RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Taibbi writes: "Trump enters the White House as a lone wrecking ball of conspiratorial ideas, a one-man movement unto himself who owes almost nothing to traditional Republicans and can be expected to be anything but a figurehead."

Donald Trump enters the White House as a lone wrecking ball of conspiratorial ideas, a one-man movement unto himself who owes almost nothing to traditional Republicans. (photo: Molly Riley/AP)
Donald Trump enters the White House as a lone wrecking ball of conspiratorial ideas, a one-man movement unto himself who owes almost nothing to traditional Republicans. (photo: Molly Riley/AP)


How America Got It So Wrong

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

13 November 16

 

Journalists and politicians blew off the warning signs of a Trump presidency – now, we all must pay the price

uesday, November 8th, early afternoon. Outside the Trump Tower in Manhattan, a man in the telltale red Make America Great Again hat taps me on the shoulder.

"You press?" he says, looking at a set of lanyards around my neck.

I nod.

"Fuck yourself," he says, thrusting a middle finger in my face. He then turns around and walks a boy of about five away from me down Fifth Avenue, a hand gently tousling his son's hair.

This was before Donald Trump's historic victory. The message afterward no doubt would have been the same. There's no way to overstate the horror of what just went down. Sure, we've had some unstable characters enter the White House. JFK had health problems that led him to take amphetamine shots during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Reagan's attention span was so short, the CIA had to make mini-movies to brief him on foreign leaders. George W. Bush not only didn't read the news, he wasn't interested in it ("What's in the newspapers worth worrying about?" he once asked, without irony).

But all of these men were just fronts for one or the other half of the familiar alternating power structure, surrounded by predictable, relatively sober confederates who managed the day-to-day. Trump enters the White House as a lone wrecking ball of conspiratorial ideas, a one-man movement unto himself who owes almost nothing to traditional Republicans and can be expected to be anything but a figurehead. He takes office at a time when the chief executive is vastly more powerful than ever before, with nearly unlimited authority to investigate, surveil, torture and assassinate foreigners and even U.S. citizens – powers that didn't seem to trouble people much when they were granted to Barack Obama.

Shunned during election season by many in his own party, President-elect Trump's closest advisers are a collection of crackpots and dilettantes who will make Bush's cabinet look like the Nobel committee. The head of his EPA transition team, Myron Ebell, is a noted climate-change denier. Pyramid enthusiast and stabbing expert Ben Carson is already being mentioned as a possible Health and Human Services chief. Rudy Giuliani, probably too unhinged by now for even a People's Court reboot, might be attorney general. God only knows who might end up being Supreme Court nominees; we can only hope they turn out to be lawyers, or at least people who played lawyers onscreen. And sitting behind this fun-house nightmare of executive-branch worthies (which Politico speculates will be one of the more "eclectic" cabinets ever) will be a rubber-stamping all-Republican legislature that will attract the loving admiration of tinhorn despots from Minsk to Beijing.

Trump made idiots of us all. From the end of primary season onward, I felt sure Trump was en route to ruining, perhaps forever, the Republican Party as a force in modern American life. Now the Republicans are more dominant than ever, and it is the Democratic Party that is shattered and faces an uncertain future.

And they deserve it. The Democratic Party's failure to keep Donald Trump out of the White House in 2016 will go down as one of the all-time examples of insular arrogance. The party not only spent most of the past two years ignoring the warning signs of the Trump rebellion, but vilifying anyone who tried to point them out. It denounced all rumors of its creeping unpopularity as vulgar lies and bullied anyone who dared question its campaign strategy by calling them racists, sexists and agents of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

But the party's willful blindness symbolized a similar arrogance across the American intellectual elite. Trump's election was a true rebellion, directed at anyone perceived to be part of "the establishment." The target group included political leaders, bankers, industrialists, academics, Hollywood actors, and, of course, the media. And we all closed our eyes to what we didn't want to see.

The almost universal failure among political pros to predict Trump's victory – the few exceptions, conspicuously, were people who hailed from rust-belt states, like Michael Moore – spoke to an astonishing cultural blindness. Those of us whose job it is to cover campaigns long ago grew accustomed to treating The People as a kind of dumb animal, whose behavior could sometimes be unpredictable but, in the end, almost always did what it was told.

Whenever we sought insight into the motives and tendencies of this elusive creature, our first calls were always to other eggheads like ourselves. We talked to pollsters, think-tankers, academics, former campaign strategists, party spokes-hacks, even other journalists. Day after day, our political talk shows consisted of one geek in a suit interviewing another geek in a suit about the behaviors of pipe fitters and store clerks and cops in Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia. We'd stand over glitzy video maps and discuss demographic data points like we were trying to determine the location of a downed jetliner.

And the whole time, The People, whose intentions we were wondering so hard about, were all around us, listening to themselves being talked about like some wild, illiterate beast.

When 60 Minutes did its election-eve story about the mood of the electorate, they had to call up a familiar Beltway figure, pollster Frank Luntz, to put together a focus group. Luntz's purpose was to take the white-hot rage and disgust hurled at him by voters on both sides of the aisle during the "focus group" portion, and translate it all into a media-speak during the sit-down. Luntz did his job and gave Steve Kroft his sound-bite diagnosis of The People's temperature. "That's not blowing off steam," he said. "That is a deep-seated resentment."

Deep-seated resentment. There was a catchy, succinct line, over which we could all collectively stroke our chins in quiet contemplation. That's as opposed to what the voters intended, which was to sock us all so hard for our snobbism and intellectual myopia that those very chins of ours would get driven straight through the backs of our skulls.

There was a great deal of talk in this campaign about the inability of the "low-information" voter to understand the rhetoric of candidates who spoke above a sixth-grade language level. We were told by academics and analysts that Trump's public addresses rated among the most simplistic political rhetoric ever recorded.

But that story cut in both directions, in a way few of us silver-tongued media types ever thought about. The People didn't speak our language, true. But that also meant we didn't speak theirs.

Beavis and Butthead creator Mike Judge's Idiocracy, ostensibly a comedy but destined now to be remembered as a horror movie, was often cited this past year as prophecy. The film described a future dystopia of idiot Americans physically unable to understand the tepid grammatical speech of a half-smart time traveler from the past. Many reporters, myself included, found themselves thinking about this film when we heard voters saying they were literally incapable of understanding the words coming out of Hillary Clinton's mouth.

"When [Trump] talks, I actually understand what he's saying," a young Pennsylvanian named Trent Gower told me at a Trump event a month ago. "But, like, when fricking Hillary Clinton talks, it just sounds like a bunch of bullshit."

So these Trump voters had a comprehension problem. But we were just as bad. We couldn't understand what they were saying to us. We refused to accept every signal about whom they hated, and how much. Why? Because Trump's voters were speaking a language that has been taboo in America for decades, if not forever.

Nobody in this country knows how to talk about class. America is like a giant manor estate where the aristocrats don't know they're aristocrats and the peasants imagine themselves undiscovered millionaires. And America's cultural elite, trained for so long to think in terms of artificial distinctions like Republicans and Democrats instead of more natural divisions like haves and have-nots, refused until it was too late to grasp the meaning of the rage-storm headed over the wall.

Just like the leaders of the Republican Party, who simply never believed its electorate wouldn't drop and roll over on command when the time came, we media types never believed all that anger out there was real, or at least gathered in enough force to matter.

Most of us smarty-pants analysts never thought Trump could win because we saw his run as a half-baked white-supremacist movement fueled by last-gasp, racist frustrations of America's shrinking silent majority. Sure, Trump had enough jackbooted nut jobs and conspiracist stragglers under his wing to ruin the Republican Party. But surely there was no way he could topple America's reigning multicultural consensus. How could he? After all, the country had already twice voted in an African-American Democrat to the White House.

Yes, Trump's win was a triumph of the hideous racism, sexism and xenophobia that has always run through American society. But his coalition also took aim at the neoliberal gentry's pathetic reliance on proxies to communicate with flyover America. They fed on the widespread visceral disdain red-staters felt toward the very people Hillary Clinton's campaign enlisted all year to speak on its behalf: Hollywood actors, big-ticket musicians, Beltway activists, academics, and especially media figures.

Trump's rebellion was born at the intersection of two toxic American myths, the post-racial society and the classless society.

Candidate Trump told a story about a conspiracy of cultural and financial elites bent on finishing off a vanishing white middle-class nirvana, first by shipping jobs overseas and then by waving hordes of crime-prone, bomb-tossing immigrants over the border.

These elites lived in both parties, Trump warned. The Republicans were tools of job-exporting fat cats who only pretended to be tough on immigration and trade in order to win votes, when all they really cared about were profits. The Democrats were tools of the same interests, who subsisted politically on the captured votes of hoodwinked minorities, preaching multiculturalism while practicing globalism. Both groups, Trump insisted, were out of touch with the real American voter. Neither party saw the awesome potential of this story to upend our political system.

Republicans had flirted with racist (and sexist) rhetoric for decades, refusing to the last to understand how dangerous this behavior was. They never imagined their voters would one day demand that they act on all this race-baiting talk. They believed their own pablum about racism being a thing of the past and reverse discrimination being the true threat to the American polity.

Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership, even as it was increasingly indebted to banks and corporations, never imagined that it could be the target of a class uprising. How could we be seen as aristocrats? We get union endorsements! We're the party of FDR! We're pro-civil rights! And so on.

Trump drove his tens of millions of followers right through each of these major-party blind spots. He called the Republicans' bluff on race almost from the start with his crazy Mexican wall idea, which instantly positioned the rest of the party field as nationalist pretenders. As for the Democrats, he lucked into a race against a politician he would portray as a 30-year symbol of a Beltway-insider consensus, one he said had left Middle America behind through trade deals like NAFTA.

Way back in February, after following Trump in New Hampshire, I guessed at the probable nominee's general-election strategy: "Trump will surely argue that the Clintons are the other half of the dissolute-conspiracy story he's been selling, representing a workers' party that abandoned workers and turned the presidency into a vast cash-for-access enterprise, avoiding scrutiny by making Washington into Hollywood East and turning labor leaders and journalists alike into star-struck courtiers."

Back then, I thought Trump had a real chance at the presidency. But later I made the same mistake most every other reporter did. I listened to polls and media outlets, instead of people. I thought Trump's maladroit and ridiculous general-election campaign, in which he went back on virtually every major primary-season promise while being revealed through seemingly hourly scandals as one of the world's most corrupt and personally repulsive individuals, would do him in. He would lose and lose huge, ending up a footnote to history, having served no purpose beyond the destruction of the Republican Party. Conventional wisdom said so, and wasn't conventional wisdom always right?

Not quite. We journalists made the same mistake the Republicans made, the same mistake the Democrats made. We were too sure of our own influence, too lazy to bother hearing things firsthand, and too in love with ourselves to imagine that so many people could hate and distrust us as much as they apparently do.

It's too late for any of us to fix this colossal misread and lapse in professional caution. Now all we can do is wait to see how much this failure of vision will cost the public we supposedly serve. Just like the politicians, our job was to listen, and we talked instead. Now America will do its own talking for a while. The world may never forgive us for not seeing this coming.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-39 # Logic 2016-11-13 09:36
Why was the deplorable man so impolite to you?

Matt, you are doing it again, the thing that got Hillary defeated. It is the limited hang-out, the partial truth. — Where is the dirt on Hillary?

The Trump supporters, and the high-informatio n Dems know all the dirt on Bill and Hillary and the Neocons/Neolibe rals.

They simply could not vote for H.

But your knee-jerk liberal media are narrow minded wimps. They skate over that stuff and focus on “our” failure. It is not my failure. You guys have lost your credibility.

The national Dems are useless because they are controlled by the Neocons.
The local Dems are useless because they are cowed by the national Dems.

I have friends who are university connected old Dems who listen to NPR. They are the low-information voters. The Trump side actually know more about Hillary. That is because NPR is also part of the limited-hang-ou t info system.
 
 
+84 # Thinking 2016-11-13 10:43
Quoting Logic:
You guys have lost your credibility.

The press cannot represent uni-think and the status quo and then expect the public to take it seriously.
The press has news blackout on many subjects -- Bernie Sanders, Dakota Access pipeline, even the positive parts of Trump (affect of globalization on industry an middle class jobs), and many, many other subjects.
 
 
+65 # pappajohn15@Gmail.com 2016-11-13 11:32
.
We need 5 parties, at least. The false dichotomy of America has never existed, and once again we were all forced to pick between the least evil of two lessers.

The choice between a Republican (Clinton) and a Wacko left most everyone with no where to go, and totally unable to express their viewpoint because a vote for their beliefs was somehow traitorous to the "other side."

We in Florida ("America's Joke State") knew that we had to turn out, but Stein was unelectable and Johnson was clueless.

Too bad they didn't give us a Democrat to vote for...
 
 
+8 # Ted 2016-11-13 13:33
Seems we just don't learn.

Here's a fun little video from Canada, from years ago, that sums up the situation pretty clearly;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwySCMovHk

(Thanks to wethepeoplerule .net)
 
 
+13 # djnova50 2016-11-13 17:07
Thanks for sharing this, Ted. I agree with it. We have a party which would truly represent the people. Way too many people think it's not realistic to vote for an alternative party because it could never win. The fact is that it can win if enough people came out to vote for that party.

I don't believe the duopoly will end as long we keep supporting it. I voted for Jill Stein. In 2020, I will vote for the Green Party again. If I live until 2024, I will do it again. The Republicans and Democrats are like the cats in that little video.
 
 
+10 # Thinking 2016-11-13 14:38
Quoting pappajohn15:
.
We need 5 parties, at least.

Our system traps us in two parties so we don't have the spoiler effect, but I notice that the ranked choice/preferen tial voting/instant run off concept is gaining ground and is used in some states and counties. It would let us vote for our choice and simultaneously let us not be a spoiler. That would give the main parties some healthy competition which might make them improve. It would also allow real choice. Is there a coordinated effort on this?
 
 
+2 # maro 2016-11-15 03:35
I wrote a letter to ask that very question:
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/39040-sick-to-death-of-republicans-vs-democrats-want-to-end-two-party-rule

I even stayed on a conference call with Robert Reich hoping to ask this question. We can't have multiple parties without Ranked Choice Voting. We just passed a referendum in Maine and we will be using Ranked Choice for everything except President. Out of our last 11 governors, 8 were elected without a majority because of 3rd parties.

Ranked Choice should be the next big fight. Lay the groundwork for breaking the duopoly.
 
 
+1 # molesoul 2016-11-16 02:00
Quoting maro:
Ranked Choice should be the next big fight. Lay the groundwork for breaking the duopoly.


Instituting Ranked Choice - at least in national elections - is one of the LAST pieces of the election reform puzzle. It will do little to broaden our choices in candidates until we have public financing of election campaigns and take big money out of politics. No other candidate, party, or potential party will have access to the kind of money raised by Repugs and Dems (unless perhaps it is a demagogic and dangerously populist one). This is why getting money out of politics has to be the next big battle!
 
 
+1 # GreenBee 2016-11-16 08:58
While I agree that getting the money out is the highest priority is there a feasible plan to get it done in our present system? If not, the next questions should be

1. Would Ranked Choice Voting help us get the money out?
2. Is Ranked Choice Voting something we could get done more easily than getting the money out altogether?

If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we should work for getting that.
 
 
0 # countmarc 2016-11-13 14:56
The 17 candidates in the Republican primary gave the first link in the Trump train's tracks so if there were five parties the vote would be so diluted only a small minority would run the country. If anything we need no parties and two top contenders run in the final, like California.
 
 
+2 # pappajohn15@Gmail.com 2016-11-13 15:27
.
But maybe there could be coalitions between leaders & parties on particular issues. This way the majority opinion in the country would be represented, instead of a doxology of positions from which you cannot differ.
 
 
+4 # Jadhu 2016-11-14 06:50
That's why we don't have a 5 party system. That would be a true democracy!
 
 
+71 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-13 12:31
The Dems lost the election when they thwarted the will of the electorate by doing everything in their power to derail the juggernaut of populism that was Bernie Sanders!
 
 
+55 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-13 12:33
Even if Bernie had been the nominee we can never be certain that he would have won...
because...
AMERICAN ELECTIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY FRAUDULENT!

Until we install a system where every citizen can vote (eliminating the Republican "cross-check voter purges) and turning to hand counted paper ballots with full transparency we will never know the true results of any election.
 
 
+5 # maro 2016-11-15 03:41
Exactly. We are like a banana republic where the results tell us the polls are wrong instead of the actual audited hand count letting us know for sure. Which is it bad polling or bad counting? How can we know when so many machines are unverifiable.

Ranked Choice voting, hand counted paper ballots, then we can truly see who the people wanted.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-11-14 18:43
But, #grandlakeguy, didn't Bernie take "the juggernaut of populism" out of the primaries himself?
 
 
+5 # maro 2016-11-15 03:44
Quoting grandlakeguy:
The Dems lost the election when they thwarted the will of the electorate by doing everything in their power to derail the juggernaut of populism that was Bernie Sanders!



I personally know many young Bernie supporters that went for Trump out of desperation to not vote for Hilary. And no amount of talking about committee chairmanships, supreme court nominations, etc. could sway them.

I am convinced that Bernie would have won—and America would have had the argument it was meant to have. Bernie and Trump battling for the soul of the 99%. Truth vs Bombast instead of Bombast vs Manipulative Condescension.
 
 
+11 # dascher 2016-11-13 12:58
Hilary did not kill Vince Foster.
 
 
-2 # Activista 2016-11-13 17:16
About 100 million people couldn't be bothered to vote this year
Washington Post‎
About 100 million people couldn't be bothered to vote this year ... there are about 251 million voting-age people in the U.S. But not all of ... But only about 132 million of them did, give or take the one or two ..."
the tactic - propaganda by many here at this forum won - by by democracy - hello dictator Trump.
 
 
+4 # A_Har 2016-11-15 17:58
@ Logic, Too bad you got so many negatives....re ally too bad. And Matt Taibbi--shame on you. I read all your articles on the fraud and malfesance that caused the 2008 economic meltdown which was supported by the big banks that funded HRCs campaign and paid her up to $225K a speech, and you still supported her in this election. You supported the VERY person who would KEEP THIS FRAUD going.

I was astonished as you ranted over and over against the grifting and theft, but you supported her: "She gets things done." Yeah like WARS and DEATH. She gets things done all right.
 
 
+2 # madame de farge 2016-11-15 18:28
We knew that Hillary was in trouble because Trump ran the table and Bernie did almost as well as Hillary and he didn't have the establishment backing.

Whatever you say, 6 BILLION bucks spent on the election is a LOT OF MONEY and a LOT OF TEMPTATION...
 
 
+20 # Inspired Citizen 2016-11-13 10:12
The ONLY way America could have gotten it right was to elect Jill Stein, and there are far too many people locked inside the two-party mental prison for that to happen, at least this year.

Neo-liberalism lost this race, and that's getting it right.

Fascism won this election, and that's getting it wrong.

I said it at the Bernie or bust rally in Philly, and stand by the words: "Trump is way more revolting; Clinton is way more dangerous."

https://youtu.be/epZuZsEdj-k
 
 
+12 # Observer 47 2016-11-13 18:32
Exactly, Citizen. As Matt Taibbi does his hand-wringing mea culpas, he completely fails to touch on the fact that there may have been tens of thousands of NON-racist, NON-misogynist people who simply were [rightly] terrified of Hillary. The better alternative would have been to vote for Jill Stein, but getting past the two-party mentality that MSM has shoved down our collective throats for decades is an uphill battle.
 
 
+42 # 2wmcg2 2016-11-13 10:20
I like this - there needs to be political soul searching. In the meanwhile, we need to develop bold new policies to create and preserve meaningful jobs, keep the peace, etc.
 
 
+6 # Ted 2016-11-13 10:35
The Green Party has been working on just that...

Here ya go..

http://www.gp.org/green_new_deal
 
 
+103 # Timshel 2016-11-13 10:25
Dear Mr. Taibbi:

I like much of what you have written in the last year, and this article is very good. Yet you still miss the main point.

The Democrats lost because they forced Clinton down our throats. She lost and took a lot of Democrats down with her because she clearly stood for a diseased way of economics, the profit system, that has been damaging, even destroying, the lives of Americans for all the years it has existed. The Podesta e-mails hurt her primarily because it confirmed for voters that she was two-faced and did not really stand behind the progressive platform she so reluctantly agreed to.

Trump won because the immense ethical objection to establishment economics that Bernie Sanders stood for, stifled by a corrupt Democratic establishment, found its only and twisted expression through a man and a party who will undoubtedly do even more economic damage to Americans. If only this much is seen clearly by Americans, despite all the MSM lies that will be told in the coming days, there will still be good reason to hope for a better future.

I look to Bernie Sanders to lead the real resistance to all the trumpery we will be subject to in the next four years, including from the MSM, and to his best surrogates to take up the torch in 2020. If you are really chastened by what happened you will make sure Sanders is prominent in your writing in the coming years. He really is the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, not Schumer, nor that fence-sitter Warren.
 
 
+49 # DrD 2016-11-13 10:50
Timeshel - you have expressed my sentiments too. From NPR (that I emailed several times in disgust during the primary season and no longer listen to) on down the MSM-line, Bernie and his rare and real connection with voters was ignored and dismissed. My only hope now is that Bernie will lead a revolution and form a new party.

As to Matt, I usually enjoy his articles but I chastised him on this site early on for joining the bandwagon of journalists denouncing Trump (unendingly and boringly) instead of writing anything informative about Bernie or his supporters. He may not have learned anything from this election.
 
 
+5 # davehaze 2016-11-14 07:23
I did the same. Tiabi had one informative article on Sanders, one mediocre article on Clinton and like the rest of the media nothing but boring blather on Trump -- like the rest of the media on the right and what passes for left. A trillion times Trump's name mentioned. More than Jesus.

Now trump is HUGE! Read it and weap.
 
 
+2 # maro 2016-11-15 17:46
You put that so perfectly! I have two emails to return and they were going to take some time to compose... now not so much. I will quote you!

Well said.
 
 
+80 # pamelawy 2016-11-13 10:29
American got it wrong????? I don't think so. There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who saw clearly what was going on and we were yelling it from the rooftops. YOU chose to ignore us and promote a seriously flawed candidate for some reason that escapes me. You played right into her game and WE are the ones who will pay for YOUR deafness.

Trump is the price WE pay for Clinton's own vanity in the certainty of her entitlement to the presidency and that you all just fell in line.
 
 
+51 # economagic 2016-11-13 11:01
I agree with you for the most part, and as an elderly overeducated straight white male I can tell you that a lot of people a lot like me have been saying the same thing for 35 years and more, and especially the last 20 (count 'em up). I gave up voting LOTE after Clinton (I even voted for Ross the Squirrel the first time), followed by two wussy candidates one of whom declined even to challenge his defeat in the face of statistically likely ballot tampering.

This year I could not even begin to identify which evil was lesser, as they were not at all alike, though many people accused me and people who agreed with me of saying they were. See the quote at the end of Inspired Citizen's comment above.

While humankind and the planet as a whole are likely to suffer greatly forever after, you are quite right that you and millions like you will pay the lion's share of the price, along with millions of other oppressed peoples in this country and elsewhere. As you see, Trump and his advisors are already backing away from some of his most popular claims, some because they were impossible in the first place, others simply because he is mercurial (slippery).

My peers and I will likely escape much of the turmoil to come because of our age. In the meantime we would be wise to work with you and your peers to make common cause in the many areas in which we agree, and to do everything humanly possible to understand each other's positions in the ones in which we don't.
 
 
+3 # Observer 47 2016-11-13 18:36
Outstanding post!!!!!
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-11-14 00:13
Superbly stated -- and so sane.

(I'm sorry, Observer. I hit the red thumb by mistake. I owe you one. Sometime, if you ever post something really stupid, I'll vote it up anyway :-)
 
 
+49 # Logic 2016-11-13 10:35
If people like Matt Taibbi had been doing their job Bernie would have become the Dem nominee.

The Dem public needed to know about Hillary’s warts before she launched her attack on Bernie. The other side already knew. Republicans chanted “Lock her up.”
 
 
+29 # sus453 2016-11-13 12:27
#Logic, I agree with your second paragraph, but you're off the mark on Taibibi and Bernie Sanders. Taibibi defended Sanders and constantly called the media, even his own employer Rolling Stone, on their blackout of the left.
 
 
-1 # davehaze 2016-11-14 07:32
453 Really? So Rolling Stone only demanded Tiabi write articles on trump so he regularly complied?
 
 
0 # Jaax88 2016-11-13 22:58
Isn't that a bit of sour grapes? How can you blame Taibbi for Bernie's failure? You
would make a very poor journalist with your illogical way of thinking.
 
 
+73 # danireland46 2016-11-13 10:45
Neo-Liberal Democrats and their cohorts in the DNC lost this election and everyone knows it. There were reliable polls in the primary that clearly said that Trump would lose to Bernie Sanders and beat HRC. The party that lost last Tuesday was not the Democratic Party as I've always perceived it: the party of the people. It was just a branch of the GOP pushing the agenda of the rich.
 
 
+64 # Jim Rocket 2016-11-13 11:02
After Obama's last election victory the Democratic party decided it was Hillary's turn next and that was it. That was the job and nothing was going to get in the way of that outcome. They had the winning player and made him sit on the bench. Hubristic to the point of stupidity and now everyone, not just in America, are going to pay the price.
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-11-13 15:35
I suspect that HRC was chosen in 2008. After Obama's first election, HRC's campaign chair took over the DNC (removing an unknown pol named Tim Kaine).

One Podesta email shows that the same vetting group that had chosen Bill Clinton's running mate and many in the Obama Administration had vetted HRC for Obama's VP slot, and found her too compromised to pass.

So, she was made SoS instead, to build her resume and stay in the public eye after the 2008 election.
 
 
+46 # ReconFire 2016-11-13 10:57
Everyone is again missing the point of this sad election.
There is evidence that this election was stolen.
Jill Stein was stolen from, (exit polls show she won 7%-8% of the vote).

Hillary was stolen from, ( I don't have the #'s, but the exit polls don't add up).
Progressives will get nowhere until we address the election theft and the reason, the election machines.

As we all know, without theft, Bernie would have won, and the green party might have gotten the 5% thy needed to become a viable party.
And I'll say if Bernie had not ignored Jill's calls after he was robbed in the primary, we wouldn't be in this mess.
(Go ahead bring on the red thumbs)
 
 
+18 # djnova50 2016-11-13 13:00
ReconFire, I agree with you. I had signed Kshama Sawant's petition to Bernie Sanders. I think Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein would have been great as President and Vice President.
 
 
+5 # Observer 47 2016-11-13 18:38
Agree completely!
 
 
+3 # maro 2016-11-15 03:54
When they don't audit an election, the narratives they develop based on the results is suspect. We know nothing without a recount.

This election is close enough that it should be done. And in many states where they find they can't re-count because they turned off their auditing equipment (Ohio) or the machines leave no paper trail, those votes should be re-done on paper.

It is ridiculous that every election we have to believe computer print outs with no check on the system except "bad polling".
 
 
+23 # Dust 2016-11-13 11:04
"Candidate Trump told a story about a conspiracy of cultural and financial elites bent on finishing off a vanishing white middle-class nirvana, first by shipping jobs overseas..."

So will the people who elected Trump ever recognize that he is the virtual embodiment of that financial elite, dedicated to making more money regardless of the damage to anyone or anything?

Or will he be able to twist it around "Oh, I never wanted you good people to have to pay $50,000 a month for medical insurance! That's an outrage! But Obama and the financial elites set in stone so many landmines and pitfalls that there isn't any way out - it is set that way forever. I wish I could help."
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-11-13 15:39
That's THE question. Will Trump voters be as forgiving as Obama voters when he, too sells them down the river?

I suggest we be ready to catch those Trump voters when Trump knocks them down. And that means STOP alienating them NOW.
 
 
+12 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-13 17:39
I agree Rads... Once the "victory euphoria" has worn off, Trump supporters will see he is already doing the same thing Obama did... surrounding himself with the establishment corporate insiders that support the status quo. He said he'd "drain the swamp", yet his first choice for Treasury Secretary is Jamie Diamond (who is a too-big-to jail bankster)! It will not be long before they recognize Trump's betrayal of his promises. Unfortunately, he will keep his promises on issues that harm the country and world as he breaks those promises of a better future for everyday Americans...
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2016-11-14 19:41
"Diamond" would be a great name for a Big Money manager, but Jamie's last name is spelled "Dimon", as in new Treasury Secretary "Jamie Dimon".
 
 
+6 # dbrize 2016-11-13 21:12
Quoting Radscal:
That's THE question. Will Trump voters be as forgiving as Obama voters when he, too sells them down the river?

I suggest we be ready to catch those Trump voters when Trump knocks them down. And that means STOP alienating them NOW.


Yes!

We are already witnessing the Trumpster floating the same old apparatchiks. Gingrich, Juliani, Preibus, Bolton. A sign that once more the fix is in.

If he wants change we will see new names and new ideas. Bacevich, even Democrat Jim Webb, would be better than Bolton. Professor Bacevich would be outstanding as NSA chief. New blood, new names, new ideas.

Hey, I think I just gave the Dems what should be their new clean the house slogan.
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2016-11-14 11:02
In line with the concerns expressed above:

As a designated independent I offer my progressive friends this from the other side of the political equation. Proof that there exists antiwar, anti-globalist sentiment on the right with which those of like mind can coalesce.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/11/13/dear-president-trump/
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-11-14 18:08
That's a great letter, including excellent examples of where we, the 99% of all political stripes can agree on foreign policy.

I'm working on a list of domestic policy issues as well, and encourage everyone here to look at Trump's campaign for those nuggets we can support, and join with the Trump voters to promote.
 
 
+27 # ReconFire 2016-11-13 11:17
One more thing, if you're lucky enough to have money in the stock market, you might want to remove it.
If you don't know what happened in 2007-2008 get you're hands on the documentary film "Inside Job", I found it at my library.
As Trump and the repug's dismantle what's left of the banking reg's, the next crash will be even worse.
 
 
+17 # ahollman 2016-11-13 11:23
If someone can define "neo-liberal" for me so that it has a precise and common meaning among its many users, I'd appreciate. Right, its use is as an epithet; one might say "he's a neoliberal" in the same manner that one might say "he's a stinker"; it indicates disapproval and contempt, but not why.

I'm among the many who wanted Sanders. I despise the Democratic National Committee for tilting the primary to Clinton, and held my nose as I voted for her. My contributions went to Sanders; I gave her no help beyond my vote.

Re Taibbi's main point, that we didn't pay attention to, in his terms, working-class whites in flyover states, yes, he's right. But, how come we didn't?

Part of it is geography and class; it's more educated, affluent and coastal residents, who tend to work in service jobs, who set party policy. Sure, there are a few token members of the UAW or other manufacturing unions, but that's it. In short, self-described "progressives" are a rather elitist, smug and exclusionary bunch.

Part of it is an unwillingness to listen, combined with contempt for those who disagree with you. For example, look at the extraordinary vitriol with which some "progressives" on this discussion forum attack others. Given such vitriol between people on the same side, contempt for others not on your side is to be expected. Perhaps progressives should learn how to listen, especially those with whom they disagree, then listen more and spew forth less.
 
 
+19 # Logic 2016-11-13 11:57
neolib = privatization, fiscal austerity, trade deals that hurt the public
neocon = preemptive, perpetual war to take over the world, and to install neoliberalism
 
 
+13 # sus453 2016-11-13 12:36
#ahollman, Neoliberalism is an oft-misundersto od term, and when I say it, I think most people might take it to mean "new liberals" - what could be wrong with that? But neoliberalism is quite different - the term was popularized during the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile. The New Dictionary defines neoliberalism as :

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a modern politico-econom ic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc
2. (Economics) a modern politico-econom ic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc.

You can also read Wikipedia (a more heady read) or just do a google search.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 16:16
The definitions perhaps need to be rewritten to add military interventionism .
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-11-13 18:00
Right. And the reason it is called that is that it is precisely the prescription put forth in the 18th and late 17th centuries by the philosophers we now call "classical liberals" (John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and others), who laid the groundwork for modern "democratic" government, for ending the tyranny of that era, namely, the Divine Right of Kings, the feudal aristocracy that had ruled worldwide in various forms for more than 5,000 years!

And what could be wrong with THAT, either? Only that the REMEDY for THAT tyranny, in THAT time and place, has become the NEW TYRANNY of our time, often referred to as "Global Megacorp." It was lifted directly from that era and disingenuously proposed as the remedy for itself!

I don't know, but it would not surprise me if the people who actually coined the term were General Pinochet's "Chicago Boys," a bunch of recent graduates of the University of Chicago Economics Department (PhDs) right smack in the middle of Milton Friedman's heyday, who went to Chile once the CIA had left the scene to help our latest Latin American dictator build a model economy which this country would then emulate!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-11-14 00:31
Wow, e, information rich!

Heard an interview today where they talked about Bernie's economists being willing to work with Trump -- Bill Black and Stephanie Kelton (?) from the University of Missouri KC -- Modern Monetary Theory. Are you familiar with them? Are those the theories you've talked about in the past?
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-11-13 19:43
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
 
 
+2 # pappajohn15@Gmail.com 2016-11-13 11:29
.
 
 
+7 # MaggieB 2016-11-13 11:53
Dear Mr. Taibbi:

Timshel expresses my critique perfectly.

Sincerely,
Maggie B
 
 
+7 # Bryan 2016-11-13 12:22
'' We journalists made the same mistake the Republicans made, the same mistake the Democrats made. We were too sure of our own influence, too lazy to bother hearing things firsthand, and too in love with ourselves to imagine that so many people could hate and distrust us as much as they apparently do.''

Yep Tabbi. However stupid you think the non-elites are they think you are even more stupid--and they just proved it...LOL
 
 
+11 # JPS07 2016-11-13 12:28
Good article Matt. My friends in the UK are saying 'who on earth would vote for Trump?' To me, the more discerning question is 'who on earth would vote for Clinton?!'
Here's a nice take it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-11-14 18:14
The mainstream British media I read (mostly The Guardian and BBC) perfectly mirrored the CNN/MSDNC narrative about this election. So Brits are likely as misinformed as most USians.

But alternative British sources like John Pilger and Afshin Rattansi's "Going Underground" have been telling it like it is.
 
 
+22 # djnova50 2016-11-13 12:56
There are many reasons why Donald Trump was elected. Here is one of them and we can thank the media. After the conventions for both the Democrats and Republicans, just about any newspaper or news magazine that I picked up had at least 4 articles on the front cover with Donald Trump's name in the titles.

Even online news sources could not leave Donald Trump articles alone. Every where it was Trump, Trump, Trump. Voters got conditioned to hearing Trump's name. It did not matter if the article was an article to promote him in a positive or a negative manner. Trump, Trump, Trump. Eventually, the name sticks. Trump, Trump, Trump. So what name do voters pick on their ballots? Trump, Trump, Trump. What name does the electoral college vote for? Trump, Trump, Trump.

If the media had promoted, say Jill Stein in the same way it promoted Trump, possibly, we'd have a Jill Stein President-elect ; and that would not be a bad thing. But, we have Trump, Trump, Trump.

The good thing about having Trump as President is that people will keep a close watch on what he does or tries to do. If Clinton would have won, I think the people would have become complacent, much like they did with Obama.
 
 
+8 # Observer 47 2016-11-13 18:45
I think your initial analysis is very perceptive, dj, and your last point is excellent. If nothing else, Trump will have more difficulty working behind the scenes than Clinton would have.
 
 
+2 # Keeper2 2016-11-15 15:14
I agree that the 24/7/365 coverage of Trump, beginning with his declaration of candidacy, provided the coverage he needed to become a star of what his own campaign called the biggest reality t.v. show ever. Thanks to media coverage of his every word, this election became about who we kick off the political island, and not about the future of the U.S.
 
 
+6 # HahliHohli 2016-11-13 13:03
Now that we have all had a good cry, temper tantrum for some... get up off the floor, dust yourselves off and TAKE ON YOUR OWN POWER, YOUR GOD GIVEN POWER THAT EACH AN EVERYONE OF US HAS and do the very darndest to make this country so incredibly wonderful that no one would ever think we had elected such a "president-of-i nterest". The president is only one person, we are the many and we will make a splendid future for our children by putting LOVE first in all our activities and endeavors! We are the very best of the very best---everyone is! Let us celebrate that we have Divine Will behind us and move into a phenomenal era of peace and prosperity for one and all. That is the American Spirit! and you all know it! Now become it!
 
 
+19 # tr4302@gmail.com 2016-11-13 13:16
The Democrats lost because they forced Clinton down our throats. She lost and took a lot of Democrats down with her because she clearly stood for a diseased way of economics, the profit system, that has been damaging, even destroying, the lives of Americans for all the years it has existed. The Podesta e-mails hurt her primarily because it confirmed for voters that she was two-faced and did not really stand behind the progressive platform she so reluctantly agreed to. Thanks TimShel! Well said.
 
 
+1 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:17
It's good to understand that not only Trump and his inner circle are responsible but everyone involved. Human beings structure ourselves in hierarchic societies with an Alpha class at the top, an inner circle that holds the balance as long as force is on its side and a majority trying to move up the ladder of the status quo. This natural-instinc tive "programming", conditioned by the laws of survival in nature, is as present in human beings as in most other mammals. If we are not willing to acknowledge our instinctivity and the fact that such behaviour is PERFECTLY NATURAL for undeveloped humaneness, then we are nowhere close to understanding how to cope with it. One must know the problem before one can address a possible solution.
Human beings are, still after millenia, inmature enough to be subject to parental determination. The Paternalistic State is the most disempowering status quo for the people and the most empowering one for the elite. The historical experiences of recent centuries has not empowered the people to BE the Authors of their own destiny and when an individual or a society is ontologically disempowered (in the realm of Being), then it is dependent on the figures of authority it is identified with. This is pure instinctive-nat ural behaviour: "If I can't respond for my self, I'll support and work for who I believe can respond for us" is the unconscious reaction.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-11-13 15:56
Common Chimpanzees live in hierarchal societies.

Bonobo Chimps live in huge, egalitarian societies.

Common chimpanzees can be violent to the level of troop warfare.

Bonobo chimpanzees have almost zero violence (but have sex dozens of times each day).

Homo sapiens is equally closely related to both.

Which is the "natural" analogue to modern humans and why?

Here's the anthropological science take. Humans are born with propensities for both competition and cooperation, for peace and violence.

But humans evolved one central trait that can and does have the determining influence over all complex behaviors. Culture.

We learn and adapt and teach. Which propensity we choose to act on is largely cultural and environmental.
 
 
+7 # Majikman 2016-11-14 12:44
When I get recycled I wanna come back as a bonobo
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-11-14 18:19
Not a bad choice. We need to do what we can in this life to stop the destruction of their homes and slaughter of them for "bush meat" and sport.

When the European Christians first saw Bonobos, they massacred them in huge numbers. Apparently they saw them as clearly somehow like humans, and found their sexual activities appalling and even "sinful."
 
 
-5 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:18
cont 2. Today this takes place in the economy with the corporations, in the spiritual realm with cults and in the political realm with parties. In each one of them, the divas in charge don't allow room for objective focusing on the issues by each member that would empower everyone, but keep the same structural hierarchies and competition.
If we are reproducing the same systematic behaviour in every institution of our societies, why does it surprise us if the phenomena takes place in our governments?
The one percent in power in every institution believes that if people allow them to structure things as they will, they shall protect everyone but that little ingredient in which it is their WILL that must be obeyed to get results, is what acts against the dis-empowerment of the participants who, instead of struggling together for a common objective, struggle for a position within the inner circle of the institution or government proving the subjectivity of the full scheme. The more this takes place, the less objective people become, the sooner they lose sight of their initial lofty aims.
When we decide to acknowledge our "selves" and our realm of "Being", we'll be able to verify these phenomena and deal with the fact that it is our identification and our sense of Identity, what prompts each and everyone of our relationships with others, in the personal and social, human and universal contexts. The development of personality and Identity are much connected to these facts.
 
 
-5 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:19
Cont 3 We are still trying to explain phenomena through our functions instead of through our Selves. Trying to explain our societies through the economic-instin ctive realm, the religious-emoti onal realm, the political-intel lectual realm, without maturing enough to understand that these are the symptoms and not the causes; That the causes of everything that happens is in the realm of Being, in the realm of Identity or lack of it; That nothing moves without the intervention of "The Author" and in a world in which the people have been systematically disempowered and the elite systematically empowered, it is not surprising if what we've gotten is a status quo in which the one percent holds the lives of the 100%.
 
 
-6 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:21
Cont 4 In the times of true Monarchs this was a legitimate equation. One wholesome being who could envision a civilization held the destiny of the whole. The evolution and involution of humanity since, (for both phenomena seem to take place at the same time), has empowered the people in many an arena and disempowered them at the same time. The evolution of a democratic consciousness is not an orderly event but something that has been willed by fierce struggles in every realm of our societies. The middle classes that have been educated to hold the structure of a status quo in which a few at the top take the Monarchs power and centralise the economy, has developed increasingly more psychopathic individuals and societies. The dictator is an upside down king: the alpha leader without the consciousness or the nobility of the King followed by a hord driven by fear: the impulse to survive at no matter whose cost.
 
 
-5 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:21
cont 5
Were this possible, we would have to accept that this is legitimate behaviour for humanity and that killing each other for survival is our destiny. Unfortunately this is the perfect formula for self extinction.
The instinctive drive in human beings is counter to survival. While nature is perfectly harmonious to keep life alive, unchecked drives in human beings act against the individual or society. The instinctive need to own a territory is, in human beings the original impulse for wholesomeness, that in an unconscious state, is translated by inmature individualities as the greed to own "things", land, clothes, cars, planes, everything must be appropriated. And it must be "appropriated" because for the instinctive consciousness present in a materialistic Times, the more people own, the more IDENTITY they are supposed to have. The more they are recognised by others as "powerful" individuals. The more they have, the more they are. The more "famous" they become.In an animal herd, this would mean that there is more territory for the herd to survive and it would keep the confidence of the animals on the alpha leaders, usually a male and female. In human beings such "confidence" in the power of the political, spiritual or corporate leader, the Dictator, the Guru or the CEO respectively, accepts the hierarchic model as a legitimate model.
 
 
-6 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:22
Cont 6 Human beings need to be able to rationalise their behaviour and as long as it is the instinctive consciousness that is at work, it will justify the hierarchy structures in which an alpha class with an inner circle "dominates" the majority working for the enshrinement of that alpha class against their own possible survival, subjectively competing for a place in the hierarchy, INSTEAD of objectively working for the well being of the whole.
In such instinctive unconsciousness , the individual, institution or society tied to the egotic consciousness of the minority within their own self, the group or nation, strives to appropriate everything it can get its hands on and in doing so, it legitimises itself in the eyes of its followers. The problem is that, while it indeed gets hold of everything it can with the support of the majority, it will distribute most of it within the minority in power and keep the hierarchic, competitive status quo in place, against not only the majority but of the individual, institution or society.
In human beings, instincts act against their possible survival. Instincts act from the egotic consciousness able to look after itself and only itself and cannot encompass the whole: humanity. It works on duality and conflict, lives on fear and competition.
 
 
-6 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:25
cont 7 and 8 In a times in which humanity has already conquered every territory, in which nations have proved capable of occupying all Earth and extracting from its womb all its resources, the possibility of survival is no longer present in how more resources are put to an end but how the distribution of what is still available and possible, can be rationalised to give Life a chance, to give Humaneness a chance! The challenge now is: can we survive our own instinctivity? Can we conquer our "selves"? Can we hold enough of our humaneness to not use our force against each other and nature?
If we follow your train of thoughts Chris Hedges and use the model you are presenting that perfectly coincides with suicide cults, we can clearly verify that that same model is what is taking place in our societies on a huge scale and that we are heading towards self destruction. In the suicide cult, the will of the people is replaced by the will of the false authority and the cult implodes committing suicide. The guru is as much of a victim as the followers. All of them were genuinely working, innocently convinced that it could work, that as long as they all sacrificed everything, themselves first and all their functions placed at the service of the guru, it could "work". Innocence and stupidity have never saved anyone.
 
 
-5 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:27
cont 9 The willingness to give our selves up to false leaders is not the answer and anyone pretending to lead anyone else today is false because what is needed is that people empower each other to stand up for Life and not for hierarchy competitive structures in which anyone submits to anyone. This cannot help people communicate or develop authentic communities. And its in how people COMMUNICATE with each other that legitimate communities can develop.

While instinctive behaviour keeps animals in nature alive, the same instinctive behavour in human beings, acts against their own possible survival. Conscious, human behaviour is needed for human beings to remain and that shift in consciousness implies understanding that we cannot continue to structure our selves, institutions or societies in competing hierarchy models but must focus on regenerating processes, for example replacing useless production of goods for useful ones, reducing waste of energy and effort, empowering individuals and communities to take responsibility for their territories, working with the overall human community.
Instinctive behaviour in human beings is a degenerative process: a cancer: a part of the individual, institution or society acts against the well being of the whole.
 
 
-7 # Elena 2016-11-13 13:27
cont 10 It permeates the full organism but acts for the well being of the few and their agenda just as cancer cells take over the organism and act for their agenda. Objective consciousness takes on the whole and invigorates it, keeping the parts alive. It cannot take place between dominators and submitters, it cannot be imposed by a few on the many, it is the human spirit within each and every individual, empowering themselves enough to hold Life,
wholesomeness and lawfulness, wherever they stand, that can turn the wheel and allow people to work for Life in everything they do, effectively rationalising their everyday acts, for the well being of the whole. This can bring dignity and integrity back to the individual and society and stop the self destructive processes that we are witnessing today.
http://disq.us/t/2fm16xn
 
 
+1 # HahliHohli 2016-11-13 17:51
"... Objective consciousness takes on the whole and invigorates it, keeping the parts alive. It cannot take place between dominators and submitters, it cannot be imposed by a few on the many, it is the human spirit within each and every individual, empowering themselves enough to hold Life, wholesomeness and lawfulness, wherever they stand, that can turn the wheel and allow people to work for Life in everything they do, effectively rationalizing their everyday acts, for the well being of the whole. This can bring dignity and integrity back to the individual and society and stop the self destructive processes that we are witnessing today..."

Thank you. I read it all. It may have been longer than Taibbi's article, but I kept with it. Agreeing with a good deal of it.

The quality of human life depends almost entirely on the state of consciousness of the collective. We have been asleep as a species for a very long time, but we are now awakening because it is our time. Evolution is ever aspiring to greater joy and love.

I was wondering what is your definition of "Objective consciousness" and how does one acquire it?
 
 
-12 # ericlipps 2016-11-13 13:35
Quote:
Way back in February, after following Trump in New Hampshire, I guessed at the probable nominee's general-election strategy: "Trump will surely argue that the Clintons are the other half of the dissolute-conspiracy story he's been selling, representing a workers' party that abandoned workers and turned the presidency into a vast cash-for-access enterprise, avoiding scrutiny by making Washington into Hollywood East and turning labor leaders and journalists alike into star-struck courtiers."
Oh, in other words, copying word-for-word the rhetoric of Bernie-or-bust zealots. Or did they copy him? Either way, they in effect worked hand-in-glove.

Gee, thanks, folks. Enjoy the next four years; you earned it.
 
 
+10 # rural oregon progressive 2016-11-13 18:05
Where, on the other hand, we have listened to, and endured the writings of the "Hillary's Turn" zealots (regardless of her warts and baggage) since 2008... But we are supposed to believe that it is we (bernie zealots) who are much to blame for Hil's loss... It could not possibly be in any way Hillary's, the media's, the DNC's or the blindness of Hillary supporter's fault. That bubble has burst, but enjoy continuing to live in it for the next 4 years... You sir, continue to earn what we all may suffer in these next four years. I, and many Bernie supporters were Hillary supporters in '08. Since then, we read and listened and found that she was not at all progressive. That she had a propensity to "fudge" on the truth (also known as lying). And that she was beholden to the corporatists and bankers as well as being too hawkish for many progressives to stomach. So, yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. But it is time for Hillary supporters like you to accept that she brought virtually all of her problems upon herself. Had she run as a Republican, she may well have beaten Trump in the primaries. Over the past 8 years, it has become increasingly clear that she was (and is) no progressive.
 
 
+14 # Maybe 2016-11-13 13:37
Trump seems influenced by the last person he talks to .. for as long as it takes for another to spew a different point of view. I am not convinced that there will be anything bi-partisan in his selections. I believed ... and still believe that Trump was in it for the ego trip. I believe he never wanted the actual job. That meant work. Which means he's vulnerable to the loudest ultra-right wing voice, someone who knows how to use power, like Dick Cheney, and the country is in for it. I have no hope for anything positive or good coming from a Trump presidency, largely because the houses are Republican, and they are masters at the rubber stamp. Our country will never be the same; and we are the fools on the world stage. Kiss reform goodbye, and watch the island nations sink into the sea. We're doomed.
 
 
+8 # indian weaver 2016-11-13 14:36
I do not think we are doomed, or even very injured, not yet, maybe not ever, hard to predict! But, yes, Trump is an egomaniac. This negative personality defect will probably work for us, not against We The People. Trump is the only person who will can all of the security apparatus goons who denounced him in their 50-signature letter, all the bad guys in our nation who deserve life in prison for treason. He might be able to resist the goon squads trying to invade Russia and create worldwide nuclear war. I myself am convinced our nuclear clock has been turned back at least a few minutes now with Trump. And Trump will re-ally with Russia / Putin / Lavrov, because he knows Putin and Lavrov are good, honest leaders, unlike anyone in our own administration, anyone. Many positives come with Trump, these are a few of them. Also many big negatives. But, the biggest, nuclear war is now off the table. Yes we still have him trumpeting that "ACD does not exist". He'll lose interest in that issue now, already, but he won't lose interest in promoting more business with Russia or China, I'll promise you that. Same as Ron and Rand Paul, these 3 do have the courage to think and speak for themselves, unlike Obama / dubya and the rest of the crime cabal destroying our lives right now. This is Trump's power: big personal wealth and big ego. Both can and probably will work for us. Ron and Rand Paul had horrible domestic policies. But they would have stopped constant wars and spent domestically.
 
 
+6 # indian weaver 2016-11-13 14:46
BTW, I did not vote for either Trump or Hillary. Of the 2, if one had to win, I'm glad it was Trump. This was a really big "FUCK YOU" to Obama / dubya / Slick Willy / Cheney / the war machine and MIC. Trump has already made a MAJOR foreign policy change during his visit to Obama. Obama had enough smarts, for once, to turn his Syrian policy 180 degrees around and now supports Assad and getting rid of Obama's allies ISIS and Al Nusra in Syria. Read this educational revealing article published in Information Clearinghouse, the best non-political news publication on the web (if you don't already read it, start now):

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45832.htm.

And, the reversal of Obama's Syrian policy is entirely due to Trump! The Pentagon and Ashton Carter are not on the same pages as Trump and Obama anymore. Ashton Carter makes $billions off his investments in weapons of mass destruction and thereby wants to continue worldwide aggression and start a nuclear war to wipe out Russia - for the money. Read the article.

And this article describes accurately why Trump may well be our "Peace President". The writing is excellent food for thought. I'm convinced:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45829.htm. I believe Trump is far less dangerous, and probably even a positive move, to improve our world standing in diplomacy. After all, probably 80% of the world now despises America for its worldwide war crimes and Obama's constant tragic atrocities.
 
 
+4 # indian weaver 2016-11-13 14:55
BTW, I think Obama's character defects of dishonesty and cowardice far surpass the dangers of Trump's egomania and hustle. Obama is a lying coward. Trump is merely a born hustler. If he were a liar and conducted criminally dishonest business deals, then he'd be in prison. He doesn't' do that. He is merely a big time hustler, a lot different from a lying coward, and less dangerous ultimately than Obama (and dubya, and dick, and Biden, and kerry, and and and ...).
 
 
+2 # JPS07 2016-11-13 19:00
Yes! Words out of my mouth Weaver. And thanks for the links.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-11-14 00:35
Dang, iw! You seem positively cheery since the election. Does it have anything to do with that specter of a nuclear cloud dissipating?
 
 
-4 # olpossum 2016-11-13 16:18
Obama is probably doing the best he can with what he has to work with. I know, deep down inside, that Obama wishes he knew as much about these issues as "indian weaver". "indian weaver", you should run for high office. I'm convinced.
 
 
-7 # janie1893 2016-11-13 14:55
We cant expect America's blue collar workers to start to actually think. When promised "bread and circuses", of course
we will chose that instead of considering the long term needs of the country and the planet.

When greed becomes the prevalent value of a country, that country is doomed. And America is the greediest country ever known.
 
 
+14 # indian weaver 2016-11-13 14:59
I think this is a very nasty comment. America's blue collar workers are who makes America work. Got it? And we raise families, go to various schools to learn tricky trades like plumbing / welding / auto mechanics / physician and nurses aides / dental assistants / we who make this world work, we are the workers, and we have to think to survive, just like everyone else.
 
 
+8 # Majikman 2016-11-13 15:57
quote: "We cant expect America's blue collar workers to start to actually think."

Breathtaking arrogance and ignorance...not surprising at all for a Shillbot and exactly why you lost. You believed you were the smartest guys in the room until the room caved in on you. Those "deplorable" blue collars saw right through your lies and laughed at you all the way to the voting booth.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2016-11-14 20:06
"Not surprising at all for a Shillbot"

#Majikman -- Clinton voters know #janie1893's language is both bigoted and wrong, so enough with the misdirected insults. They are no better than #janie1893's ugly slanders.

Actually, using the term "Shillbot" for Clinton supporters is just about on #janie1893's very low level.
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-11-13 19:50
Perfect example of the Democrats problem.
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2016-11-13 21:33
Quoting janie1893:
We cant expect America's blue collar workers to start to actually think. When promised "bread and circuses", of course
we will chose that instead of considering the long term needs of the country and the planet.

When greed becomes the prevalent value of a country, that country is doomed. And America is the greediest country ever known.


Bullshit. And trust me I'm being kind.

Blue collar workers can think very well. They know when their jobs are disappearing, their children are going to have a lower standard of living than they, their government wastes resources, money and material playing global baloney for the benefit of the international banking system and corporations, rather than use the talent and ingenuity of the American middle class to provide a stable economy that enhances Main Street over Wall Street.

These deplorables aren't nearly as dumb as you elitists would portray them Not at all.

The election of Trump has nothing to do with "bread and circuses" trite as the saying is, it is a warning shot across the bow (I can use trite sayings too). A warning to BOTH parties, we're fed up with you. Change or else. If Trump doesn't get the message, he'll be gone in four years as well.
 
 
+6 # Jadhu 2016-11-14 06:47
Yeah, but China and India don't do the outsourcing--pe ople like Trump and his fellow billionaires do!
 
 
-9 # janie1893 2016-11-13 15:57
indian--and you are the ones that confuse a reality TV show for reality.
 
 
-9 # janie1893 2016-11-13 16:00
indian and majik----my comments are the truth. If it hurts, so be it.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-11-13 16:25
There are none so blind blah blah.

Unapologetic arrogance does not move us forward.

I read today HRC supporters are even attacking Oprah because she dared to say the Trump-Obama meeting gave her some hope.

Shame on you, Oprah! We're still in denial!
 
 
+1 # Brice 2016-11-16 20:37
It's pretty clear that Americans have a psychic attachment to their TV's and are addicted to them. One good way to overcome this totalitarian culture would be to unplug, unhook and start making our own content.

The corporatocracy owns and controls the outer electronic infrastructure of most of our brains.
 
 
+9 # Arte Possible 2016-11-13 16:02
The Constitution does not specify a two-party system, but our system of government - executive, legislative, and judicial - seems to foster it. Witness the many times a third party has tried to emerge. However, parties change, and often are not recognizable from who they were, say, twenty years before. I think both parties are in transition - R's becoming more "Trumpiam" and D's becoming more "Sanderspecific ."

The Trump voters I know do not look like the "typical" ones. They are urban, well-educated, and have lots of money. I think it was "keeping their money" and "having had enough of the establishment" that governed their choice. Oh, yeah, misogyny probably factored in there just a bit!
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-11-13 16:23
How many times did Matt write "conspiracy" or "conspiratorial " or "conspiracist" in this article?

And each time, it was written to marginalize and demean the thing mentioned.

Any time two or more people agree to do something that would be viewed as unfair, immoral or illegal, they have entered into a conspiracy. Conspiracies happen all the time.

Taibbi wrote eloquently about the TIBOR interest rate fixing that cost the public $ billions while profiting supra-national banksters.

That was a conspiracy.

People are in prison today for conspiring to commit crimes that were never even committed.

Marginalizing the very concept of looking for and at real conspiracies is the exact opposite of journalism.

And is yet another reason why the majority no longer trust the corporate media.
 
 
+3 # draypoker 2016-11-14 06:27
He seems to be associating with himself all the appalling people of the Nixon-Bush past. I hope we survive them.
 
 
+3 # Jadhu 2016-11-14 06:45
What if America didn't get it wrong? What if the Republicans/the 1% engaged in fraud?
 
 
+1 # Brice 2016-11-16 20:33
I think Republicans DID engage in fraud ... but if Democrats had turned out ( assuming they didn't and that was not part of the fraud - to destroy votes ) then the Democrats would have won. We had millions less people turn out in every election since Obama's first. It is simply turnout that makes the difference. Fit he turnout is big enough it will overcome any talk of fraud.
 
 
+3 # Allears 2016-11-14 21:02
Americans must all now pay for the mistake of the media not being able, try as hard as they did, to tell the future?
On the premise that if they had foretold that Trump would win, he might not have won? With a logic this twisted there is no hope looking to the media to try to help us get at the truth. We need, want, facts not prediction. Journalists are not seers, nor do reasonable consumers of news want them to be, so they should just stop wearing this confabulated hair shirt and get back to truth-telling.
 
 
+1 # Keeper2 2016-11-15 15:07
Almost nowhere in all the post-mortems of the Republican near-sweep (there were a too-few bright spots of Dem. victories making slight gains in the House and Senate) do I see mention of the effect of NRA organizing to prevent the appointment of supreme court justices who might make sensible changes to U.S. gun laws, or even Congressional candidates who might reverse bans on gun death research leading to changes. Om my shop floor, I've seen white male union members shift their political loyalties from pro-union Dem.s to anti-union Repugnicons based solely on their claimn to be pro-gun. Until U.S. unions get their white male majority constituency to understand that a vote for NRA-backed candidates is a vote for lower wagers, higher health care costs, and less job protection. the slide of U.S. unions into history's dust bin will continue.
 
 
-1 # Brice 2016-11-16 20:31
Do you really think the Supreme Court is needed to make sensible changes to gun laws? I am not sure about that. I think the registration, waiting period and some limits on bullets or clips are reasonable whether or not someone supports them. I do believe in the 2nd amendment.

I think guns are the least of our worry ... we have domestic human rights problems to solve ... foreign policy, guns, the military and other less urgent things can wait on the back burner ... the Left is getting its ass kicked because it says it wants everything and this overly broad agenda just loses it support.
 
 
+1 # padthai 2016-11-15 17:19
Hillary Clinton Lost because the people she thought would vote for her preferred not to vote for her. She did not inspire. And many of the people who did vote for her only did so because they wanted to block trump. That was Bill's calculation from the start. Hillary would have x% of supporters and xx% of "fear-run-for-y our-lives" votes from the "anything but him" voters...
If Bernie had been the nominee, Bernie would be our president. If Elisabeth Warren had been the candidate, she would be president.
If Hillary realllly wanted to win, she would have asked Bernie or Elisabeth to be her VP.
But arrogance is a bitch.
 
 
-1 # Brice 2016-11-16 20:27
-- If Hillary realllly wanted to win, she would have asked Bernie or Elisabeth to be her VP.

I agree with your basic sentiment here, but I think Hillary really wanted to win, but what that she wanted was a win for her personally, not a win for the American people or even the Democratic party.

Hillary was terrified of having someone popular and smart with leadership abilities around her because she is basically a follower. She probably would have made a President as good as Barack Obama, and maybe even a bit less timid, but she did not really ever make her case ... it was always an implied - "where else do you have to go"? Well, we found out the answer to that, and all the problems we will have in the future are on Hillary as far as I am concerned. I think she has a lot of nerve to show her face in the media again, and I bet she is going to try to run for something again.
 
 
+2 # Brice 2016-11-16 20:23
Conservatives, Republicans, alt-Right, ... as far as I can see they are all mad, and I use that word as distinct from crazy ... mad!

At least the ones who express themselves online. Go to Twitter, Yahoo ... any of the large websites that have chat forums and they are all overrun with what I can only describe as complete assholes. Sorry if that shocks you, but that is the intention, and that part of what makes someone an asshole, or worthy of being described as an asshole. Go to Breitbart.Com and read anything in its discussion forum and it is clear the people who run Breitbart.Com intend to make this verbal terrorism of the intellect the norm in America.

There was a book a while ago, and I think it tells us what America needs far worse than a no immigrant policy ... what we really need is a no asshole policy. If we could have gotten rid of the assholes this election we might have had a decent outcome.

We simply have to realize that we will go the way of the fascist countries 100 years ago if we do not do something about this disgusting and purposeful trend. The world cannot afford this detour into insanity.
 
 
-1 # Jaax88 2016-11-19 23:41
Isn't that a bit of sour grapes? How can you blame Taibbi for Bernie's failure? You
would make a very poor journalist with your illogical way of thinking.
 

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