with TRAP laws.

Some simply seek to repeal existing TRAP laws; others serve as proactive measures that ensure a woman’s right to access abortion care. Regardless of the election’s outcome, we can expect a flurry of legislative activity in the post–Whole Womans Health landscape.

Pushing Forward

This is an exciting time for reproductive justice advocates, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the women impacted by TRAP laws and other restrictions. Access to abortion is more than an ideological battle waged on paper. It is a battle with very real implications for women who are poor, women who live in rural areas, and women of color — women whom our political system too often overlooks.

We must remember the Texas women whose rights were denied while the now-invalidated provisions were in effect. In three years, the number of clinics in Texas dropped from forty-one to nineteen, leaving millions of women without access to abortion and other essential health services.

But even after these restrictions disappear, many women will still lack access. Many Texas clinics will not be able to reopen. After struggling to pay fines and the costs of licensing requirements, they simply do not have the resources; if they do, the process of acquiring new buildings, equipment, insurance policies, and staff could take years.

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Amy Hagstrom Miller, the director of Whole Woman’s Health, estimated that each clinic would need about $200,000 to reopen, a figure that does not include the cost of new facilities. Moreover, the few providers able to meet this financial burden will still have to obtain a state license to provide abortion, which will likely further delay the process.

While Whole Woman’s Health successfully struck down TRAP laws and allowed the clinics that are currently open to stay that way, severe damage has been done — and Texas is not alone. Rebuilding the reproductive health infrastructure remains an uphill battle, especially in states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Ohio.

While the relentless attacks from anti-abortion activists have thrown up obstacles to abortion access, we should also blame the conservative political discourse surrounding abortion in the United States.

Since the 1990s, the pro-choice movement and Democratic politicians — perhaps most notably 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — have couched their support for abortion in the mantra that the procedure should be “safe, legal, and rare.” But abortion isn’t rare — by age forty-five, three in ten American women will have had one.

The word “rare” not only underestimates abortion’s prevalence, it also acts to stigmatize it. “Rare” suggests that abortion is only permissible under certain conditions, and opens public debate about those circumstances, creating a dichotomy of “good” and “bad” abortion patients.

“Good” abortion narratives typically involve women who need to be “saved” — usually involving cases of rape, incest, and sometimes teen pregnancy or fetal anomaly. When abortion does not fall neatly into these categories, moral failure — specifically a lack of “personal responsibility” — is blamed.

No one should have to present herself as a victim to receive critical healthcare. Abortion is not an isolated event, but part of the much larger web of women’s lives and the structures that shape them. The ability not only to choose but also to access the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare, including abortion, is fundamental to women’s autonomy.

This framework too often erases the fact that choice also depends on economic status. Under capitalism, choice exists only within the context of the market economy, where it is commodified. Reproductive decision-making is not exempt; abortion, childbirth, and raising children all have a monetary cost. It is impossible to decouple reproduction from economics.

Three-quarters of abortion patients in 2014 had incomes less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Many of these women struggled to pay for their abortion care. The Turnaway Study — a 2010–15 longitudinal study of women seeking abortion care around the United States — found that for more than half of women who had an abortion, their out-of-pocket costs were equivalent to more than one-third of their monthly personal income.

When health care becomes commodified, it is regarded as a privilege, not a right. Poor women are routinely scrutinized for choosing both to parent and to abort. This language is often racialized and targets poor black women, who are deemed “unfit” mothers — invoking the myth of the welfare queen — while simultaneously denied abortion access and condemned for their moral disorder, sometimes even being accused of black genocide.

Public funding restrictions — most notably the Hyde Amendment — further stymie low-income women’s access to abortion. Since 1977, this federal budget rider has banned federal dollars from paying for Medicaid-insured women’s abortion except in the most limited circumstances. This means that although 35 percent of women who had abortions in 2014 reported having Medicaid, only those living in the thirteen states that cover the procedure with their own Medicaid funds could use it. Abortion is the only healthcare provision singled out for funding restrictions.

Private abortion funds like the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and smaller local funds like the DC Abortion Fund try to meet the funding gap by helping women navigate personal fundraising and providing direct grants to patients. However, they often operate on small budgets and rely on volunteer staff, making it difficult to meet their patients’ full needs.

Abortion funds, as nonprofit organizations, are also forced to vie with other interests — including similar funds — over limited resources. In order to do so, they sell an image of the “deserving” patient.

Only in a flawed system that endorses private philanthropy as a replacement for public programs would funds like this exist; individual giving is neither a sustainable nor a viable alternative to a real social safety net. Further, the funds’ need to prove that abortion patients are “deserving” inadvertently perpetuates the notion that abortion is a privilege. We must start treating abortion care as a necessity — not a luxury. The way forward lies in pushing back public funding restrictions at every level, from cuts to federally funded family planning providers to repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Legal and legislative action is gaining ground, and the political conversation is shifting. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders pledged to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and the Democratic Party incorporated its repeal into its 2016 platform. The EACH Woman Act, which negates the Hyde Amendment and prohibits legislative interference with private insurance abortion coverage, continues to collect sponsors in Congress. But the conversation is still not loud enough.

And while we’ve had important victories this year, and abortion rights are finally being taken seriously, the fight is just beginning. We must organize against a system that stigmatizes and delegitimizes abortion access. To combat the stigma that allows the anti-abortion movement to assert falsehoods as facts, we need to make it abundantly clear that abortion — safe, legal, and accessible abortion — is fundamental to women’s lives.

Listen to those who have had abortions — the mothers, the students, and the workers. Learn what the procedure actually entails and talk to your friends about it. Donate to your local abortion fund, host women coming to your city for their abortions, make a scene at your state legislature. Organize against unfair economic policies and cuts to social welfare. Demand evidence that abortion laws support health. Be unafraid to shout abortion, and all the reasons people have them. The Supreme Court victory showed that activists can fight and win in the battle for reproductive rights. We can make abortion access a reality, not just a theoretical right, for all women in need.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
American Democracy Is a Shitshow Print
Friday, 22 July 2016 13:43

Gupta writes: "American democracy is a shitshow that is insightful only unintentionally and captivating only in its grotesqueries."

California Highway Patrol officers confront protesters during demonstrations near the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 19, 2016. (photo: Reuters)
California Highway Patrol officers confront protesters during demonstrations near the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 19, 2016. (photo: Reuters)


American Democracy Is a Shitshow

By Arun Gupta, teleSUR

22 July 16

 

American democracy is a shitshow that is insightful only unintentionally and captivating only in its grotesqueries.

n the late afternoon of day three of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, media workers and RNC attendees were blocked from exiting the security zone around the convention center. Past the concrete barriers, lines of police, and double layers of 10-foot tall steel-link fence, a protest was swirling. It was the American flag–burning hyped all day by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a tiny Maoist-style group known for provocative but ultimately harmless political stunts.

From the security tunnel, apparently modeled on checkpoints dotting Israeli-occupied Palestine, it was difficult to distinguish protesters from media in the crowd of hundreds. Heated yelling drifted above the tightly packed throngs, but there was no smoke to be seen.

The mere threat of a piece of colored fabric being set alight was enough to trigger a lockdown. Rent-a-cops started herding bewildered media out of the tunnel. When two columns of beefy riot cops in full body armor began filing out to take up position near the protest, security swooped in to clear media out of a parking lot where the tumult could be observed.

On the scene was dozens of Bikers for Trump, loudly lecturing how the flag-burners would be killed in any other country. The imminence of violence is a refrain on a right that glorifies its weapons as instruments of peace. The previous day when I took a photo on the street near the convention of a knot of muscleheads all wearing the same 2nd Amendment t-shirts, one told me, with approving nods from his compatriot, “If it wasn’t for the First Amendment, I would have smashed your camera.”

These gun-clingers hadn’t figured out the Constitution is not an a la carte menu they can pick and choose from, and eliminating the First Amendment would usher in the tyranny they rant about as imminent.

But this moment fits into the hollowness of American democracy. One flag was eventually lit, giving the media dramaticimages to splash on their front pages and an opportunity for police to flex their muscle, unleashing pepper spray and arresting four. It also gave the RCP a chance to hijack an earlier immigrants-rights protest and art display to “Wall Off Trump” and his hate with hundreds of feet of canvas painted with brick walls and chain-link fence.

With protesters largely frightened off by police and FBI visits and the public gripped by fear of lone shooters, Black nationalists, and Neo-Nazis, the protests have been reduced to small packs moving through an empty downtown.

But the protests serve as a jobs program for media ravenous for a morsel of news given the convention hall is devoid of life for at least 18 hours day. And the protests serve as a real-life simulation for the police to test out all their weapons and tactics and electronic gear.

More important, with the government and media hysteria having squelched genuine dissent, these protestitos serve a role in maintaining the appearance of popular democracy under the control of a police holding the line against complete anarchy. The moment anti-Trump protesters come within range of pro-Trump demonstrators, police leap into action and isolate the two sides with democracy-free zones. Ideas must be contained, free from any potential contamination.

Any threat of violence is overblown. Alex Jones bellowed about his violent showdown with “Communist Black Lives Matter, when in fact footage shows him clumsily body checking a protester after being lightly pushed. But the purpose was served: cameras rolled, police sprung into action, and Jones got to play at brave truth teller for another day. And the audience at home imagines Cleveland is a crazed scene on the verge of open warfare when in reality it’s devoid of people other than low-age workers, hustlers, limelight-seekers, thousands of bored cops, and a stirred-up anthill of journalists scouring digital trails for any photo op, comment, or interview no matter how minor.

The protests mirror the inside of the Quicken Loans Arena where the RNC is being held. That the stage for a white-nationalist Republican Party is affixed with the name of a company accused of high-pressure tactics and predatory home loans in a city where the African-American community has been devastated by the foreclosure crisis beginning under President Bush and continuing under President Obama is a stellar example of image triumphing over substance. Just blocks away in nearly every direction are abandoned buildings, cracked streets, and the down and out.

Near the Wall Off Trump demonstration I caught up with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. Widely praised for his coverage of the foreclosure crisis and Wall Street crash, Taibbi lamented of the dog-and-pony show, “We are in one of the poorest most fucked-up cities in America and we have 10 million journalists here and all they are doing is making a spectacle out of all this.”

The second night of the convention, entitled, “Make America Work Again,” should have been labeled a disaster. Thirteen months into his campaign, Trump has yet to offer one concrete idea of what he will to help the millions of Americans caught in poverty or barely keeping afloat. Nothing about how he will return manufacturing jobs or boost wages other than an incessant loop of superlatives: “great,” “amazing,” “incredible,” “tremendous,” “unbelievable.”

On the flip side, Trump has indicated how he will make the economy worse—by trying to deport 11 million immigrants, starting trade wars, and ratcheting up diplomatic tensions with U.S. allies.

But the top story for the media three days running is Melania Trump’s plagiarized speech. “Make America Work Again” was a rerun of the first night squeezed of the bloodlust: more Benghazi, more Clinton, more Trump family time.

There was never a golden age of American democracy, but as Cleveland is showing, even the pretense of it is dead. What remains is hi-tech cameras and cops circling a hollowed out public. Both parties and the Fourth Estate are complicit in this fiasco. This may be the most absurd election ever, but the real reckoning is yet to come.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Next > End >>

Page 1963 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