Tag: killing

Politics is the art of lying with all sincerity

The just-concluded Democratic Convention made history on two accounts.

On the positive side, a female gained the nomination of a major American political party. For the nation touting itself as the world’s oldest and best democracy, this achievement is too late in the making. In some ways, it is more redress than progress. That a female candidate now follows a Black one parallels the history of the 1960s when the Civil Rights Movement opened the door to the Women’s Right Movement.

On the negative side, the convention was nothing short of the burial of the Democratic Party as the home of progressive American politics. During the convention, abundant paeans were raised to the paragon of conservative Republican virtue, Ronald Reagan.  Franklin Roosevelt, the most progressive and the greatest Democratic president in the nation’s history, was barely spoken of. He was orphaned from the party he raised to prominence. That party divorced itself from the ideals and spirit that transformed America for the better after the Great Depression.

Roosevelt’s name and legacy was acknowledged more by the protesters outside the hall who lamented the funeral of progressive ideals taking place within the edifice. Give credit to the organizers of the event. Rarely has a funeral been so artfully concealed and cheerfully executed before the eager but undiscerning eye of an entire nation. However, a burial it still was.

The liberal Democratic Party is no longer. Before our eyes, that transformed itself into what the Republican Party used to be forty years ago. Due to the excesses of Donald Trump and the Tea Party before him, today’s Republican Party is atavistic, an eruption ofsmoldering prejudices and an angry heave to pull the nation back into a past that seemed more convivial to working class White America.

The helm of the Republican Party has been turned over to a cackle of political berserkers. They have pulled their party to the extreme right while the Clinton-Obama establishment has navigated their party into channels once worked by Republicans. America remains in the gravitational pull of a constrictive economic situation. When truly progressive policies are most needed, the Democratic Party has failed to produce someone who might champion a progressive solution.

At its convention, the Democratic Party accomplished what technically is a marvelous feat of political imagery. They succeeded in persuading a large swath of the American population that returning Hillary Clinton to the White House augurs reform. While ecstatic conventioneers feted this “old new,” they barely noticed the casket filled with the party’s progressive legacy being walking out the side door.

The people have been enticed into a great misperception that likely will come to injure them. A superficial change in personality and gender has been dressed as if it matters more than the pedigree of a candidate’s policy or leadership abilities. The convention was a masterful show at making the superficial appear profound and in marking anyone who questioned this conflation as acutely peevish or hopelessly naïve. Those who insisted on faithfulness to the ideals that made the Democratic Party a liberal platform were depicted as failing to be pragmatic and responsible.

In combination with the backward evolution of the Republican Party, this metamorphosis of the Democratic gathering means the two major American parties have made a great turn rightward. This period may come to be recorded in American history as the “Regressive Era or the Great Regression,” in stark contrast to the period roughly 100 years ago known as the Progressive Era. The rightward steps of both parties reveal the extent these political organs are captive to Money Power and its allied corporatist, militaristic interests.

Poll after opinion poll affirm the majority of Americans favor liberal positions on overall economic policy and foreign affairs. Yet, someone who faithfully holds to these progressive stances has no genuinely welcome political home at the moment. Both major parties push further to the right against the well-measured wishes of the populace. Because of this increasing divergence, political parties and their conventions must erect a grand show. They have to make people believe they are getting what they want and need. The reality is the people are given temporary emotional stimulus to make them enthused and happy enough to welcome into their very bosom the long-term injury to their interests that is about to come due to the narrow policies of both parties.

Against this backdrop, the Democratic convention was a political masterstroke. It was as nearly a perfect subterfuge as one can get. However, there was a moment when the convention might have taken on the aspect of a runaway train. The convention opened to a rocky start because of unauthorized leaks of party emails showing party officials had connived to throttle Bernie Sander’s campaign. That officials obviously favored the Clinton campaign violated their duty to be neutral managers of the process. Not to fear.

Party chairwoman Wasserman Schultz was quickly removed once it became clear that her presence would be a point of open contention, precipitating a nasty floor fight. Such ructions would have been to the unalloyed glee of Donald Trump. Stepping in was veteran operative Donna Brazile. This made no sense.

Brazile was notoriously more pro-Clinton than Wasserman Schultz. However, where Wasserman Schultz has a grating personality, Brazile is charming and likeable. She is also Black. Few White Sanders advocates would dare “boo” Brazile out of fear of being derided as racists. The brewing rebellion within the convention hall was artfully doused. The problem was not so much resolved as slid under the table.

Moreover, Brazile was adept at convention engineering. She managed the floor aggressively, ensuring against large scale disruptions that would make a bad television spectacle. For her transgressions, Wasserman Schultz was appointed chairperson of the Clinton campaign. For Sanders supporters, this was a blunt poke in the eye.  Clinton apparently thinks most Sander’s people will eventually back her because they have no alternative. Consequently, she need not make any material concession to them. If events at the convention are indicative, that position may be wrong.

When Clinton was nominated, hundreds of Sanders’ supporters walked out. When Sanders earlier tried to convince his supporters to back Clinton, his entreaty was greeted with rowdy opprobrium. Still, many Sanders advocates will back Clinton. However, it appears a sizeable portion will never reach that decision. In a tight race, they might make a difference. Clinton may come to regret her brusque disregard for their views.

Where the Republican convention had the rough and tawdry atmospherics of a professional wrestling event, the Democratic edition was refined and smooth. With much of the Republican establishment boycotting his nomination, Trump was reduced to being a one-man show. Where more conventional politicians would have been deflated, his massive ego probably enjoyed the outcome that made him the main actor, the center stage and the spotlight rolled into one.

Conversely, the Democrats presented a phalanx of heavy hitters. All their speeches were well crafted and professionally executed. However, something was missing.  For all their obvious political astuteness, no one said anything memorable. What they said has already been forgotten. Their words were but for the moment.When the moment slipped passed, so did their words.

Bernie Sanders talked more about defeating Trump than lauding Clinton. Sanders fulfilled his job to the bitter end. That Sanders, for all of his progressive pretense,would support Clinton was preordained. Having whipped up the passions and support of the left wing of the party, his job was to turn them to Clinton.

His task was to make them go right when what they worked for was to get Bernie the win or make Clinton veer left in the process. Their labor proved to be in vain. Sanders sought to lead them like a Judas goat into the slaughterhouse. Many went. However, hundreds walked out of the convention in protest. These hundreds represent a good slice of the 13 million people who voted for Sanders during the primary. The mainstream media did not take much note of this walkout. As previously mentioned, it may be an overlooked but important indication that many progressives will not follow the party to the right. They would rather venture the wilderness than be duped into slaughtering their ideals on the abattoir of what others call political compromise and pragmatism.

The biggest loser at the convention was Senator Elizabeth Warren. Weeks before, Warren let ambition get the better of her. Warren had been seen as a chevron of the progressive moment, even more than Sanders. That she as a woman and an even more ardent public critic of Money Power only added to her appeal. Had she run against Clinton, Sanders would not have dared enter the race. Warren had a better chance of derailing Clinton. That was last year.

After the California primary, Warren gave Clinton a full-throated endorsement that denied their years of material differences on major economic policy matters. She went about attacking Trump with the alacrity of a junkyard dog. Clinton had hoodwinked her by dangling the possibility of the Vice Presidential slot before Warren’s nose. This revealed the true person, someone more politic than principled. Having endorsed Clinton too fast and forcefully, Warren discredited herself among her support base. Clinton then went rightward by picking a runningmate even more conservative than Clinton was. Warren had been seduced to venture out on a limb then saw it off behind her.

Again, Clinton thought in subduing Warren and Sanders she would cause the entire progressive wing to collapse into her machinery. It would not work that way. Warren’s address was uninspired. It was as if watching a fading image of what Warren used to be. Her appeal to progressives had already evaporated. Without that appeal, she had neither ballast nor utility. Warren had become a spent force who was talking to the wall.

Two of the best speeches were delivered by the family Obama, with Michelle outdoing her husband. She gave the best address of the convention. President Obama gave a pointed critique of Trump’s policies while offering an optimistic assessment of America in contrast to Trump’s claim that America was crumbling. While a good performance, it was not the president at his best. It was much like a consummate actor performing a role required of him but one he did not completely want to play.

Ironically, the best speech of the four days would come from a nonpolitician. Michelle Obama is as much a fountain of talent andpersonality as her husband. Had not the Clintons walked the road of both spouses seeking high office, the Obamas would have been a better choice. Michelle spoke with eloquence and a burning passion. No speech was better or more moving. The address revealed that Michelle has the instincts of a politician. Well known is her personal dislike for the Clintons. Her eloquence and passion was burning because it must have set her conscience alight to have to render such a fine endorsement for so amoral a political personality.

The only speech to rival Michelle’s was the brief intervention of the chairman of North Carolina Chapter of the NAACP. The speech was rousing in its expression of the ideals of the party. The sad thing was that the good reverend was talking of the party Clinton and hers structure had come to bury not to promote.

Bill Clinton’s speech was a wandering bit of nostalgia. He attempted to soften the public image of his wife by recounting their courtship. Given his later record with women, his account did not come across as romantic or endearing. Instead of humanizing his wife’s image, Clinton’s tale had a cloud of uneasiness hovering over it. He seemed to be giving a primer on how a young man can evolve into a stalker or sexual predator while keeping his professional career intact.

Candidate Clinton gave a workmanlike, professional intervention. It had a few smart quips but no great words or sentiments; she made no mistakes. She also failed to express any profound vision. In some ways, her talk was underwhelming given that she had just made history. But her prosaic address was apt.  The theme of her campaign was revealed. She is pitting her experience and alleged cool demeanor against the erratic, irascible Trump. While she says that Trump is trying to win the presidency by stirring fear that the nation is failing, she will try to win by whipping fear against Trump himself. She asks the American electorate would they rather see her in control of America’s unprecedented military power or see Trump. Clinton may not like the answer many America’s are prepared to give.

Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine’s address was anodyne. But for the sprinkling of Spanish at intervals in the address, it was utterly forgettable. He was redolent of a newly-minted law professor giving his first lecture on the tax code.

A few things frightened me about the convention. There is something terrible amiss when Ronald Reagan is revered as a political model and father figure for the party rather than Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Toherald Reagan is to discard the best traditions of the party. Even worse, the convention was rife with a militarism uncommon to the Democrats. There was too much talk of confronting perceived enemies and standing up for allies. Russian leader Putin was constantly being painted as an omnipresent boogeyman much as Iraq’s Hussein was before his expiry in a wrongful war. Trump was being castigated as weak in national defense.

Things have gone awry when Democrats lustily thump the martial drums and are stirred toward jingoist chanting. Another war may not be far away. When Democrats deride Republican pacifism, we better head for the fallout shelter. Things have been spun around so that they have become what they ought not to be. The Clinton-Kaine ticket is by far the best the Republicans can offer. Too bad they had to use the Democratic Party to make ithappen.

Going into the convention, Clinton trailed Trump in the most recent national polls. Clinton should regain the lead with this visually successful but substantively hollow gathering.

Barring an unforeseen miracle, either Clinton or Trump will be the next president of the United States. As such, America will failitself and the world. Humanity will likely rue the day either of the two begins to exercise the vast power of that office. Both are suspect and dangerous, albeit in different ways. The American electorate is faced with deciding between a rabid jackal and a venomous snake, a self-absorbed lunatic versus a cool assassin. A reasonable person’s fears would be different but equally substantial regarding each.

Trump would make an ugly hash of domestic policy. However, if taken at his word, he would be less confrontational regarding foreign policy. Clinton is better on domestic policy. However, taken at her word, she would move the world closer to general conflagration. A vessel of neocon thought, Clinton adheres to an unprecedented dual containment policy against Russia and China. Contravening the tenets of balance of power geopolitics that has kept an uneasy peace for decades, she wants to march significant American military assets right to the doorsteps of these great powers. She and her fellow neocons expect these proud nations to submit, thus maintaining American global hegemony in perpetuity. This contravenes all we know about history and common sense.

Donald Trump is a danger to his nation and thus the world. Hillary Clinton is a danger to the world and thus her nation. We have entered troubled times.

08060340825 sms only