Tom Rinaldo
Tom Rinaldo's JournalDemocracy is messy
It's always been that way. People competing for power have egos as well as ideals. It's not just about ideology. Democrats, like Republicans, often oppose each other in primaries over who better deserves to get the job, more so than over differences in policy. Then they look for nuances of difference regarding policy to differentiate themselves from each other. And when the major distinctions between them isn't about differing core convictions, but rather about different characters and skills, that becomes a recipe for negative campaigning.
It is naive to expect all milk and honey in Democratic primaries. That almost never is the case. True, some contests are more negative than others, but virtually every campaign does opposition research on opponents in their own party, with the intention of using it if it will aid their electoral efforts. Some go over the line while doing so, but that line is poorly defined and people disagree on where it lies.
A case can be made for trying to discourage primaries between Democrats. Regardless of whether it is a good or bad idea to do so, it flies in the face of reality. People in politics have career ambitions just like everyone else. Many a successful political career would have stalled out completely if the prevailing view was never to challenge a sitting office holder from your own party. And politicians tend to believe in themselves, thinking that they offer something uniquely special that justifies their own run. It kind of goes with the territory.
I believe in primaries because, among other things, I believe that power has a tendency to corrupt when that tendency is not checked. That is not the same thing as saying those who hold power always become corrupt, they don't. But one of the reasons why they don't is the knowledge that even in a "safe district" they can always be challenged and thrown out of office via a primary challenge. But mostly I believe in primaries because I believe in democracy. And I say that now more than ever precisely because the only politically viable alternative to the Democratic Party, today's Republican Party, has become so lethal to the very concept of real democracy.
There is no sane alternative to the Democratic Party today, which means that we virtually have to vote for whoever is running with the Democratic nomination in the Fall. I accept that truth. But that also means that the only arena left for people to advance differing positive views and priorities through candidates devoted to them, is through Democratic primaries. With Republicans totally disqualified, it is also the only realm open where average voters can still weigh in on which individual (not just their platform) will best represent their interests.
I can be pretty forgiving of "transgressions" they may have made during a primary contest if the candidates who emerges victorious from Democratic Party Primaries will work to advance my basic agenda once in office. And the Democratic Party does. My position is to sort out our differences with primaries as called for, then unite behind the winner. Precisely because I oppose third party candidates in the current political context, I support robust competition within the Democratic Party between those who are pledged to support the resulting Democratic candidate in November.
The media is still refusing to state the obvious about Helsinki
The reason why U.S. officials at the highest levels still don't know exactly what Trump and Putin talked about and agreed to there is because Trump didn't then and doesn't now want them to know what Trump and Putin talked about and agreed to.. That is the one and only reason why Trump would hold a summit with Putin that excluded every other member of his administration from those talks, and why not even a stenographer was allowed to be present at the meeting.
It was not simply unusual for the Secretary of State, the Ambassador to Russia, the head of U.S. intelligence operations, the CIA director, and the National Security Advisor to be excluded from all actual discussions between Putin and Trump, it was designed to keep the contents of those discussion secretive; guarded against members of our own government from discovering what actually happened in that room. The intent always was total evasion from discovery of what exactly transpired in that room.
It is that simple, and it needs to be described as what it was.
Master negotiator? MASTER NEGOTIATOR??? Is that what he calls himself? REALLY?
The Middle East: The crown jewel of the peace process in the Middle East is the ultimate status of Jerusalem. Everybody, and I mean everybody knows that. So Donald Trump decides to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move our embassy there. Of course there is no simultaneous acknowledgement of Jerusalem also being the capital of the Palestinian state. Trump followed the lead of the hard liners in Israel who see all of Palestine as a rightful part of Israel, starting with total control of Jerusalem. What was Israel forced to concede in return for being granted this ultimate wet dream by an American President, outside of the framework of a comprehensive Middle East peace treaty? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And now the leverage is gone.
North Korea: Decades after the cessation of fighting on the Korea peninsular there still is no peace. Both sides remain armed to the teeth in a state that can be called deterrence through mutually assured destruction (for Koreans at the very least). Now North Korea has developed nuclear weaponry to the point where American territorial security can be threatened by it. North Korea seeks two major things. Recognition on the world stage as having a legitimate government with full acceptance and standing among the world's other nations, and iron clad assurances that the current regime inside North Korea will be left intact as a family run fiefdom. America wants North Korean denuclearization. What does Trump do? He agrees to the first time ever summit between an American President and North Korea's "Supreme Leader", elevating the latter to peer status on the world stage. Then he suspends American joint military exercises with South Korea designed to ensure a robust military countermeasure to North Korean provocations, meant to pose a credible threat to the existence of the North Korean regime should it ever pursue military aggression. What was North Korea forced to change in return? Nothing. Absolutely nothing (they promised to do better in the future). And now the leverage is gone.
And then there is Russia. Russia which invaded our election process. Russia which secretly helped pry the UK out of the European Union. Russia which seeks to undermine all Western Democracies through disinformation campaigns (among other means) that elevate Neo Nazi forces across the European continent. And Russia which invaded the neighboring state of The Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. The Crimea was legally once a part of Russia, and Putin wanted it back. It has a large Russian speaking population, and warm water ports. But in part because Russia seized it by force, Russia's economy now labors under significant economic sanctions that it wants to get out from under. Recognizing Russian sovereignty over The Crimea would be a massive gift to Putin, one that would potentially further destabilize the until recently recognized world order. Big stakes, high cost. A skilled negotiator might secretly dangle that possible concession as a reward at the end of a long process of negotiations in which Russia made significant verifiable and multiple positive changes in it's behavior on the world stage, and towards the United States specifically. Not to be determined now, to be evaluated later. But what is Trump now doing? Openly discussing United States recognition of Russia's annexation of The Crimea. And what will Russia be forced to do in return? Probably nothing, absolutely noting. And then the leverage would be gone.
Put the odds at 50/50 that Trump will offer to return Alaska to Russia as a goodwill gesture at the upcoming summit. Such is the skill of our nation's "master negotiator".
This is what I really didn't expect from the National Republican Party
Warm overtures to traditional American adversaries, Russia, China, and North Korea. Insults; provocations and disruptive acts towards traditional American allies, Canada, Mexico, Japan, N.A.T.O., the EU, France, Germany, the UK, etc.
Nothing Trump does really surprises me. Nothing the Republican Party does regarding wealth distribution or racial relations inside the U.S. really surprises me. But I never expected them to just roll over and accept the complete inversion of America's foreign policy that they stood fast behind for over 70 years. I admit, I actually over estimated the Republican Party in that regard. Yes, I know Putin demands it of Trump. I just hadn't realized how far Russia had gotten in compromising one of America's two major political parties, the virulently anti-communist one at that.
Civil or uncivil isn't the point. It's what will help us win in November
Taking back the House, and even possibly the Senate, is "Plan A" for resistance right now. That plus "Plan M" for Mueller, but we have no role for now in "Plan M", so "Plan A" is it for the rest of us. "Plan A" remains in effect for just a short 4 and a half month window. Then we take stock of where we stand, and the door will swing wide open for Plans B through Z if necessary.
I'm not concerned with the moral tone of our resistance right now. As long as it is non violent, all resistance to Trumpism is justified in the face of what Trump is doing. But i do weigh how the other actions we can take might impact the chances of "Plan A" succeeding, until the mid terms are behind us.
I don't judge the call to confront those complicit with Trump in public, that leaders like Congresswoman Waters are making, on its stand alone merit alone. I have no doubt those types of confrontations are fully warranted. The only question is whether they are tactically wise. Will they add to voter turn out for the anti-Trump forces more than they will do so for the Trumpsers? Will they effect voter turnout for us in positive or negative ways inside the districts we must win in November?
I honestly don't know the answer to those questions, but I have no doubt it is what various Democratic leaders are weighing now when they speak out on the issue of so-called "civil discourse". I will say this though. Were it not for the rapidly approaching mid term elections that will be so consequential to our nation in so many critical ways, I would be clearer on the simple principle that evil must be confronted where and when we find it (as long as we don't embrace aspects of evil in order to supposedly fight it).
We can't quietly stand by and allow America to slide ever closer to malevolent authoritarian rule. It just might be though that confronting it now, in Washington malls and restaurants, could in places undermine our effectiveness at confronting it at the ballot box in November. That is the only question, not whether "good Americans" are supposed to always stay "civil".
We literally can't allow the people we know who don't agree with Trump to not vote in November
We all have to become pains in the ass about this. Ask direct questions. Find out who is and is not already registered. Make sure people check to see if they have been purged from the roles in time to reverse it if they have been. We should all carry around registration applications.
In every election there are people who "intended to vote" but for one reason or another fail to do so. We have to hold each other accountable on this, and we should all carry around applications for absentee voting to give out as needed.
We must make this very personal. It is up to each and every one of us to not allow anyone we know of voting age, who disagrees with what Trump is doing, to not vote this November. We have to directly ask and we can't just take "Yes" for an answer until we are sure that means "Hell yes!"
I propose we launch something like "The American Election Challenge"
I'm still mulling over how to do it best. Right now 40% of voting age Americans don't vote in presidential elections. Percentages are worse for other elections. The premise would be this: "Let's find out what kind of Government we can have if everyone actually voted".
The Challenge would cover all elections between November 2018 and November 2022. Call it a Grand Experiment in Democracy and widely use social media to get as many people as possible to take the pledge. It would revolve around personal pledges to collectively put to rest any uncertainty over how much of a difference the act of voting can make, by individuals signing up for a 5 year voting trial involving all elections between November 2018 and November 2022. There should be a designated web site for people to participate through. It should be ideologically neutral to make it easier to advocate for (studies indicate that non voters seem far more aligned with Democrats). The goal is to get everyone to vote and let the chips fall where they may after the vast majority of Americans make their feelings known by showing up and voting at all elections.
I envision all pledge takers updating their progress during a designated week every January. How well did they do? Updates should be in a form that can be statistically tabulated and reported on for pledge takers as a whole. To earn an "A+" rating one would need to vote in every school board, local, state and national election for the entire 5 year cycle. An "A" rating would be earned by all who minimally voted in every local state and national election during that time frame. A "B" rating would be all who voted in at least every state and national election between 11/18 and 11/22. A passing grade of "C" could be earned by missing only one state or national election during that time frame. The pledge would include a place to report when voter suppression efforts prevented someone from voting, and that specific "failure to vote" would not be counted against the pledge maker.
I envision using a campaign like this in particular to target and motivate young voters. We can dramatically change the world by 2022 IF WE ALL VOTE. Obviously we will never get everyone to vote, but we can increase voter participation rates enough to bring about radical changes in who gets elected to office AND WE HAVE TO!
For over 100 years (at least)
American Presidents have (overtly) governed by appealing to a united United States of America. They talked about the strength of the American people, of the resourcefulness of the American people, even of the goodness of the American people. They talked about common beliefs, about there being much more that united us than divided us. I have personal memories of 11 of them (I was a toddler during Truman). They all at least tried to project at least a veneer of bipartisanship and inclusiveness while they claimed to represent all Americans
Often they only invoked the myth of America, the one in which all people are treated equally. But very very rarely did they openly work to divide us even further than we already were. Nixon came closest to openly playing "us" against "them". But then the divisions among us were already exploding all around us anyway - with racial disturbances and anti-war protests engulfing large swathes of our nation. And even Nixon did not stake out the divisive extreme; George Wallace was the national figure doing that.
We do not need to invoke comparisons to a certain German leader of a former century, he was not alone in his play book, just in how far he took it. There are many rulers who consolidate power by pitting the majority of their citizens against delegated scapegoat minorities, while deriding all open opposition to their policies as anti-patriotic - even to the point of calling critics "enemies of the people". They just, until now, have not been American leaders.
This is what defines the Trump presidency; broad brush smear campaigns against any group not his own, against any organized entity that chooses to oppose him. He intentionally uses his "bully pulpit" to inflame divisions, not to heal them. He openly mocks his "fellow Americans" for daring to differ from him. History has shown that, hideous though it is, that path can lead the consolidation of state power in the hands of those who are willing to promulgate the most hideous of lies.
This is why Donald Trump is an American fascist, though his stated ideology and actions to date may still seem, to many, to fall short of that creed.
Angela Merkel & Justin Trudeau would not wantonly rip kids away from parents, but Kim Jong-un would
As would Vladimir Putin if it served his personal interests. America has a President who not only won't uphold human rights, he doesn't believe in them. He scorns leaders committed to basic democratic principles like Theresa May, however Conservative she otherwise may be, and plays footsie with the autocrats of Europe's xenophobic Far Right, like Marine Le Pen.
His entire life Trump has been a predator; molesting women at will, exploiting labor he subsequently refuses to pay for, running scams on people desperate for higher education to improve their economic prospects, milking the cause of veterans to siphon money into his fake charity for personal use, etc.
Donald Trump not only aligns himself with America's traditional enemies: He is America's traditional enemy .
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 20, 2003, 06:39 PMNumber of posts: 22,913
