Tag Archives: John Kerry

Proof of concept.

I won’t pretend I’m not disappointed by the “Super Tuesday” results. All night, the thing that kept ringing in my ears was the memory of Tom Brokaw back in 1984 saying, “Looks like another good night for Walter Mondale,” and just how nauseating that moment felt. Tuesday was a similarly nauseating experience, except that, if anything, I have less confidence in Biden as a candidate than I did in Mondale. I should say here that I am no stranger to political disappointment; very, very rarely does my first choice candidate rise to the top. That’s partly a function of my being to the left of the Democratic party, but it’s also due to the fact that I do not have a deep connection to the party as an institution.

Like most institutions, the Democratic party favors some people over others for leadership positions within the party. That dynamic pushes forward senior, well-connected, establishment politicians – people like Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, etc. – regardless of their relative talents, ability to connect with voters, etc. With regard to the presidential race, more often than not, they prevail, and when they prevail, more often than not, they lose in the general. Obama was an insurgent who became the establishment – he didn’t start at the top. Hillary was favored to win in 2016 because it was her turn; she lost on her own merits, or lack of same. Biden is being advance for the same reason – it’s his turn. It’s far from obvious that he’s the strongest candidate to go up against Trump, but that, it seems, is an afterthought for party leaders.

Sure looks like a lot of people.

All that said, Bernie should have performed better Tuesday night. Which proves the obvious: grassroots organizing is hard, tremendously hard. No one even pretends that Biden has a grassroots activist organization – nothing of the sort. Bernie does, but they missed the mark on Tuesday, for the most part. A candidate like Bernie can only prevail if he has a mass movement behind him. What he’s proposing from a policy standpoint is reliant on the existence of such a movement. Bernie is quite frank about that. Without the movement, there’s no Sanders presidency and no Sanders agenda. So these primaries amount to proof of concept at some level. If he can’t build the support now, it wouldn’t be there for him later. His agenda cannot succeed on the basis of a narrow win against Trump. We need a progressive wave, and thus far, it hasn’t materialized.

My hope is that the movement does rise in time to put Bernie over the top. But if it doesn’t, make no mistake – we will still need the movement for what’s ahead of us. Our survival as a species depends on it.

luv u,

jp

New podcast drops

I’ve launched a new political commentary podcast called Strange Sound. It’s free, it’s brief, and it’s available now at anchor.fm/strangesound.

Ring out.

It’s the year that wouldn’t die. I suppose it always seems that way – years, like any unit of measurement, are artificial divisions by which no natural or artificial phenomena need abide. Still, it feels like we’re accelerating to the finish line, and each day seems to bring more exaggerated indications of what a clusterfuck 2017 promises to be.

Yes, but what have you done for me lately?Probably the most prominent feature of a discouraging week was the fallout over UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which reaffirmed the longstanding principle that Israel’s settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem is “a flagrant violation under international law” as well as “an obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution”. The Obama administration abstained on this resolution (i.e. did not veto it), prompting hysterical reaction from Republicans and Democrats alike and a long speech by Secretary of State John Kerry, which triggered more hair-on-fire reactions.

The administration’s position on this is pretty standard – for decades, our government has been officially against the notion of settlement building and unilateral annexation of occupied territory in Israel/Palestine, while at the same time funding Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year and – aside from a few rhetorical clucks here and there – doing nothing to pressure them to stop this illegal and destructive activity. Resolution 2334 will be ignored by Israel, just like all the rest, back to 242 and 338, and we will continue to send them money and arms, and defend them when they go on another tear in Gaza or elsewhere. Still: not good enough for Netanyahu, who is obviously using the transition to an even more congenial Trump administration to make a point.

Getting your face rubbed in it by Netanyahu is annoying enough. Hearing lamentations about the Obama administration’s abstention on 2334 from the leader of the Democrats in the Senate is just plain unacceptable. Is this the face of resistance for the next four years? A number of commentators on the left have complained about the degree to which the Democratic party seems to have no fire in the belly these days. When an issue like this appears to bring our leadership more in line with the incoming Trump administration, it becomes even more clear that the left is on its own. We can count on no one but ourselves.

So be it. Let’s work with one another. Let the leaders follow us for a change.

luv u,

jp

SCOTUS-itis.

Another year, another raft of execrable decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). As each was handed down, one phrase echoed through my mind … “Thank you, George W. Bush.” Sure, I know … I’m still a victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome, as diagnosed by Dr. Krauthammer not so many years ago, right? Well, I see it more as a case of SCOTUS-itis, brought on by the re-election of a knee-jerk reactionary in 2004 who has locked in an equally reactionary majority on the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

You''re welcome!Lest you think I’m unfairly blaming Bush II, just consider – most Supreme Court vacancies occur according to plan. To the greatest extent possible, a justice now plans his/her (usually his) exit based on the likelihood that his/her successor will be appointed by a president who shares the Justice’s general political orientation. (Hence Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s reported  election night 2000 angst over the apparent election of Al Gore.) That pattern was disrupted in 2005, when illness compelled Chief Justice William Rehnquist to step down. Had Bush not been re-elected the year before, John Kerry would have nominated Rehnquist’s replacement and the political balance of the court would very likely have shifted to the center-left for perhaps the next generation. Instead, thanks to Dubya, we have Citizen’s United, McCutcheon v FEC, and now Hobby Lobby, Harris v Quinn, and McCullen.

Let’s be clear: these are really bad decisions. Take the Hobby Lobby case, for instance. Despite all the efforts of the punditocracy to suggest that this is a very limited decision, narrowly focused on a specific class of contraceptives and a specific category of employers, it turns out that the opinion is not, in fact, so narrow. As Rachel Maddow pointed out last week, based on reporting by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com, subsequent to the release of their ruling on Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court issued orders on pending cases involving a number of employers, most notably some Catholic owners of companies seeking exclude any form of birth control from their employee-provided health plans. The Court orders, of course, side with the employers. So much for that limitation.

I could go on, but I’ll save the rest of my tirade for subsequent posts. Suffice to say that we needn’t have ended up in this place; it was a conscious choice of the American electorate, some ten years ago, and it’s going to take a monumental effort to turn this around in the coming decades.

luv u,

jp