Tag Archives: politics

Kerry Throws Parting Shade at Netanyahu

John Kerry went *in* today on Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump’s actions toward Netanyahu’s right-wing after January 20 will be interesting to watch in how they compare and contrast to how Dubya (during his presidency) interacted with then-PM Ariel Sharon, a former Likudnik who formed his own center-right party because he was opposed by most Likudniks for his unilateral disengagement of settlers and IDF from Gaza.

Trump is likely to be very protective to Israel and West Bank settlers at the UNSC. But I speculate that the two egos at stake here – Trump and Netanyahu – will clash nastily at some point.

And I wonder about Netanyahu’s ego in particular. He’s the Prime Minister who owes, listens and connects the least to the Jewish diaspora – he is the first Prime Minister to be born in Israeli territory after independence in 1948.

Trump + Netanyahu should make for an interesting dynamic

Idea: National Voter ID Card

Hazardous Thought:

I’m seeing on Twitter that ardent Trumpists are very receptive to a “national ID card” as an anti-immigrant measure. They look a great deal at Mexico’s National Voter ID card as an inspiration.

A national ID card would go quite a ways to combat the “voter fraud” boogeyman.

I know that the ACLU is most consistent in opposing both national ID and voter ID.

But I’m wondering if we should support a National ID card while opposing the state-level Voter IDs.

From Tim Kaine to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to Donna Brazile

So the DNC’s bleeding began under then-Governor Tim Kaine as Chair (2009-2011). It was under his watch that the Democrats were shellacked by the Tea Party.

What if President Obama hadn’t requested him as Chair, and had selected someone else to succeed Howard Dean? What if POTUS hadn’t selected Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to succeed Kaine? Where would our country be right now?

Maybe he should have looked less at fundraisers like Kaine and DWS and more at strategists. The primary reason why they were considered as successors to Dean is because they were both good fundraisers.

We need a strategist as chair, not a full-time fundraiser. Ellison’s “3,143 county” seems like a good platform to build on.

Maybe with Ellison as chair, I’ll get less money begs in my email.

The DLC and the “New Democrats”

Those who speak of the DLC and its influence need to know who shaped it.

The DLC was formed in 1985 by Al From in response to Water Mondale’s landslide defeat by Reagan. It was based on the same model and involved many of the same members as the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, Scoop Jackson’s 1970s endeavor to move the party away from the FDR-LBJ trajectory and avoid a repeat of George McGovern’s landslide loss.

The CDM not only helped the political careers of economically-conservative Democrats, but also helped Democrats who later joined the Republican Party and the GW Bush administration. Yes, including the neoconservatives.

The DLC is formally dead as of 2011. Hillary in 2016 was the first non-incumbent Democratic candidate to stand for the presidency since the DLC’s collapse. Some of their vestiges remain, such as the New Democrat Coalition – a moderate, pro-growth caucus in the House – and the Progressive Policy Institute – a moderate think tank. The DLC’s past victories at the ballot have been hollowed out.

The centrist trajectory that has been built since Scoop Jackson’s CDM in 1972 needs a response of equal force and endurance from the resurgent New Left figureheaded by Sanders.

The winning issue at this time is economic populism. Economic feelings matter more than academic facts.

Don’t give Trump a chance. Give economic populism a chance.

The superdelegate system

Every time is a good time to get rid of the superdelegate system.

Even if it results in a McGovern or Carter 1980-style landslide loss, at least it won’t be as skewed between electoral and popular as this is.

If it means that Clintonian democracy will die, so be it.

If it means that outsiders will come into the Democratic Party and run it in the way Donald Trump has done, so be it.

If it means that Iowa won’t be the first or most determinative Democratic contest in the campaign season, so be it.

The optics against the superdelegate system are damning and prone to exaggeration, no matter the self-preservational intentions of those who defend superdelegates.

We can’t call for ending the Electoral College without ending the superdelegate system.

Let the chips fall where they may. End both systems.

Stability über alles

The Electoral College and the two-party system are both defended as forcing political candidates – from president on down – toward the middle of the political spectrum. Both institutions work in tandem.

But this is a deceit which is intended to keep this system alive long after its sell date.

It’s why “Democratic” and “Republican” are two self-descriptions which have changed definition at least 4 times since the Civil War.

It’s why, for a long time, presidential candidates had to pursue campaign promises which appealed to regional differences within the two political parties on political ideology and economic interest. The priorities of a Republican in New York was not the same as those of a Republican in Arizona; a Democrat in Illinois did not have the same priorities as a Democrat in Georgia. But regional differences have minimized somewhat as communication has intensified, more identities have been welcomed or scrutinized, and sitting politicians pursue someone’s model legislation or model lawsuit at the state level across multiple regions.

It’s why we haven’t had a new Constitution since 1787 or a new constitutional amendment since 1971.

We’ve preserved and prioritized stability between regions at the cost of adaptability, and now we are paying the cost.

The liberals are on different agendas than the progressives. The sooner we accept that, the sooner that we will stop walking on each others’ feet.

There’s a reason why the Liberal and NDP parties are separate parties in Canada. They share many goals, but really can’t stand each other. Same here in the U.S.

The DNC chair contest between Keith Ellison and Tom Perez is a proxy fight between progressives and liberals. The Democratic primary showed that this fight has been brewing for a long time, at least since the former DLC became the bulwark against left-wing populists back in the 80s.

Let it play out.

(White/Cis/Het/Male) Class-first Politics

So I’m reading this one tweetstorm from an Irish venture capitalist on how to take back power from conservative and white nationalist politics.

Sounds like an interesting thread, but then I see this:

“Let me tell you what you can’t defend: illegal immigrants, Muslim immigration, most identity politics, pronoun-style feminism, world peace.”….

“Things you cannot attack: foreign wars, the police, mass surveillance, 1984-style use of the internet, and expect key escrow and worse.”…..

“All that territory is ceded. There’s simply no way a right wing government will tolerate mass outcry about those issues, or serious dissent.”

Earlier in the thread, he suggests exploiting fault lines between Confederate and Christian demographics and appealing to the latter because they’re the largest demographic in this country. Later in the thread, he suggests the defense of abortion access should be the best cause around which the center and left should rally.

So, if I’m reading this right, intersectional social justice should be put on hold or outright discarded from the program until left-wing politics return to electoral vogue.

Outcry over deaths of unarmed PoC at the hands of police will have to be muted because far-right government. Defense of LGBT employment and public accommodations access will be extremely lowkey because far-right government. Illegal immigration, DREAMers and war refugees will take several way-in-the-back seats because far-right government. Diversity, visibility and empowerment of historically-marginalized demographics in corporate/government/nonprofit boardrooms and employment will be de-prioritized because far-right government. Racial anything – gerrymandering, voter suppression, overpolicing – will be placed on the backburner because far-right government.

But that’s all “identity politics” of the minority. It’s all expendable and trifling to the majority’s fight.

 

Is it Mere “Blackness” or a Violent “Southernness”

So I was reading an article on Vox critiquing this book by Barry Latzer, “The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America”, which blames African-Americans’ import of “violent black culture” for the rise in urban crime following the end of the Great Migration in the 1960s.

Then the article mentions that Latzer ties “Black culture” to violent White Southern culture, also known as the “Southern culture of honor” studied by Richard Nesbitt and Dov Cohen. The article mentions that this hypothesis has been touted by Thomas Sowell.

Really? Thomas Sowell? The Black supply-side conservative academic who has compared President Obama to Hitler more than once?

Oy.

So apparently, Sowell wrote in the title essay of his 2005 book “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” that “black ghetto culture” is a relic of the highly dysfunctional white southern redneck culture which emanated from the “Cracker culture” of Northern England (among the livestock herders of the border between England and Scotland) and the Scots-Irish of Northern Ireland. Sowell attributes the following to this entire cultural lineage from England to Southern Black America:

“an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship,… and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery.”

Sowell contrasts this cultural lineage against the cultural lineage which emanated from farmers and more urbane types in lower England to what became New England, which emphasized a “Protestant work ethic”, literacy, civic participation, entrepreneurship in a wider number of economic activity, and quieter religious observance. He extends this latter culture – positively – to African-American antebellum New Englanders and Afro-Caribbean migrants.

Sowell, Nesbitt and Cohen all attribute to both White Southern and Black Southern cultures a greater degree of possession-driven violence and aggressive mentalities, both of which negatively impacted Black Southern culture through violent racist, anti-Black regimes and led Southern African-Americans to import this violent culture to urban areas in the North in the 20th century.

But I didn’t know that Sowell is of this opinion that “Black American culture” or “ghetto culture” as we know it now is a relic of White Southern culture. I know that he tends to spar against liberal strawpeople to make his point and preach to the choir, but I would say that his indictment of Black American culture can just as well be an indictment of White Southern culture and its political manifestations against generations of African-Americans in the South.

Idea for Georgia Dems: Have our county Central Committees elected by voters in the General Primary, like California’s Dems.

Because having central committee members nominate and select other members is not working out.

In fact, if you are on a central committee or have been recently elected to a central committee through Party District Caucus, 2017 is your chance to change your committee election method to the 2018 General Primary. This is provided for in Article 7, Section 4 of the DPG Bylaws.