Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Trump Resisters A New Force in American Politics, Changing the Message of the Primaries


As the US presidential election gets nearer, the media remains obsessed with Donald Trump. Not because he says anything of importance, but because of the sensationalist aspect of his demagogy and the encouragement of violence by his supporters. These media filters obscure the fact that his support comes only from a small minority of the overall electorate.

The publicity given to the mogul’s statements, however, has created a pushback against his campaign, motivating younger activists to protest his appearances together with people previously not involved in politics who have become disgusted with Trump’s attacks on immigrants and minorities. As Washington Post opinion writer Eugene Robinson commented: “These protests are important because they show that Americans will not take Trump’s outrageous nonsense lying down. The hapless Republican Party may prove powerless to keep him from seizing the nomination, but GOP primary voters are a small and unrepresentative minority — older, whiter and apparently much angrier than the nation as a whole. … Protests show the growing strength of popular opposition to Trump.”

This weekend, thousands protested at Trump Towers in New York City and demonstrators closed roads leading to a Trump rally in Phoenix, Arizona. Student Sierra K. Thomas, who drove three hours to protest an earlier rally in North Carolina, told the Washington Post: “I knew I had to do something. I couldn’t just sit and watch someone who is trying to be our president incite violence. I could not let the progress people have made in learning to love and accept one another go to waste. … If Trump makes it to the Oval Office, I’m afraid of what will happen to this nation. I want to be a teacher after I graduate; what kinds of lessons would children learn from a president who says it’s okay to kill the families of alleged terrorists and to ban people from the country because of their religion?”

Trump’s overarching victories in the primaries reflect the seething dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the party leadership, which it sees as having reneged on its pledges of bringing down Obama and having acquiesced in the eroding of white privilege. But Trump’s rhetoric is totally in line with that of the Republican establishment: even his outrageous “birther” campaign which sought to deny Obama legitimacy through a veiled racist narrative about his birth certificate, simply extended the Republican strategy of denying legitimacy to any Democratic president as part of their efforts to downsize the federal government.

In the Super Tuesday primaries last week Hillary Clinton undoubtedly benefited from portraying herself as the candidate best placed to prevent Trump achieving the presidency. However, this does not necessarily mean support for the establishment; a better indication of the real mood in the country is the political success of racial justice groups in contesting the primaries of prosecutors who failed to conduct timely prosecutions of police who killed unarmed young black men.

Cook County prosecutor Anita Alvarez in Chicago was challenged after video footage was released that showed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald being shot 13 times by Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke in 2014. Alvarez fought for a year to prevent the release of the dashcam recording to the public. According to In These Times writer Flint Taylor: “Until charging Van Dyke with murder, she had a disgraceful record of almost never prosecuting Chicago police officers for on-duty violence or perjury. … She has also consistently shown contempt for African-American victims of police torture and wrongful convictions. … After a video was released in December of 2015 showing a police officer shoot another fleeing African-American man, Ronald Johnson, in the back, Alvarez refused to charge the officer and, in a 30 minute presentation, attempted to explain away the shooting.  And more than two months after Chicago police officers shot an unarmed, mentally ill 19-year-old African-American honors student, Quintonio LeGrier, and a 55-year-old female bystander, Bettie Jones, who opened the door for the police, Alvarez has yet to bring charges.”

In Ohio, the Guardian reported, “prosecuting attorney Timothy McGinty was unseated by Michael O’Malley, a former deputy county prosecutor. McGinty last year led a contentious and drawn-out grand jury inquiry into the fatal police shooting of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African American boy who was playing with a toy gun in a park in November 2014. In December last year, McGinty announced that no charges would be brought against Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehmann, who shot Tamir within seconds of arriving at the scene in response to a 911 call. Tamir’s family and protesters expressed disgust over the handling of the case by McGinty, who confirmed in December that he had personally recommended to the grand jurors that they not prosecute the officers involved.”

Much of the organizing to unseat Alvarez was led by groups of young African-American activists, such as Black Youth Project 100, Assata’s Daughters and We Charge Genocide. In These Times notes: “These groups and many of their members had previously helped achieve major victories for racial justice in Chicago, including the passage of a bill providing reparations for victims of police torture and, most recently, the planned construction of a Level I trauma center on the city’s south side Hyde Park neighborhood to provide emergency care for victims of gunshot wounds and other life-threatening conditions. Both of those victories were the result of multi-year campaigns and required dogged determination.”

These dogged campaigners and the protesters at Trump’s rallies are linked by the increased sense of enfranchisement among oppressed communities. Bernie Sanders, despite his low polling among older African Americans, is closer to the protesters than Hillary Clinton, who along with Obama condemned both sides for violence at Trump’s rallies. Sanders was the only candidate to confront Trump’s attacks on immigrants directly. In Arizona on Super Tuesday, he gave a speech ignored by Fox News and CNN who preferred to wait for Trump to say something. Sanders said: “We’re a democracy. People have different points of view. But what is not acceptable, no matter what your point of view is, is to throw racist attacks against Mexicans. The reason that Donald Trump will never be elected president is the American people will not accept insults to Mexicans, Muslims or women. … What Trump is about and other demagogues have always been about is scapegoating minorities, turning one group against another group. But we are too smart to fall for that.”

Sanders’ campaign has meant that Clinton has had, at least rhetorically, to condemn factory closures and Wall Street financiers. The New Republic commented: “Trump’s likely nomination gives Sanders a strong incentive to continue in the race—not only to pull Clinton to the left on economic issues, but to argue that her pursuit of well-to-do Republicans is a mistake. This strategy would essentially cede the white working class to Trump, which is risky not only in immediate electoral terms but fraught with danger for the country.”

Even if Clinton wins the Democratic party nomination, Sanders has brought together a diverse and younger group of supporters who are likely to continue campaigning up to and after the election. This is a contrast to the Democratic establishment which has a horror of such unmanageable movements. Despite the media blackout on his campaign, Sanders has inspired a millennial generation with a message that rejects the inevitability of accepting neoliberal limits on the role of government and social programs.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016 Election, Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, Democratic primaries, donald trump, Hillary Clinton, New York City protests, republican primaries, Uncategorized

Chicago and St. Louis Protesters Make Trump’s Nativist Gamble a Losing One in Post-Obama America


chicago-protester

A protester at Trump’s cancelled Chicago rally last Friday

Donald Trump’s inflammatory attacks on immigrants and his incitement of violence against protesters have unleashed social forces that have changed the dynamic of the presidential primary campaign. The cancellation of his Chicago rally on Friday concedes the fact that the groups he is trying to demonize are by no means cowed by his demagogy or by the threats of his supporters, who are prepared to physically intimidate protesters. But by becoming a lightning-rod for white racism, he has created a nativist movement that will only get worse as his campaign continues.  On the Democratic side, the reaction to the Chicago rally has differentiated Clinton and Sanders more clearly than any number of debates on policies.

The energized resistance among nonwhite and immigrant groups who have become active politically to oppose his campaign is an extension of the social coalition that elected Obama. After eight years of a black president, nonwhite citizens feel empowered and enfranchised unlike any other period in American history. These undaunted protesters carry forward the hard-fought victories of the Civil Rights movement, which will have an impact long after Obama’s presidency ends, and will shape the future of American politics for decades to come.

Trump’s rhetoric backfired spectacularly on him when his planned Chicago event was cancelled minutes before it was due to start, once it became clear that protesters made up a large section of the audience.  The New York Times reported: “Hundreds of protesters, who had promised to be a visible presence here and filled several sections of the arena, let out an elated, unstopping cheer. Mr. Trump’s supporters, many of whom had waited hours to see the Republican front-runner, seemed stunned and slowly filed out in anger.” There were a few scuffles with frustrated Trump supporters as they left a car park, but security concerns were said to be over-rated and police denied there was any problem controlling the crowd.

Before the rally was cancelled, a war of words between Trump supporters and protesters had created a highly-charged atmosphere inside the venue, but the altercations remained non-violent even though the event had been provocatively staged at “a giant arena at a richly diverse university in the heart of deeply blue Chicago, guaranteeing he would have protesters and heavy media coverage,” according to the Washington Post. “The audience was the most diverse to ever gather for a Trump rally, a rainbow of skin tones with at least a dozen young women wearing hijabs and a few men in turbans. The crowd was mostly high school and college students from the area, along with a number of local activists and a number of different organization efforts.”

In past events, Trump has publicly attacked protesters, inciting physical violence against them. In Cedar Woods, Iowa, he encouraged his supporters to “knock the crap out of them,” promising to pay for any legal fees, and at one event in North Carolina, a supporter punched a black protester in the face as he was being led out of a rally by police. The man told CNN: “Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization.” The attacker was later charged with assault, disorderly conduct and communicating threats.

Earlier on Friday in St. Louis, Missouri, Trump was visibly frustrated by a group of demonstrators who shut down his rally for a full ten minutes. “The protest, a coordinated effort involving an estimated 40-50 activists, began with the coordinated drop of a large banner from the balcony of the Opera House. One said, ‘Caution, racism lives here’ and the other said ‘Stop the hate.’ The protest also included about 10-15 people on the lower level ripping off their shirts to reveal T-shirts they’d been wearing underneath with anti-Trump slogans.”

Hundreds of people had gathered around the Peabody opera house in downtown St. Louis, many not able to get into the over-capacity venue while others were there to protest. Videos posted to social media showed Trump supporters hurling racial slurs and anti-Islamic remarks at protesters and reporters, but after the event a few dozen people lingered and engaged in a series of loud but civil debates.

The Guardian’s Sarah Kendzior reported: “St Louis is as beset with racial strife as it was during the Ferguson protests, and both outside and inside the Peabody, veterans of those protests had returned to take on Trump. Protesters held signs and chanted slogans as the crowd angrily claimed them as targets. Trump fans screamed racial slurs, including the N-word, at the protesters of many races and backgrounds. Mothers and fathers put their children aside to get in fistfights with activists, and fellow Trump fans cheered them on. Several Trump fans vowed that the next time, they would come armed. Some warned that if Trump was not chosen by Republicans, a militia would rise up to take him to power.”

Hillary Clinton essentially accepted Trump’s own spin on the events by blaming political division rather than Trump’s inflammatory role. In a statement issued early Saturday morning she condemned “divisive rhetoric” in general without mentioning Trump by name. She then bizarrely referred to Dylan Roof’s shooting of nine African American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina. “The families of those victims came together and melted hearts in the statehouse and the Confederate flag came down,” Clinton said. “That should be the model we strive for to overcome painful divisions in our country.” Princeton professor Eddie S. Glaude Jr. criticized Clinton’s response as “more concerned about the fact that protesters fought back than with the racism and nativism of Trump’s rallies.”

Later Saturday morning she called Trump an “arsonist,” but then equated the anger of Trump’s followers with the protesters, marking her as a true member of the establishment. “I know it’s no secret there are people angry on the left, on the right,” she said. “But I believe with all my heart the only way to fix what’s broken is to stand together against the forces of division and discrimination that are trying to divide America between us and them.”

Sanders, by contrast, told supporters: “We’re not going to let Donald Trump or anyone else divide us.” The Chicago Tribune reported: “More than an hour after the Trump event was nixed, Sanders spoke to supporters in southwest suburban Summit. Sanders … said he would defeat the Republican in the general election ‘because the American people are not going to accept a president who insults Mexicans, who insults Muslims’.”

In a statement released the following day, Sanders wrote: “Obviously, while I appreciate that we had supporters at Trump’s rally in Chicago, our campaign did not organize the protests. What caused the protests at Trump’s rally is a candidate that has promoted hatred and division against Latinos, Muslims, women, and people with disabilities, and his birther attacks against the legitimacy of President Obama. What caused the violence at Trump’s rally is a campaign whose words and actions have encouraged it on the part of his supporters.”

Sanders’ clarity is in line with the inclusive and egalitarian nature of his campaign. At a rally at George Mason University in Virginia, after a student named Remaz Abdelgader started questioning him about Islamophobia, Sanders invited her on the stage, gave her a hug, then allowed her to speak from the podium. Linda Sarsour, director of a Muslim online organizing platform, and co-founder of the New York Muslim Democratic Club, told Democracy Now that Sanders has “allowed Muslims to be surrogates and speak at a large rally with about 10,000 people. He’s been meeting with people from multiple segments of the Muslim community. He is making—he’s finally saying, ‘You’re part of this—our community. You’re part of our nation. I want to hear what you have to say.’ That’s all we’re asking for.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Bernie Sanders, chicago rally, donald trump, Ferguson protests, Hillary Clinton, muslims in america, primary elections, Uncategorized

What Victory for Bernie and Trump in Michigan Means: American Workers Vote Against Neoliberalism


What the voting in the US presidential primaries has revealed so far are some important realignments in the social consensus underlying the two-party system. A surprise win for Bernie Sanders in the key rustbelt state of Michigan upset political commentators and the Democratic establishment and has led to renewed attention on class issues submerged under decades of neoliberalism. Meanwhile,  Trump’s win in the state’s Republican primary underlines the fact that he is the only Republican candidate to address working class fortunes directly.

Sanders’ consistent opposition to free trade deals contrasted sharply with Bill Clinton’s implementation of NAFTA in the 1990s: the state lost more than 46,000 jobs in the last 25 years because of that single deal. Exit polls reported that “nearly six in 10 voters thought trade took away American jobs – and nearly six in 10 of people who said that, backed Sanders. … This echoes the Republican side of the primary. More than half of voters thought that trade cost jobs; four in 10 of them backed Donald Trump.”

Hillary Clinton had relied heavily on identity politics to give her the vote, as it had in Nevada and South Carolina, and pollsters assumed that the black population of Detroit would go for Clinton in the same way. Instead, according to Politico, Sanders’ “appeal to youth voters busted through the color line – Clinton won blacks 60-40 (not 80-20, as she did in her Tuesday win in Mississippi) – and Sanders fought her to a draw among under-40 African Americans. … And she barely held on to win Genesee County, home to Flint, the emotional focal point of her Michigan effort – and, in many ways, her entire campaign.”

Sanders campaigned through the whole state, appealing to white and black workers alike, while Clinton focused on African American communities like Flint and Detroit in east Michigan. The New York Times reported: “Mr. Sanders crisscrossed the state, speaking to more than 41,000 people, and his campaign opened 13 offices and hired 44 staffers to carry his message. He also visited places that were largely overlooked by the Clinton campaign, including Traverse City and Kalamazoo.”

The rejection of candidates favored by the Republican establishment in that party’s primaries is evidence that their voters are motivated by more than resentment of immigration, since all the candidates have voiced opposition to legalizing undocumented people; they are antagonistic to what they perceive as a corrupt political system that has betrayed them, and consider the wealthy Trump to be independent of corporate manipulation.

Trump’s rallies attract disparate groups, ranging from white supremacists to people angry about jobs being outsourced abroad.  This creates a potent mix of people susceptible to group hysteria as Trump makes his outrageous attacks on Muslims and immigrants; but while the media focus on these remarks, the bulk of his populist message denounces trade agreements and America’s economic decline.

According to Guardian reporter Thomas Frank, a study carried out by a union-affiliated group found that the main attraction of Trump for white working-class voters in Cleveland and Pittsburgh was his blunt approach to these questions. “As far as issues are concerned, ‘immigration’ placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: ‘good jobs / the economy’,” notes Frank. “‘People are much more frightened than they are bigoted,’ is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey ‘confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don’t have a future’ and that ‘there still hasn’t been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another’.”

The likelihood of Trump becoming their presidential candidate has thrown the Republican party establishment into panic mode. But the party is now too fragmented to be able to mount a strong alternative. The Republican-controlled legislature has reinforced Trump’s claim to better political management skills by its own undermining of government legitimacy, from the threat of government shutdown in 2011 to its refusal to even consider any candidate nominated by Obama for the Supreme Court. Moreover, in the debates “Trump, Cruz, and Rubio ascribe to Barack Obama any and all problems besetting the nation … the Republican critique reinforces reigning theories of presidential omnipotence. Just as an incompetent or ill-motivated chief executive can screw everything up, so, too, can a bold and skillful one set things right.”

The much more diverse Democratic voters are not in disagreement over policy so much as their judgment of the candidate most likely to defeat the Republicans. In fact, Trump has succeeded in energizing new sections of the Democratic base to prevent him coming to power. He has done more than the Democratic leadership to rouse voters’ enthusiasm since they are as guilty as the Republicans of undermining working class jobs and have moved well away from a New Deal perspective. Sanders seeks to restore this orientation, but while he appeals to millennial youth who are bearing the brunt of the continuing recession, many older Democrats see Clinton as the safer candidate to beat Trump.

Candidates’ support is also connected with their attitudes to the Obama administration: while Sanders is favored by white liberals critical of Obama’s presidency, most African Americans are supportive of Hillary Clinton, since they see Obama as having achieved small victories domestically. Black youth who face unemployment, police harassment, and huge college loan debt are far more sympathetic to Sanders.

Latinos who are critical of Obama for failing to carry out promises on immigration reform gave Sanders a victory in Colorado on Super Tuesday, where they make up nearly 15 percent of eligible voters in the state. Juan Gonzalez pointed out there has been a 40 percent increase nationwide since 2008 in the number of eligible Latinos that could vote in the coming election. He added: “You’ve seen Univision say that they’re going to use all of their television stations and their networks to promote a 3 million-voter registration drive among Latinos. I think what’s actually needed is more of a Freedom Summer campaign by the Latino youth of America, similar to what happened in the civil rights movement … where thousands of Latino youth go into their communities and say, ‘You’re not going to deport our parents. We’re American citizens, and we’re going to make a stand in terms of Basta Trump’.”

These shifts in electoral allegiances make it by no means certain that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, but if she does, she will have to adopt much of Sanders’ platform in order to defeat Trump’s populist appeal. Either way, new sections of the American working class have been energized by the redrawing of class lines in political discourse.

1 Comment

Filed under 2016 Election, Bernie Sanders, Democratic primaries, donald trump, Hillary Clinton, Michigan, Neoliberalism, republican primaries, Uncategorized

Waking Up to the Minority Vote, the New, Decisive Force in Post-Obama Politics


The South Carolina Democratic primary voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton as presidential candidate, by a margin of 50 percent over Bernie Sanders. Rather than analyzing the meaning of this vote, the media and the campaign professionals immediately turned to the candidates’ prospects on Super Tuesday, when a large number of states hold their primaries.

However, there are some important messages here which are obscured by a narrow focus on the political process. African Americans in South Carolina turned out in unprecedented numbers to participate in the primary – 6 out of 10 voters were black. And of those, 83 percent voted for Clinton. The Associated Press reported that in exit polls about 7 in 10 voters said they wanted the next president to continue Obama’s policies, indicating ideological agreement with Clinton’s strategy of building on his legacy.

The first thing to note is that the result should be seen as a class vote against the possibility of a Republican president. The relentless media reporting of Trump’s anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim propaganda, together with the pronounced right-wing rhetoric of the Republican debates, are perceived rightly as a threat to black workers. Trump has succeeded in making abundantly explicit the racist basis of the Republican party, empowering extreme white supremacists, and making the Republican brand anathema among minorities. This goes a long way to undermining the Republican strategy of delegitimizing Democratic presidents and may lose them the Senate.

African Americans voted pragmatically for what they saw as the best candidate to defeat a Republican, and specifically, Trump.  Janell Ross commented in the Washington Post: “Black voters in South Carolina cast 6 in every 10 Democratic primary votes, according to CNN’s exit poll data. That ratio is huge — and sets a record-high in South Carolina black voter participation rate. The previous high was 55 percent, set in 2008, when the first black president was on his way to being elected. … these are its outcomes when black voters are convinced of their ability and authority to fundamentally shape American democracy. It is a result that should begin to crush the popular and often repeated myth that black political behavior in 2008 and 2012 was nothing more than a blip, a fleeting kind of emotion-only engagement inspired by a singular and history-making black candidate.”

Second, although a number of prominent black intellectuals like Michelle Alexander and Cornel West are highly critical of the Clintons’ record of legislation in the 1990s that led to mass incarceration of African American men and the dismantling of poverty programs, that message hasn’t reached the black working class. The history that black people remember is the vilification of Bill Clinton by the Republican Congress over the Monica Lewinsky affair, and, as Toni Morrison indicated by calling him the “first black president,” identified with his being hounded by the establishment.

Third, most black workers get their politics from their local churches and mainstream Democratic party leadership. And that was pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders. “A host of well-known, influential and well-connected black elected officials and leaders of civic and religious institutions have made their support for Clinton quite clear. And they have done everything possible to identify themselves as people opposed to a Sanders candidacy. … And, almost as if to say that the shooting death of an unarmed black person is the modern uber-black experience, the Clinton campaign has collected endorsements from several grieving black relatives. The mother of Trayvon Martin has even stumped for Clinton and explained her pro-Clinton voting rather logically in some detail. … Clinton [frames] issues like childcare and the gender wage gap, voting rights and criminal justice and gun policy reforms in ways that make their importance to black voters clear.”

Her political positioning as a champion of African American workers was prefigured in the Nevada primary. Clinton’s victory there was mainly due to the votes of casino workers in Las Vegas, who thanks to the efforts of Nevada senator Harry Reid were given time and opportunity to caucus at their places of work. In These Times contributor Steven Rosenfeld reported from one of the casinos: “Calvin Brooks, a Louisiana native, has been a bellman for 19 years in this hotel. Speaking slowly and deliberately, he explained why Clinton was his choice. ‘This is a union state. This is a union city. The president that we need today is somebody that will stand with us, to keep us together as a whole,’ he said. ‘My mind is made up for Hillary, someone who has been in the White House, not around it’.” Erlinda Falconer, an African-American women and blackjack dealer at the casino for 18 years, told Rosenfeld: “The majority of us realize how serious this election is and the impact it will have on our country and state. This is very, very important. There’s a lot on the line This isn’t a popularity contest. This is trying to get back on track.”

While earlier in the campaign Sanders took on board the criticisms of Black Lives Matter activists, he was too late to the party. Radicalized black youth may have challenged Clinton over her role in the 1990s, but they haven’t influenced the older majority. On Wednesday she was confronted at a fundraiser in Charleston by Ashley Williams, a Black Lives Matter protester, who demanded she apologize for the consequences of her husband’s 1994 crime bill and for having called black youth “super-predators” in a 1996 speech on crime.

Moreover, white progressives have difficulty dealing with race. Sanders’ attempt to reduce racial issues to economics are in line with his social-democratic outlook. But this perspective is inadequate to deal with the complex interrelations of class and race in America. The Washington Post commented: “Clinton doesn’t shy away from race. Sanders talks about race, too, of course. But he seems to do so at a remove, and his attempts to make a convincing link between his economic message and race continue to fall short. … Clinton openly talks about the necessary role that whites must play in healing and bridging the racial divide.” This has resonated with African Americans who resent being told that they are responsible for dealing with white resistance to acknowledging the role of slavery and the defeat of Reconstruction in American society.

Whoever wins the nomination and presidency, the social, cultural and demographic changes in the US are asserting themselves in the elections. The narrative of an “anti-establishment” vote is being superseded by a class consciousness that empowers African American and Latino voters. The realities of class struggle in America today require tackling racism head-on, something that the left has not attempted since the 1930s when the American Communist party sent members into the South to organize black and white workers into unions, risking their lives in the process.

Rather than tying the fortunes of the left to Sanders’ coat-tails, it needs to address the movements that have built up around this election and build an inclusive and pluralist movement that takes the heritage of the Occupy movement into new territory.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016 Election, African Americans, Bernie Sanders, Democratic primaries, donald trump, Hillary Clinton, Obama, occupy wall street, Republicans, Uncategorized

The Center Cannot Hold: The US Primary Season 2016


In all the hoopla about the presidential primary season, one thing has become clear: the fractures in the Republican and Democratic parties that have surfaced will long outlive this election.

Republican establishment candidates have been resoundingly rejected – Trump and Cruz are favored because of a xenophobic turn in the the party’s declining white base that the candidates have embraced and accentuated. The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne commented that “the results in Iowa showed a party torn to pieces. Ted Cruz won because he understood from the start the importance of cornering the market on Christian conservatives who have long dominated Iowa’s unusual process. … Donald Trump has created a new wing of the Republican Party by combining older GOP tendencies — nationalism, nativism, racial backlash — with 21st-century worries about American decline and the crushing of working-class incomes. … Marco Rubio was the remainder candidate, pulling together most of the voters who couldn’t stand Trump or Cruz.”

What is more significant about Trump’s Bonapartist posturing, however, is that he has changed the alignment of conservative forces by his inflammatory rhetoric against opponents and, as a New York resident writes in Naked Capitalism, by building institutional links with the police. “This is an armed working class unionized pro-government demographic that is not especially fond of plutocrats and has no problem with the government taking responsibility for both full employment and, well, for social order. They are trusted with the legal authority to discipline citizens, and they are the basis for the enforcement of our legal system. A lot of them feel threatened by recent protests. And they are giving Trump enthusiastic endorsements.”

On the Democratic side, Sanders has confounded all predictions by matching Clinton’s vote in Iowa, despite an improbable series of coin tosses that gave her a marginal victory. However, Democrats are less divided over policy, more over who is electable. Dionne noted that most Democrats “share Clinton’s view that gradual reform is the most practical way forward. But most also agree with Sanders that even moderately progressive steps will be stymied if money’s influence is left unchecked, if progressives do not find new ways of organizing and mobilizing, and if so many white working-class voters continue to support Republicans.”

This was confirmed by Harold Meyerson, who attended a Democratic fund-raiser in New Hampshire where the supporters of both campaigns displayed a programmatic consensus. “Even as the Bernie kids erupted in a thunderstick-banging cacophony as Sanders emphatically delivered one progressive pledge after another, so, too, did the Hillary backers raise theirs and wave them about as Bernie unveiled his platform.”

The New York Times noted the differences in class alignment of the two campaigns. “Mr. Sanders has focused on class issues, unlike Mr. Obama, who focused on many of the priorities of well-educated voters, like climate change and foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, has adopted a more pragmatic message that may have more appeal to affluent voters than a political revolution. Mr. Sanders might have also benefited from a change in the ideological composition of working-class voters. More conservative working-class whites may have switched over to the G.O.P. over the last few years, or simply found themselves unwilling to turn out this time for Mrs. Clinton, who has run a steadfastly liberal campaign.”

But Sanders’s challenge to Clinton’s closeness to Wall Street is muted in some respects. Columnist Greg Sargent notes: “Sanders constantly points to the funding of her campaign — and her acceptance of speaking fees — as symptomatic of this problem. But Sanders does not want to take the final step and say that Clinton personally is making the policy choices she does precisely because she is beholden to the oligarchy, due to its funding of her campaign. The upshot is that Sanders is indicting the entire system, but doesn’t want to question the integrity of Clinton herself — or perhaps doesn’t want to be seen doing that. This is the central tension at the heart of Sanders’s whole argument.”

Prominent feminists like Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright have rebuked younger women for supporting Sanders over Clinton, who they want to be the first woman president. However, a special circle of hell surely awaits Albright, who when Secretary of State publicly claimed the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi children was acceptable collateral damage. And British citizens may well shudder at the memory of their first female prime minister.

Clinton has the support of the Democratic party machine and the union bureaucracy. She has already lined up several hundred so-called super delegates, who are the top elected Democratic officials in Congress and the states. In These Times reports: “She has also fielded the endorsements of a number of high-profile unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. … One of the most important endorsements of the race could be that of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest union federation. A number of AFL-CIO local and state branches have endorsed Bernie, but they were rebuked in July by President Richard Trumka for doing so, as such endorsements are against the federation’s rules.” While union members tend to favor Sanders, their officials are firmly in the Clinton camp.

Sanders, on the other hand, has generated huge enthusiasm in the liberal base, especially among the generation of Occupy Wall Street. Salon notes the leftward shift in the potential future leaders of the Democratic party: “The breakdown between supporters of Clinton versus supporters of Sanders falls along shockingly clear generational lines, and should absolutely terrify any centrist Democrat holding national office. Among caucus-goers age 17-29, Sanders won 84-14; among those 65 and over, Clinton won 69-26. … Consider, briefly, the challenge facing Democratic National Convention chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who is facing a primary opponent for the first time in her six terms serving in the House. Shultz is opposed by a lawyer and former Occupier named Tim Canova, an almost too-perfect avatar of the changes roiling through the party base.”

Nobody can deny the adeptness of the Clintons’ grasp of the levers of power. But between now and the election, what unanticipated events might have their impact on public consciousness? Incremental progress on social issues is possible when there is a growing economy, but political shocks can change what the public demands.

What it comes down to is this: the public have rejected the oligarchical establishment. But can democracy be sustained when the electorate sees so clearly the corruption of the political system?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016 Election, Bernie Sanders, Democratic primaries, donald trump, Hillary Clinton, republican primaries, Uncategorized