On the Democrats, or Down with Will Rogers Thought

 

“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat,” comedian Will Rogers spoke these words almost a century ago. Back then it was a tongue-in-cheek good natured ribbing of a party that had just come out of a convention that required 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. Yes, you read that right. In 1924, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention had to vote 103 times to nominate a man who would end up losing in a landslide to Calvin Coolidge. At least the Democratic Party of that era could contain its chaos to one gathering every four years. Today, the party’s disarray is on display 24/7. It is disorganized at every level of government and jurisdiction, at least where it can manage to get elected at all.

I know. Out of the Democrats’ recent defeat, a thousand think pieces have bloomed. Yet, most of them seem to ignore the essential issue Mr. Rogers' diagnosed a hundred years ago. They would rather focus on that nebulous term “messaging.” Among other issues with this analysis, it makes one crucial mistake: it assumes the Democrats have some secret message that they keep failing to deliver. They are otherwise unified and organized and at the same time forgetful of what needs to be expressed.  If only the Democrats could just put the right words together, the America people would fall over themselves to vote for any name with a donkey next to it. Extending this logic further,  maybe the Democratic Party can make a game of it, sending every American a decoder pin so they can figure out the “messaging” of the next election cycle like Ralphie in A Christmas Story.

All of these postmortems focus on messaging because it is convenient for the people posting them with their bylines attached. It requires no deeper reckoning with what the last two hundred years of the Democratic Party’s disorganization has led to in the present. They are also in line with the class interests of those who write them. On a personal level each one of these authors is hoping that their specific diagnosis will pique the interest of the party so they can get a gig consulting for it. Beyond that, on a more philosophical level, it helps to justify their whole line of work. Since they make a living trafficking in words, they have every incentive to promote the idea that a political party’s fortunes are tied to matters of vocabulary.

But the problem cannot be reduced to messaging while the party is such a mess of contradictions. We have seen that anything promised by one wing of the party, gets shot down by another. Or the so-called Parliamentarian gets to reject this and that proposal (you remember voting for them, right?) The Democratic Party has too many competing factions whose interests cannot be fundamentally reconciled. It is the party of billionaires and unions, landlords and renters, peaceniks and neocons, tree huggers and frackers, Zionists and Muslims, Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter More. In short, the Democrats are trying to serve both Mammon and the masses and failing at both. Any attempt to salvage the Democrats has to begin with meeting this problem head on.

Of course, contradiction is nothing new in the Democratic Party. At certain times the party managed it for a generation or so. They did it after Jackson and then after FDR. But these partisan constellations were only able to do this for two critical reasons. First was the opening of new economic frontiers that allowed competing groups to get a cut of a growing pie. Second was the lack a national issue that could divide the coalition. Eventually both of these advantages ended and the Democrats fell apart. In the case of Jackson's Democrats, they were undone by the very national issue of slavery. For Roosevelt Democrats, their coalition collapsed from the pressures of confronting racism and war in Vietnam.

It seems unlikely that the Democrats will find themselves in such a fortunate position again. The era of free real estate is over and the era of free refills is coming to a close as well. As for national controversies, the Democratic Party can no longer sidestep these. Politics in America have become homogenized thanks to TV and the Internet. Take, for example, People running for school boards. They are no longer focused on the picayune details of lunches and bus routes. They run on the red meat buffet of culture war issues such as transgender rights and so-called historical revisionism.

For the Democratic Party to win in these conditions, it has to reinvent itself. It has to become a party that either Will Rogers or his present incarnations cannot make fun of for a lack of unity. Think about it this way: if the Democrats were a serious party with long term goals, Trump's people would have been running their own version of ads warning about a "Democrat Project 2025." Or 2029. But of course, they did not. And will not. This is but one small piece of evidence the alleged party of the people needs to reorient itself in order to fight the rightward lurch of the country. Because what is at stake is more important than which gang of politicos holds office. The installation of a complete oligarchy is at hand. 

Unfortunately voters have been presented with few choices to stop this. The Republicans are the party that will make this transformation happen on purpose. Meanwhile the Democrats of the current cycle have become the party that will let it happen. Whether on purpose or not, the effect is the same. What kind of Democratic Party (or any party for that matter) would be better suited for the challenge of the day? The answer is predictable if you know me, but I do not care. The best version of the Democratic Party is one that has a solid base in the multiracial working class and is built around their representative organizations. While there will disagreements here and there in this model, at least this party will not be haphazardly built on top of known and active political fault lines.

Now for my most controversial drop. The historical and current iteration of this Democratic Party, amounts to little more than a rent seeking entity. It is run by a consulting class that inserts itself between activist groups and the avenues of power. Those who want to improve conditions for labor, minorities, women, or the environment have to go to this party, hat in hand, and beg for them for promises of change. As a result, those who run the current donkey show demand increasing contributions of cash, political labor, and votes when a simple majority is claimed to be not enough. 

It is helpful to compare the trajectory of the Democrats with the Republican Party, a party that fears its activists and works aggressively from election to election to enact its agenda. Whether they win or not is not the immediate issue. Commentators have rightly noticed the aggressively ideological character of today's GOP, though what they fail to remember is that the party was created as an explicitly ideological project. Of course that free soil, free labor, and free men ideology is in no longer in force among Republicans. Nevertheless, there was a clear political objective at one point and it echoes through to the present day. Today's Republicans have learned from that era. They have a party setup to deliver specific results. 

Know this. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans can point to a specific time and place (1854 Ripon, Wisconsin) when their party was established. They can also explain what led to this event, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. But what do Democrats have? A party built on various patronage networks, unifying urban sachems and rural courthouse gangs. It is a party that was founded by Jefferson, or Burr, or maybe Andrew Jackson, or quite possibly Martin Van Buren. It was not even consistently called the Democratic Party during all the times of its apparent founding. 

The Democrats of that era, the Democrats of Will Rogers' day, and Democrats of today have tried to pretend their messy big tent approach to politics is a secret strength that allows everyone to somehow feel represented. It should be increasingly evident this is not working. Creating a big tent in American politics ultimately leads to a sideshow, with figures like Manchin and Sinema gumming up the works. A real party with actual aims would be able to discipline these prima donna types, or better yet make sure they did not feel at home in the Democratic Party to begin with.

As it stands, the Democrats are awakening to see themselves restricted to coastal enclaves, a handful of cities in the interior, and the Black Belt in the South. Former strongholds in the Rio Grande Valley are going red, along with the rural upper Midwest. Appalachia is completely gone and if the Democrats are not careful they might start losing New Jersey in presidential and senatorial races. In the face of these changes, a complete structural reorientation is needed. The party needs to become a new kind of machine that is controlled by working class organizations, mobilizing working class voters across race and gender, to delivers real change to all working class Americans. 

Or the Democrats can continue on their current path. It is certainly easier emailed than done. Crying wolf to fundraise and waiting for the Republicans to screw up so much that it puts the Democrats back into power. Unfortunately this time around, if they continue with this approach they may find themselves joining the Whigs and Antimasons in the graveyard of American politics. Who knows what else they will take down with them when this comes to pass. Maybe a little Free Soil will be there to help ease the journey with Henry Clay Charon.  

 

The Worst Monument in DC

In this age of statues coming down their plinths, and places being renamed, calling something the “Worst Monument in DC” brings to mind the usual culprits. However, this monument is not bad because it honors a Confederate, a slaveowner, or somebody who did medical experiments on enslaved women. It is also not problematic like the statues honoring the Emancipation Proclamation. You know the kind: they show a helpless and shirtless Black person in chains being uplifted by a very starch-shirted Abraham Lincoln.

No, this infamous title belongs to a monument because of its aesthetics, not its politics. At least with those other kinds of statues you know what they are supposed to represent. I don’t mean on a deeper level in terms of just dog whistles, but on a surface level as well. A statue of General Robert E. Lee on a horse shows General Robert E. Lee on a horse. You can get offended by it because you know who you are supposed to think of when you look at it. One could argue a monument that’s too abstract might even be worse, because it doesn’t even let you get angry.

One such monument exists in DC. It is little known, though hundreds of thousands of people drive past it every year. Most of them hardly get a glance of it, and even fewer know that it is legally in DC, despite being on the right bank of the Potomac (in case you didn’t know, Columbia Island, that strip of land next to the Pentagon is part of DC). It is near another monument which people might recognize, but it is a hundred times better than this one. That competent monument is the Navy – Merchant Marine Memorial. The bad one? It’s called the Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac.

A monument to Idaho

Just the length of the name should tip you off that something isn’t right. A good memorial is succinct and named for one person, group, or event. Think the Lincoln Memorial or the Washington Monument. The Emancipation Memorial is another one, so long as we’re talking names here and not set-up. The Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac is the opposite of all that. It contains too much, which the same might be said for old LBJ. I doubt that was the intention though. Instead we have a confusing mess that tells us what kind of memorial it is and the river it is on. Off the top of my head I don’t think any other monument in DC has that designation.

It's not the easiest memorial to get to either. You have to drive onto the island, park, and walk a bit until you hit the right grove. But that could be said of plenty of landmarks in the city, and I won’t count that against it. The memorial to Teddy Roosevelt requires quite a hike to the middle of his eponymous island. It doesn’t detract from the way it is set up and the possible educational value of the site. I know it’s not a textbook (what monument is?), but one can at least clearly meditate on and contemplate the subject.

This is not the case with the Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac. There is little in the design or the artwork chosen that conveys anything about LBJ and his achievements. Approaching the memorial, all one can see through the pine trees is a large hunk of pinkish granite. No, it isn’t a statue of our 36th President, as much of a hunk he was. The granite is simply a large rock, stuck in the ground. A prurient mind might say it’s a memorial to Johnson’s Johnson, the infamous “Jumbo.” How could they know any better? The rock is not shaped, cut, etched, or hewn into anything with a recognizable pattern. It isn’t even a menhir.

Johnson's Johnson, the Jumbo of the Capitol Hill Zoo

The area around the megalith isn’t any more informative or inspiring. There’s a small sign that gives a basic outline of the memorial and its function, along with a recording of Lady Bird Johnson that doesn’t work. When I pressed one of the buttons for it, I hoped that instead I would get to hear LBJ ordering pants from his tailor. It’s more Taylor though, but it doesn’t matter anyway. The device is broken, along with many of the paving stones near the central rock.

Adjacent to it are a handful of slabs of granite, made of the same exact shade as the central stone. On each of them are selections from speeches LBJ gave during his life. None of the selections are particularly memorable or illuminating. They say little about the man himself, his times, or the issues he was championing. I know the man wasn’t the most gifted speaker, but the designers could’ve chosen something more inspiring. He had Bill Moyers to work with. Something he said after JFK was shot perhaps? Or his speeches to Congress on Civil Rights? There’s another issue with the slabs too. They are difficult to read, thanks to using that foreskin-colored granite.

At the right angle, one can get a nice view of the Potomac and the other monuments that dot the skyline of DC. It only serves to remind the unlucky visitor, of how much worse Johnson’s memorial is compared to the ones for Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington. It makes one wonder if this is actually a site dedicated to Andrew Johnson, and that this is all a sick joke to embarrass our 17th president for botching Reconstruction and buying Alaska.

Not pictured: wasp nests

In the same park is a monument that is much better and more interesting, the Navy – Merchant Marine Memorial. It honors those who have died at sea and rare for a war memorial, it doesn’t show the people lost. No names are etched on it and no human figures are depicted. There are waves and seagulls (along with wasp nests tucked inside the waves, but those are a later addition) made of metal, sitting on a small plinth. They depict the watery resting place of those lost, and remind us that many are gone forever with no recovered remains. It also has bubbles.

Perhaps the Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac represents the conclusion of the memorial as traditionally understood. Our presidents are too big and contain too many multitudes of contradictions to be reduced to a statue. Constant revision of their legacy and shifts in historical opinion also make it difficult to come to any final consensus about them. In that sense the giant rocks is fitting, as the reputation of LBJ has waxed and waned over the decades. Now it appears to be waxing, in part because we are nostalgic for a time Congress and the President could work together to pass major pieces of legislation. But it will wane again, when we reconsider the costs of Empire.

Part V: The Final Frontier (So Very, Very Tired)

Wow, I’ve spent so long talking about who I think shouldn’t win and there’s little space to say who should get the nomination. I guess based on what I’ve previously written, you the reader can understand now where I’m coming from and where I hope the party and the country go from here on out. We need a candidate that will deal with the problems we face, rather than seek compromise right after their inaugurated. We need someone who will bring progress rather than a return to Neoliberalism and austerity. America has to end the endless wars abroad, and the War on Drugs at home. There needs to be healthcare for all, education for all, labor rights for all, and reproductive rights for all. The Democratic Party needs to become a working class party in order to remain viable, and a Green New Deal has to be pursued in order for human existence on this planet to be viable too. We need a candidate who will fight and will leave no options off the table. Packing the Court? Declaring a Climate Emergency? Nationalizing industries? They all have to be considered.

We need to make up for lost time folks

We have to be as radical as reality. There are only two candidates in the race who understand this, and have a chance of winning. They have the ability to come down from the Mountain, conquer the Plain, seize the Dais, and crush the gatekeepers along the way. They represent the Only Real Hope Tier, and I wish it was the biggest bench in this contest. But what can you do, other than see them get elected? From a process of deduction, it should be obvious who they are by now:

Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders

Yep. Two. Count them again. It’s a depressing number. I wish there was someone younger, someone of color, and someone more radical who could run, but alas, AOC is too damn young and Ilhan Omar was born abroad. I guess there’s something of a blessing here. The radical vote won’t be split and the it won’t be lost amid a cacophony clamoring for Medicare for All on the debate stage. If Warren or Sanders win, it’ll bring up a whole generation of progressives hopefully into office, and it will drag those in the middle to the Left. Victory leaves a garden in its wake.

Of these two candidates, I rank Sanders higher than Warren. In my dream world, Sanders runs, wins, gets a term, then decided not to run again. Instead, it’s his Vice President Warren who follows him into office. Maybe AOC will come after her. Then again, it might be Subcommandante Lee Carter. I understand the desire for a female president and I don’t believe Warren would have that much harder of a time getting elected than Sanders. She’d be just as electable

So why pick Sanders over her? I think Warren has great ideas and solid proposals. It’s good that she leaves other candidates clamoring behind in her wake, looking for policies of their own. Just as Sanders moved the party left in 2016, Warren is crystallizing the commitments of others. They can no longer wear a label like “progressive.” They have to explain their stances. However, I think there are differences between Sanders and Warren, which make me back him over Warren. Needless to say, I would be fine supporting either of them in the general (Tankies, feel free to call me a dirty, dirty lib in the comments)

The first difference is foreign policy. Sanders is much more anti-imperialist in his orientation. He doesn’t just want a “green” army like Warren. He wants to shrink it and bring it home. His whole life he’s opposed intervention and wars abroad and that’s crucial. People forget that the President’s greatest power is as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Congress and the Courts give the Executive the widest latitude here. Warren is nowhere near as bad as Biden, or the rest of the field. I don’t think she’ll get us into a war with Iran. But will she radically change our approach to the country? Or Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela? Or on the other hand end our blank cheque of support to Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia?

The second different is the relationship to the Democratic Party. Warren wants to take the party as it is and lead it to a more progressive direction. It’s an admirable goal, but without changing the fundamental structure of the Democratic Party, she’ll be constantly blocked by the DNC. The donor class will try and put the kibosh on whatever she proposes. Due to his background running more grassroots campaigns and insurgent candidacies, Sanders has more experience building the mass movements necessary to change the party from within.  The Democrats have to become a party devoted and made up of the working class first and foremost. Otherwise, it’ll never be able to fight directly for the proposals of Sanders, Warren, AOC, or anyone on the Left. The Party needs to speak with one voice and fight as one instead of arguing and fighting amongst itself. Since the rich already have a party, the GOP, they can all go there instead. A Sanders victory will help accelerate that trend. He’ll push the rich out of the party like St. Patrick and the snakes in Ireland.

Lastly, Sanders and Warren have different visions of the economy and what needs to happen with American Capitalism. Warren is a reformist. To be fair, she’s a far greater reformist than anyone since FDR and that should be noted. However, she’ll leave in place the parts of the economy that have brought us back to levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s. What good is to merely reform things so that we may one day have to deal with finance wrecking everything all over again? A stronger approach has to be taken. Warren hints that she might be able to get there eventually. She has proposed putting workers on corporate boards. But Sanders sees the system as fundamentally unequal and unsound. He knows that attempts to regulate it while leaving capital in the hands of an unelected elite is no long-term solution. He understands that the democratic control of the economy is the only way forward. In Sanders’ American it will be for the many, not the few at all levels of society. So as in the ballot box, so as in the boardroom.

I know Warren has more concrete proposals than Sanders, or at least ideas for specific legislation that have managed to percolate to the top of the political discussion. Sanders’ campaign is more about emphasis and stressing values. Both of them have a vision, however it is filtered in different ways that reflect the different personalities running. Remember my old extended metaphor of the Plain and the Mountain? Sanders and Warren are both candidates from the Mountain who are uniquely situates to leave the rafters and seize the Dais. Each of them will do so with their own approach. Warren is coming down from Mount Sinai, with commandments and laws. Meanwhile, Bernie is coming down from Mount Olivet. Either way, they’re coming for your graven images, false idols, golden calves, and fig trees.

Part IV: Dear God No

This is the penultimate installment of my series on the Democratic Primary. Previously, I gave an overview of the general field as I see fit, and then proceeded to discuss the general camps the candidates fall into. So far, I’ve withheld my “endorsement” as it were. That’s not to say I don’t have a preferred candidate, I do. However I think it’s important to explain my views, reasoning, and standards before finally saying who I back. It helps to explain the “why” behind my choice. It isn’t about the personality, it isn’t about the optics, and it isn’t about the narrative. It isn’t even about the vague concepts of “electability” or “normalcy.” It’s about the policy I support first and foremost. Okay, the overall direction and structure of the Democratic Party is important too, but that’s tied up in policy as well. What good is it to restructure and redirect the party without an aim to effecting its positions?

Before I explain who I support and why, I want to discuss who should absolutely not get the nomination. There is a cluster of candidates who would be a step backward in nearly every way for the party. The previous essay introduced the concept of the Mountain and the Plain. To recap, visualize a convention hall. Near the front are gatekeepers and defenders of the establishment. In the rear, sitting above the proceedings, are the radicals, which I call the Mountain. In between these two groups is the Plain. The candidates of the Mountain want drastic changes to be made and the candidates in the front want to stop them. The candidates of the Plain want to negotiate between the two. I called the group up front Backset Democrats. You could call them candidates of the Dais as well.

But there is a group of people running who I think can’t even be considered that liberal. They are behind the Dais, if you will extend the metaphor. They are in the shadows of the Convention, refusing to acknowledge the Plain, let alone the Mountain. Their issue isn’t necessarily one of ideology. The trouble is they don’t really have much of one, which means they uphold the dominant thinking of our time without even understanding why they believe the things they do. Money explains a good deal of their positions and why they are men of style and no substance. Yet even the style they affect is one that is dull and uninspiring. Nominating the men who stand in this position would be a disaster down ballot, not to mention for, you know, human civilization.

So, who are these shadowy figures?

John Delaney
Tim Ryan
John Hickenlooper
Joe Biden

This cadre of candidates includes three people with very little shot of winning the nomination and the candidate who is currently at the top of the polls. I know it may seem strange that the most disastrous men running occupy these two extremes of viability. But this is a strange bunch of candidates. They think Trump is an anomaly and the major problems facing this country are matters of rhetoric and civility. The current state of the Republican Party doesn’t register with them and they’ve forgotten what happened during Obama’s presidency. The Rich aren’t to blame for our problems either. These men believe in bootlicking for the ruling class and bootstraps for the rest.

Maybe some of these names can be swapped out with the Backset Democrats. One of the things that makes the Backset a little bit better is that they are younger, more diverse, and occasionally have a new insight or idea. They may be Neoliberals, which at least means they have something “new” to them. The above mentioned men are Metaliberals. Their positions are abstract like metaphysics, and again, they are falling behind the center of the party. Unfortunately thanks Biden, there is an overwhelming amount of funding, press, and endorsements held by this faction.

Why would nominating these candidates be a disaster as I keep saying? Overall, they are out of step with the party faithful in an era where turnout is more important than appealing to some fabled center. They have no vision for combating automation, climate change, and wealth inequality. On all other forms of inequality they seem to be just as clueless. They back the American imperial project wholeheartedly and at home seem to have no issue with the carceral state. Specifically? Let’s start with the first three. John Delaney is the product of gerrymandering in Maryland, and calls himself “a solutions-oriented moderate.” Tim Ryan ran against Nancy Pelosi because he thinks she is too far left. A former aid to Jim Traficant, Ryan is shaky on abortion rights and wants the nation to practice mindfulness to solve its problems. Finally there’s Hickenlooper who is in the pocket of the fracking industry. Oh, and he opposed marijuana legalization, which may or may not have something to do with being in the brewpub business.

These three candidates don’t merit much further discussion. They are polling around 1 percent each at best in the polls. On average, they’re more likely to reach 1 percent together. They are not a threat to Sanders, Warren, Harris, or any of the candidates whose politics seem to deal with the reality of America as it is rather than the misremembered dream of what it once was. That’s why it’s important to focus on Joe Biden.

The former Senator from Delaware and two-term Vice President is currently leading in the polls. He was also leading in all the polls taken before he announced, which was a little presumptuous of the media. It’s hard to say how strong this support is or what accounts for it. It’s safe to say it’s mostly nostalgia at this point, a desire to return to the Obama presidency. Since Joe Biden ran with Obama, it’s easier to see how voters link the two together. Hilary Clinton made appeals to those who missed her husband’s time in power, and Biden is making a similar appeal. Of course, Hillary was always a much stronger candidate on her own than Joe ever was. She did win the popular vote in the 2008 primary, whereas Joe went nowhere in his runs back in 1988 and 2008.

That’s why the high level of support Biden needs to be treated with skepticism. It could very well implode when punctured by the appropriate scandal or screwup on the debate stage. It could also change based on something Trump does. I think it’s highly sensitive to the strength of the economy. There’s an increasing risk of a recession every month we get farther away from the end of the last one. When the economy goes south, Biden career defending financial interests might not look so appealing to the primary electorate.

Then again, nostalgia may carry the day for Joe like it did for Argentinians and Juan Peron in the 1970s. It certainly seems to carry him around very much in his everyday life as well. He seems to pine for a time when a senator could be friends with a segregationist then pal around with lobbyists and fundraisers, without anyone giving him flack for it. We don’t have many previous elections to go by when judging how strong this nostalgia factor is. There have been candidates campaigning on normalcy (Harding and Eisenhower) and candidates who made appeals to a mythic past (Reagan and Trump). But they never represented a previous era of politics so strongly in their person. The closest I can think of it Hillary Clinton in 2008. Her run, in part, represented a return to the glory years of the late 1990s after the tragedy of Dubya.

Yet, even with her run against Obama, she could make a legitimate case that a vote for her was moving forward. If nominated, and then elected, Clinton would’ve been the first female President (a feat that would’ve been no less true if she was elected in 2016 as well). Joe Biden doesn’t have that kind of historical feel behind him. A vote for Biden only means a change in so far as Trump isn’t president. There is no sense of the future about him. He’s all about the past, a walking historical reenactment. He was yesterday’s man in 2008, when he floundered in the primary and was raised from a political dead end by Obama. He’s like LBJ in that sense. Successful in the senate but unable to reach national office on his own, LBJ depended on JFK to give his career the boost it needed to get him into the White House.

Okay, it also depended on Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Sam Giancana, Fidel Castro, and the Hunt Brothers as well.

Could Biden surprise us all and pull a turn like LBJ? I suppose it’s possible. It’s possible Trump is a secret Marxist accelerationist too (who else has ever made Capitalism look so bad?) People often forget that while he was a standard New Deal Democrat in economics, socially LBJ was still conservative. He watered down Civil Rights legislation in the Senate, when he couldn’t defeat it’s passing outright with other Southern Democrats. Once he became president, LBJ became our most left-wing president. He expanded the New Deal, passed Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation, and opened up immigration. Biden might decide that Washington is worth embracing mass politics.

It would be an impressive turn. Biden was an opponent of desegregating schools via busing. He opposed abortion until the 1990s. He authored several punitive crime bills that disproportionately oppressed communities of colors. Biden even clashed with Elizabeth Warren back in the day over bankruptcy legislation, that made it harder for families to discharge medical debt. His foreign policy record is abysmal too. He voted for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and increasing military budgets. To give credit where it’s due, he authored legislation to fight violence against women (Fight? Combat? Destroy? I wish there was a stronger word I could use that isn’t itself violent). However, he did put in an exemption for backrubs and hair sniffing. Oh yeah, and his treatment of Anita Hill helped put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

Despite all that he could be the candidate who ends our wars abroad, repeals the Patriot Act, closes Guantanamo Bay, passes healthcare for all, demilitarizes the border, kills Taft-Hartley, brings back Glass-Steagall, recognizes Palestine, opens up full relations with Iran and North Korea, takes us off our carbon addiction, or at least makes progress to all these goals. Then again, I remember when people thought Obama was going to do some version of this as well. Back then, it made sense to project on him. He didn’t have a record. Biden does and that record is bad. Bad for a Democrat even in 2008, bad for the Democratic Party today, and bad for America and the world.

Biden could certainly beat Trump, despite the fact he’s more of a subsidiary than a candidate. However a victory against him isn’t necessarily as guaranteed as people make it out to be. The Republicans will use his record against him too. Now, Trump has done worst than Biden but that doesn’t matter. The party in power (and conservatives by and large) can always be hypocritical. It’s not fair, but it’s true. They’re not the ones trying to change things. Everyone else who is a Democrat, a Liberal, a Progressive, or a Leftist is. As a result, the people hold them to a higher standard. One can’t think of Trump’s crimes and character flaws canceling out concerns about Biden. Rather, Biden’s issues will put a damper on his criticism of Trump. This is especially bad if you’re trying to appeal to voters in the “center” which is Biden’s whole strategy.

It’s this reliance on the center that also makes his nomination problematic. Elections today are determined by turnout and inspiring people to vote. Clinton’s loss in 2016 is more about the collapse of the Obama coalition since 2008, than any other factor. She failed to boost Democratic turnout and as a result fell short of victory. Now, if we didn’t have an Electoral College she would be president. It’s true her numbers in 2016 roughly matched Obama’s in 2012. But you have to play by the rules of the elections we have, not the rules you want (you wouldn’t run for Prime Minister of America, would you?)

Now, Biden could still win with this strategy. There’s another important issue with it though. It will impact down ballot races, where motivating the base is especially vital. The Democrats need to hold the House, win the Senate, and capture state houses and governorships. Otherwise, any attempt to pass legislation or appoint judges is dead in the water. And no, Republicans won’t change after Trump is defeated. Remember how we thought that happened after McCain lost in 2008? Or Romney in 2012? It didn’t happen then, and it won’t happen after 2020. The Democrats need an inspiring candidate who will bring out voters loyal to the party in all races. Trying to win over moderate Republicans means only that you end up with more divided government. They will vote against Trump and for every reactionary ghoul in other races.

Once in office, Biden will almost certainly side with capital against labor, and with growth against the environment. Joe Biden thinks he can compromise with Mitch McConnell over Supreme Court judges and the Planet Earth over Climate Change, I don’t know which is more delusional. As a result, he will burn all bridges of working-class support leading him and the Democratic Party vulnerable as the crises of late stage capitalism literally heat up. A Biden victory in 2020 most likely means another GOP sweep in 2022, and the possibility of a competent fascist getting elected in 2024. Maybe it’ll be an Ivanka Trump/Stephen Miller ticket, or Tom Cotton/Steve Bannon.

2020 Candidate Roundup, Part I: The Great Democratic Party Primary & Other Excursions

Well folks, the clown car keeps getting bigger over at the 2020 Democratic Primary. If this trend continues, pretty soon there will be more Democrats running for President than will be running for the Senate. Good job, Chuck Schumer! It shows you that running for Senate has now become harder than President, otherwise O’Rourke would be trying to take out Cornyn instead of Trump. Running for President means you get to travel! You get to see the country! You get to go to Iowa! You are invited onto CNN for town halls! You get to live on a bus! When you lose you’re considered for a cabinet post, or ambassadorship! You might even get a gig on TV or a chance to sell another book! Lose a senate election though and what do you get? Obscurity.

Although maybe that’s changing with O’Rourke…

Anyway, there’s 24 candidates running with any real shot of winning. By “shot” I think it’s helpful to visualize a basketball court. There’s the candidates standing on a ladder next to the hoop and those right under the next. Then there are candidates aiming from the free throw line, as well as those shooting for a three-pointer. Finally you have people in the stands, who could in theory still make the shot. In total, there are 24 of these candidates in the primary so far. There are of course people running who have no name recognition at all, no money, no presence, no experience, and lack a decent website to boot. These candidates are too numerous to bother with.  They are beyond the court and outside the arena. There’s no chance of them getting the ball inside the net.

I’m going with 24 because it seems Steve Bullock and Bill DeBlasio are running. There’s also people have said they are forming exploratory committees but haven’t filled out that final ream of paperwork to “officially” say they are in the race. Regardless I’m putting the number at 24. That’s who I’m going to deal with in this blog post.

24 candidates, sounds crazy, no? Well, yes, this is a rather large batch. What’s surprising is how little separates most of the people running. The number of White moderates (Dr. King’s favorite people) is extremely high. I guess that’s par for the course. That’s who the party treasures and nurtures, telling them they represent “the real America” (wherever that is). So why not run for president then, since you represent the heartland and you bleed apple pie?

However we can’t let these MWGs (mediocre/moderate White guys) make us too cynical about this field. It does include the most diverse crowd of candidates for either party to date. Several minorities are represented for sure: African American, Hispanic Americans, LGBT Americans, Asian Americans, and Jewish Americans (and no, I’m not going to include Native Americans for Warren). We also have a record number of women running, who in fact, are not a minority. I know that may surprise some people, given how women have been historically excluded and oppressed, but rest assured it wasn’t because of a lack of numbers.

In terms of experience, there’s diversity too. We have gurus and governors, senators and Silicon Valley tycoons, and Congress critters and Mayors. I think that’s good. You don’t want just a bunch of senators, or a group of governors on the stage, because the problems facing this country require action at all levels. So feedback from a local state, house and cabinet perspective is good. Now, that doesn’t mean all that experience is the same and that everyone on the stage should be president if they’ve been in government for years. Only that a little perspective could be welcome.

That said, the debates probably won’t provide us much discussion, or any real debate. It’s not that I’m bemoaning the end of some golden age of public discourse, only that there’s too many people on stage for anyone to say anything of note. If everyone running manages to qualify, there will be 24 people up on the dais, and how much time realistically will each one of them get? Realistically how much have anything to say too? Perhaps we’ll get the first Twitter-style debate. Each candidate will only get to make statements and respond to questions and attacks using 280 characters or less. The jabs and jests might be worth it.

One thing that will have to go is the audience. First, because they’ll have to make room for all the candidates. Second, the candidates will just end up playing for an audience reaction. That’s how the lower-tier ones will try to get to the front of the pack. The Trump strategy. If we have to have a debate (personally I think the Town Halls should just be enough) then let it be someplace without obnoxious hooting and hollering.  Part of the reason Trump was able to dominate in the debate was ability to manipulate the audience and their reaction, even when it didn’t agree with him. That and his ability to use an air horn .

Will the debates be a make or break moment for the candidates? Undoubtedly, they have to be. If a candidate wants to break out from the lower tear of no–names and has-beens (and those who have never-been) they have to speak out and say something, or forever hold their peace. That should make for a little entertainment. The real interesting thing to see is who has already given up on the White House and is trying to position themselves for a VP slot, or a spot in the cabinet. There will be candidates who go after Sanders in order to endear themselves to Biden and the DNC. Watch out for them. Bernie will turn the Blue Dogs into snakes on that stage. Whether he’ll be able to drive them out of the party is another matter.

Then there will be those candidates who realize they have to go after Biden, since there’s no chance of them winning over Sanders voters, and because there’s no chance they’ll be on the ticket with him. Beto, Warren, and Gillibrand are part of this group. To a lesser extent, Gabbard is too. It’s highly unlikely Biden would want any of them as VP. Beto is too male and too White (and his youthful Punk cross-dressing notwithstanding, too straight). Meanwhile, Warren has feuded with Biden over the banks. Gillibrand could be selected, since she balances out the male at the top of the ticket. However, she represents a solidly blue state, can’t win over progressives, and burned her bridges with Hillary Clinton at the height of #MeToo. Her treatment of Franken also makes her a liability in getting the support of party loyalists.

Of course who ends up becoming VP might not have anything to do with the desires of the candidates. If Biden’s current lead collapses (a guy can dream, right?) and nobody has a majority of the pledged delegates, then some serious horse-trading will have to commence. Everyone wants to avoid a contested convention. It makes for great television and a terrible campaign. We haven’t had one since 1976, and the party who had it lost (although maybe shots of Tony Orlando dancing with Betty Ford were what really sank the Ford’s chances of reelection). At that stage it’s quite likely that one of the two front-runners will try to convince one of the mid-tier candidates to come on board and bring their delegates over. Otherwise, the superdelegates will get involved and when they do, that will further split the party.

That’s why if I had to bet on who will be VP, it’s going to be someone like Kamala Harris. Now it’s possible she’ll break out from her position in the current polling and start winning primaries. She’s relying on California’s early start to try and propel her forward with a homefield advantage. If that falls through, she could still end up with a decent pool of delegates that will be necessary to get a majority.  She will provide generational, racial, and gender balance against either Biden or Bernie, who seem to be the likely front-runners at this point. She would also provide a balance with Warren too, if she takes the lead. Harris provides a regional angle as well. The Democrats haven’t had a Westerner on the ticket since…well…really ever. The farthest west candidates have been from Texas or South Dakota.

It’s still too early to see who will be at the top of the ticket. Biden is certainly polling in the lead but the debates could cut that down, especially as people realize what he was actually doing before Obama nominated him for Vice President. Remember, Biden ran twice for president on his own merits in 1988 (before AOC was even born) and 2008. Each time his campaign went nowhere. The only person who likes the real Biden is Biden. For everyone else, it’s either misplaced nostalgia for Obama, a desperate desire for normalcy, mistaking Biden for a meme, or thinking he’s in the middle of the party when in reality he’s on its right. By himself, he’s completely unappealing. Who knows how long his campaign can keep up the illusion that hides the real candidate?

There’s also no telling what will happen in the news between now and the primaries, or what will happen during the primaries as well. Party shenanigans could cause issues with delegate allotment. Plus the instability of Trump means a foreign intervention or a recession that throw a wrench into things. It’s hard to say who benefits from that sort of situation. If we invade Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, or all three, it could make an explicitly anti-war candidate look better by comparison. It might also entice voters to try and put someone more stable in office for its own sake. A recession might lead the party to support someone with a business background, then again, our current president has such experience and look at Trump’s legacy of unnecessary tax cuts, feuding with the Federal Reserve, trade wars, and subsidizing coal plants.

On the other hand, a recession could make the party faithful see red, in a good way. Not in a let's bail out the banks one more time kind of way. Again, a boy can dream.

Denis Kearney: America’s First Fascist?

The Subject of Tonight's Essay, who I originally learned about on The Dollop

In this essay, I will be exploring the nature of Fascism and how it applies to the political life and times of Denis Kearney. I will argue that he can be regarded as America’s first Fascist, albeit with some important reservations. Exploring his rise and fall in obscurity is important because it shows how Fascism can and will take root in America if we’re not careful.  The fact that few Americans have heard of Denis Kearney is both good and bad. Good, because his successes were few and his fame fleeting. Bad because by forgetting him, we forget an unpleasant part of our past. When we do that, we become more likely to repeat it.

In short, Denis Kearney was a 19^th century demagogue who organized the Workingmen’s Party of California (WPC). Comparison with the Know Nothings are valid to a point. Like the earlier Know-Nothings, the Party was driven by hatred of perceived outsiders. However their prejudice was based in Racism instead of religion. In particular, they opposed Chinese immigration (there was a Know-Nothing movement in San Francisco that also hated the Chinese, but it was a small part of a national Anti-Catholic movement). Unlike the Know-Nothings, they were not a national party. They were only strong in California, but still sought a nationwide ban on the Chinese coming to the United States. 

Another important difference between the WPC and Know Nothings was its class character. It was mostly made up of urban laborers and craftspeople, with a heavy concentration in San Francisco. In contrast, the Know Nothings included people from a variety of economic backgrounds. In New England, there were members who were factory workers, teachers, and ministers. In the rest of the country they included factory owners and merchants, as well as slave-owners in the South. This gave the Know Nothings a more varied platform. Not only did they oppose Roman Catholicism and the Irish, the movement also took on different causes depending on the area. Know Nothings were known to fight for railroad regulation, clean government, and prohibition.

We see how the WPC was different from the Know Nothings. They were more racial in their worldview and they presented a working-class character.  In a sense they were a bridge between Anti-nativist movements of the mid-19th century, and Fascist groups in the 20th. In that way, they could be compared to the Klan. The WPC differed from this organization as well, because it was explicitly party based (the Klan supported Democrats in the South and Republicans in the Midwest) and it didn’t utilize any specialized garb, gab, or rituals.

Yet despite being a bridge of sorts to 20th Century Fascism, the WPC can be seen as close as a group could get to Fascism in the 1800s in America, before anyone knew the term.  Now, Fascism is a contentious term and nobody can agree on its definition. The label of “Fascist” gets thrown a lot and many different kinds of being and movements are labeled with it. I try to limit my usage of it to certain specific characteristics. For instance, I wouldn’t label the Klan, Donald Trump, William F. Buckley, the John Birch Society, or Pat Buchanan Fascist. They are Conservatives of different stripes. I would label Steve Bannon, Richard Spencer, and the figures of the Alt-Right Fascist. What’s the difference?

The difference comes down to an approach to hierarchy in a Capitalist system. Conservatives want to preserve it. Fascists want to purge it. For added comparison, Liberals want to reform it, and Radicals want to overthrow it one way or another. Take Hitler’s view on the bourgeoisie of his time: “Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can.” Like a typical Fascist he sees them in need of correction and subordination, but not elimination. He reserves that level of ire for the Jews, regardless of their economic class.

Yet Conservatives and Fascists both sit on the political right and have the same political enemies, that doesn’t make them natural allies and it certainly doesn’t make them the same. Even Conservatives who support authoritarianism aren’t Fascists. It brings them closer to it and creates a risk of tipping over into Fascism. It still doesn’t make them Fascist. For instance, a Conservative may want to preserve an absolute monarchy. Fascists, meanwhile, want to keep Monarchs out of power. They see royalty, nobility, and other forms of aristocracy as examples of degeneration within the elite.

Of course, Fascism’s support for Capitalism doesn’t make all Capitalists Fascists either. And yes, Fascism does support Capitalism, and no, Fascism and Socialism aren’t the same thing. Fascism can appear to look like Socialism because of its opposition to Liberalism, especially liberal Capitalism. Fascists attack the banks, they attack trade deals, and they criticize unemployment and exploitation. However, this isn’t because they are Socialists. They attack these things because they are viewed as threats to the mythical Nation (e.g. the German or Italian people) and the hierarchy within its borders. So banks are bad because they put the Nation in debt to people from outside it (i.e. Jews). Trade is bad because it weakens borders. Exploitation and class conflict are bad because they weaken cohesion within the Nation, and so on. 

The Statist and Capitalist nature of Fascism is best evident from the writings of its leading figures. As Mussolini says in his 1915 Doctrine of Fascism: “If the 19th century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State,” or as he put it more directly, “everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state.” Yet this state still has its classes and a fundamentally Capitalist character. This is why someone like Ludwig von Mises could support Fascism as a temporary fix to beat back any Socialist or Communist threat during the 1920s.

Any rhetoric about class, exploitation, or opposition to banking which Fascists espouse has to be squared with this. People often mistake (sometimes rather deliberately) what Fascists say for what Socialists do. Both groups are interested in class conflict under Capitalism and both groups have different approaches to the issue. Socialists want the working class to overthrow and displace the bourgeoisie as owners of the means of production. Fascists want to organize the classes of society in a way to promote the harmony of the State. This is usually done by unifying people against a domestic enemy (such as Communists or Jews), and a foreign one as well (such as the British or the Soviets).  Fascists may show support for institutions such as unions, but this support is not related to any emancipation of the working class from Capitalism. As French thinker Charles Maurras, explained what Mussolini’s Fascism sought in trade unions:

“A trade unionism free of the chains of the class struggle had imposed on Italian labor. A methodical and successful will to bring together in a same fascio all the human factors of national production ... A determination to approach, to threat, to resolve the worker question in itself ... and to unite unions in corporations, to coordinate them, to incorporate the proletariat into the hereditary and traditional activities of the historical State of the Fatherland.”

Fascism still believes in private property, class divisions, and private ownership of the means of the production. Hence it is not Socialist. It is not Liberal, either, because it subjugates the Market Economy to the State as the manifestation of the will of the Nation. It does not abolish it either, which puts Fascism firmly in the Capitalist camp. The Capitalist class understands this. That is why when forced to choose between a revolution on the Left or a revolution on the Right, they choose the one on the Right and as individuals, they hope they do not meet the local Fascists’ definition of degeneracy. 

As we can see, one of the key aspects of Fascism is its reactionary character. Not just in a political sense, but also in the historical sense as well. Fascism is a reaction to Socialism and Liberalism, and the perceived failure of Conservativism to respond to both. This makes it difficult to classify groups before Mussolini as Fascist. The Workingmen’s Party of California is no exception to this. In an era before the rise of Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism as serious threats to the political order, can Fascism be said to exist? The idea of when an idea constitutes a challenge or a threat is open to debate. In 1850, the radical left existed but had yet to take power in any real sense across the world. By 1920, that situation has changed thanks to the Russian Revolution. When the WPC was active though, this threat existed in a hazy area. Using the old Terror Alert system, one might say it was Elevated, rather than Severe. After all, the Paris Commune was a recent memory.

I think it’s important to keep this fact in mind. In the 1870s, There was a generalized fear of Left-wing movements. You can see this in a cartoon by Thomas Nast I posted below.  In it, he equates the WPC and the new state constitution they passed with Communism and Anarchy. This is an early example of Horseshoe Theory, equating the far Left with the far Right. Nast can be forgiven for engaging in this fallacy though, since there was no concrete Fascist movement to criticize. One could only go by rhetoric. However, make no mistake about it. The nature of the 1879 Constitution the WPC helped to pass is a reactionary and racist one. It has a whole section (Article XIX) dealing with Chinese Californians. Mostly it strives to prevent them from becoming employed.

How the Political Mainstream Saw Denis Kearney and the WPC

And with that, let’s move on to the case of Denis Kearney (1847–1907)

As mentioned before he was a demagogue who rose to political prominence in California by attacking Chinese Immigrants. One might think he was born in California itself, since he was so adamant about protecting it from foreign influences. Nope. Denis Kearney was born in Oakmount, County Cork, Ireland in 1847. An immigrant attacking other immigrants for not being American enough? Only in America. Kearney took a job on a clipper ship as a young boy and claimed to have sailed around the world. He jumped ship around 1868 and ended up in San Francisco, where he became a citizen and started a business hauling freight by wagon. By 1877 his business was so successful he owned five wagons and moved goods all over San Francisco.  

1877 was also the year he made his first foray into politics. As San Francisco and the country were dealing with the effects of an economic depression, Kearney challenged city-backed monopolies on transporting, carting, and hauling goods. Over time, he was drawn into more radical politics. While he was not an outright Socialist, he did side with the city’s working class against the wealthy. That summer, a group of Socialists from the national Workingmen’s Party (later known as the Socialist Labor Party of America), held in a rally in the so-called Sandlot near City Hall. The speakers urged working class unity and an end to exploitation by Capitalism. 

A group on the outskirts of the meeting started asking about how to handle the Chinese population, blaming them for the unemployment problem in the city. The organizers refused to acknowledge them and tried to maintain order. The Anti-Chinese group left the rally and proceeded onto Chinatown, where they started a two-day pogrom that had to be quelled by the state militia with the help of locals who had organized an ad hoc brigade armed with pickax handles. 

The event appears to have further radicalized Kearney, who was one of those who served with the pickax brigade to maintain order. He saw the power of harnessing Anti-Chinese feeling in the city and the appeal of Socialist ideas. He tried to join the National Workingmen’s Party but was denied for his Anti-Chinese prejudice, and previous statements condemning the laziness of the working class. Undeterred, he formed the Workingmen’s Party of California and began a quick rise through the city’s political ecosystem. His speeches did stress labor issues at first, yet this was a halfhearted commitment, since he was critical of unions and denounced strikes.  Eventually working-class concerns faded to the background and the Sinophobia took center stage. 

This was despite being a minority himself. San Francisco was far from the liberal beacon it is today and anti-Irish prejudice was common, just like in the rest of the country. Members of the city’s elite, who might’ve harbored Sinophobic views themselves, distanced themselves from Kearney’s movement because of his Hibernian roots. Contemporary author Hubert Bancroft, considered the WPC to be “ignorant Irish rabble, even though that rabble sometimes paraded the streets as a great political party." Other critics disliked Kearney’s brash rhetoric and saw him as the perfect representation of Irish American stereotypes. To many White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, it was Kearney and his fellow Irish who were the real risk to American Democracy, not the Chinese. They were aggressive, and quarrelsome drunkards who lacked the steady emotional and rational reserve of good Protestant stock. Hence, the reason they were behind corrupt political machines, such as Tammany Hall.

How Thomas Nast saw the Irish, which was pretty typical of WASP Republicans

Despite this criticism, Kearney’s movement grew in support. He regularly spoke to hundreds of people at the Sandlot, stirring up crowds with Anti-Chinese rhetoric. While he did show contempt for the press, capitalists, and the political establishment, Sinophobia was the continuous thread running through all his speeches, trumping all other things he hated. They were the “other” that consumed his attention.  Their mere presence in San Francisco, and America at large was intolerable. Kearney often ended his speeches with "And whatever happens, the Chinese must go," an echo of Cato the Elder’s attacks on Carthage, as well as a preview of Hitler’s attacks on the Jews. This eliminationist discourse is classic Fascism and can be contrasted with the emerging system of Jim Crow in the South. Being a Racist does not necessarily make one a Fascist. An extra step is needed to reach that level of prejudice. As violent and oppressive as the Klan and other Redeemers were, they did not want to rid Dixie of its Black population. They were too important to the local economy. However, Kearney sought the expulsion of every last Chinese person from America.

Just like the Nazis, Kearney framed his prejudice in terms of a question. In this case it was the “Chinese Question,” rather than the Jewish one. Of course, by referring to relations with the Chinese community this way, he could presuppose a problem on their end, and demand something be done about it. Just like the Nazis, and other Fascists, he placed this “Question,” above all other issues. To him, it was of paramount importance:

“When the Chinese question is settled, we can discuss whether it would be better to hang, shoot, or cut the capitalists to pieces. In six months we will have 50,000 men ready to go out. . . and if ‘John’ [the Chinese] don’t leave here, we will drive him and his aborts [sic] into the sea… We are ready to do it… If the ballot fails, we are ready to use the bullet.”

This is Kearney engaging in a common Fascist tactic, taking in the grievances shared by the lower-middle class and the working class and directing their anger at a completely unrelated target. The threat of the Chinese is played up to a fever pitch and dealing with it is so vital, that if Democracy cannot solve it, then violence is necessary.

Violent rhetoric against the political system was a common theme in Kearney’s other speeches. It often got him in trouble with the law but he was always released after being arrested. No one would testify against him. Here are a few gems of Kearney’s rabble rousing:

“Shoot the first man that goes back on you after you have elected him intelligently…see that you hunt him down and shoot him.”

“…before I starve in this country I will cut a man’s throat and take whatever he has got…The Workingmen’s Party must win, even if it has to wade knee deep in blood and perish in battle.”

  

“When I have thoroughly organized my party, we will march through the city and compel the thieves to give up their plunder. I will lead you to the City Hall, clean out the police force, hang the Prosecuting Attorney, burn every book that has a particle of law in it, and then enact new laws for the workingmen.”

“For reporters of the press I have great respect. The reporters of the newspapers are workingmen, like ourselves ‒ working for bread and butter. But for the villainous, serpent-like, slimy imps of hell that run the newspapers, I have the utmost contempt.”

Ironically, at one point early on in his political career, Kearney urged laborers to be "thrifty and industrious like the Chinese.” It was a short phase and by 1878 he was demanding that the railroads fire all their Chinese workers, and threatened lynchings if no action was taken. Taking advantage of the depression of 1873-1878, the WPC won elections and took control of the process to draft a new Constitution for the State of California. It combined Xenophobia with a strong anti-monopolist stance. For instance it banned railroads from hiring Chinese workers and put them under a California Railroad Commission that would regulate other business practices to make rates fairer to consumers. Kearney tried to spread his political message to other cities and increase his national stature, to limited success. He brought out crowds in cities such as Boston, but this enthusiasm failed to create a lasting political movement. The WPC would remain confined to California. Kearney shifted gears and tried to get the Greenback Party’s nomination for VP and failed in this endeavor as well.

Kearney remained in San Francisco where his political star continued to fade. Although he managed to get the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, his local laws and initiatives were overturned by the courts. Meanwhile, Chinese-American civil rights activist Wong Chin Foo would become a thorn in his side, attacking Kearney for his prejudices against his people. In 1883, Wong challenged Kearney to a duel, offering him his choice in weapons. These were Chinese chopsticks, Irish potatoes, or Krupp guns. Kearney, ever eloquent, called Wong an "almond-eyed leper." In his 1887 essay, Why I am a Heathen, he argued against Christianity using the example of Denis Kearney. In a fanciful speculation, he believed that under Christianity was possible for Kearney to repent his bigotry on his deathbed and then enter into heaven, where he could proceed to organize another mob to expel the Chinese. Kearney died in 1907, believing his work was instrumental in putting the “Chinese Question,” before the public. Today there is a Kearny Street running through San Francisco’s Chinatown, but it is not named after him. Most likely it is named after Mexican-American War Army officer Stephen W. Kearny.

The rise and fall of Denis Kearney and the Workingmen’s Party of California are important to remember when considering the possibility of Fascism in America. Yes, they were Fascist, or as Fascist as one could be at the time. To make a comparison to music, they could be described as Fascist the way the Stooges could be described as Punk. Chronologically they were off, but temperamentally they embraced the same basic template. They were political outsiders looking to transform the government by any means necessary, hence a revolutionary and not Conservative movement. At the same time, they were not arguing for changing the fundamental economic system, despite their attacks on the rich, which made them different from Socialist groups. Kearney and the WPC went beyond the racism of the day and wanted to expel a group from California, a trait seen in the ethnic cleansing espoused by figures like Adolf Hitler in Germany and even Mussolini in Libya. Kearney did not care for reasoned debate, and embraced a politics of pure emotional spectacle at his rallies, another trait reminiscent of other regimes in the 20th Century.

Yes, contemporaries accused Kearney and his party of being radical Communists. But this ignored the WPC’s deeply reactionary politics on race, which functionally made them a right-wing, not left-wing party. This failure to understand the movement only increased their appeal to a working class who felt they were being left behind in America’s rapidly industrializing economy. This is a mistake that proponents of the Horseshoe Theory make. Instead of accusing Fascists of class charlatanism and exposing them for what they are, Horseshoe Theorists lump them with Socialists, mistaking rhetoric for action. This ends up hurting the Left and helping Fascists gain support. If the far-Right and the far-Left are equal ideologically and occupy the same political space, then Fascists can gain the upper hand over Socialists. They can do this because they often operate with the support of the wealthy, certain segments of the media, the military, and law enforcement. This allows them to take working-class anger and turn it away from the system and towards an out group, such as Jews, Muslims, immigrants, or Gays.

Denis Kearney not only shows the possibility of a Fascism in America we must be vigilant about, but also the ways Fascism has been limited so far in this country. Despite plenty of racism, prejudice, and fear of Socialism, why have we avoided Fascism? The limitations of Kearney’s movement reveal part of the answer. Tensions with the White community were probably the largest barrier to his rise as a national figure and the WPC as a national movement. Until the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960, Catholic and Protestant divisions would’ve stopped any Fascist movement from gaining too much power. A figure like Denis Kearney, or later on, Father Coughlin, would’ve been constrained to support among Catholics. Meanwhile a group like the KKK couldn’t branch out beyond Protestant communities. There were additional ethnic issues as well, with Southern and Eastern Europeans distrusted by those of Northern European ancestry, and vice versa. Now, things have changed. White Americans no longer are as divided by religion or national origin as they once were. This is good for many reasons, yet it presents the possibility of mobilizing White Americans as a political group nationally for the first time in this country’s history.

Another issue limiting the spread of Fascism has been the sheer size of this country. It makes it harder to organize a national movement due to cost and the likelihood of rival groups with similar politics appearing in other regions. It makes centralizing power, a necessity of Fascism, difficult to achieve. If Kearney turned the WPC into the WPUSA, he would have to contend with Party bosses in New York, New England, and the South. To be sure, the Constitution also poses an institutional challenge. Checks and balances and all that. Yet American history is riddled with plenty of Supreme Court rulings that empowered authoritarianism in the Presidency as well as instances of Congressional cowardice in the face of the Executive overreach. Revanchism is missing too. Unlike Germany or Hungary after WWI, or Italy after the Fall of Rome, American has never lost a major war (only police actions). Therefore the appeal of a Fascist movement promising to restore national glory is limited. How long that state of affairs lasts is anybody’s guess. A defeat by Iran could lead to the rise of someone ever farther to the Right of Trump, who is better organized in both mind and movement.

Sinclair Lewis once argued that when Fascism comes to America, it will be carrying the flag and the cross. I think the example of Denis Kearney illustrates that the cross is not necessary at all. Nationalism and racism will be all that is necessary, since religion would be too divisive to build a movement. Anti-Catholic and Anti-Irish feeling prevented Kearney from using Anti-Chinese fervor to catapult himself to a national office. Kearney shows that not just any old racism will do either. It must be a racism that is about more than White Supremacy. It will be part of an ethnic cleansing campaign, in this day and age linked to our current geopolitics. The out group under attack has to be one seen as a fifth column undermining the nation.  Perhaps it will be Muslims or Chinese-Americans, or both. If the economy is tanking, look for this movement to speak the language of working class grievance. It may even be called Leftist, because of vague attacks on Capitalists. But when that day comes don’t be fooled. In dealing with Fascists, look for their specific targets that receive the most detailed attacks, both in speech and in physical form. That list will most certainly include ethnic and religious minorities, as well as any genuine working-class movements that are present. Because as the reactionaries know, these are the only real antidote to Fascism.  

Talking to An Octopus

I wrote a piece my body for Quail Bell. It's kinda phenomenological. It's another non-fiction piece. Another memoirish piece. Go ahead and read it. No need to interpret. Just observe.

The Time for Justice: A Book Review

Hello there my longtime readers and my (as of this writing) 52 followers! Today I am inaugurating a new feature for this blog, book reviews. It seems my name and website have gotten into the hands of numerous esteemed publicists and they are clamoring for me to say a few things about the books by the authors they represent. Since I have nothing much else to do these days except wait for literary stardom and attendant publicists of my own, I have decided to give this new project a go.

The Time forJustice: How the excesses of time have broken our civil justice system, (Onward Publishing, 185 pages) is a new non-fiction book by acclaimed lawyer Anthony V. Curto, written with the assistance of Ronald E. Roel. Mr. Curto has worked for several decades representing clients as diverse as Ted Turner, Linda Lovelace, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn and has an insider’s view of the problems that have plagued our civil justice system for several decades.  Curto reduces these issues to one chief obstacle: time. Specifically, the way time is used to prevent settlements from being reached and enforced in a manner that helps those who need them.

While the shortcomings of our criminal system often receive more attention in the press, Curto reveals how the bureaucratic and administrative burdens placed on the civil courts have led to justice being denied to those who turn to the courts for help. These encumbrances allow numerous delaying tactics to bankrupt plaintiffs with attorneys’ fees or prevent judgments from being collected. Through the examples of numerous court cases, Curto shows how these methods work in practice. They include creating jurisdictional disputes, arguing over how to fill out paperwork, failing to show up in court, filing appeal after appeal, and pushing back trial dates as far as possible.

Curto spends most of the book focused on one particular example which did not involve him personally, but fascinated him nonetheless as it unfolded: the case between Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and his constituent Esther James. Their dispute began in 1960, during a television interview when Powell named James as a “bag woman” working for Harlem gangsters. James sued the Congressman to receive compensation for defamation of character and an apology. Through skillful manipulation of the judicial system, which included making use of his privileges as a Congressman, his residency in Puerto Rico, and the complicated ownership of his property, Powell managed to prevent the bulk of the settlement against him from being paid out. He also ended up avoiding punishment for contempt of court.

While Curto acknowledges that the Powell case had many extenuating circumstances involved (namely the benefits of his elected office) he nonetheless feels it showcases how the legal system can become tied up by a single case. At the end of the book, he notes that by 1969 more than 80 judges across 10 different courts had been involved in the proceedings, along with 59 jurors. The official paperwork for the case ended up forming a stack nearly 20 feet high.

In between his coverage of Esther James’ quest for justice, Curto also briefly focuses on several other cases that involve similarly lengthy periods of litigation. This helps to reinforce his arguments about specific ways the system needs to be changed and the consequences from justice delayed.  In one instance, Curto talks about a client frustrated with the stalling tactics of a deadbeat distributor. He hired goons to collect the money he was owed without telling his attorney. In another case, he shows how a man gets away without paying a jeweler for an expensive wristwatch because he manages to avoid court summons until the lawyers’ fees for the case outweigh the value of said watch.   

Curto’s The Time for Jusice is engaging and raises good points without being overwhelming to the reader or becoming mired in legalese. It is easy for anyone without a legal background to follow both the cases he discusses and the improvements he recommends. He helpfully structures the book to review his points and conveniently sets apart his suggestions from the rest of the text so that he can go into detail about them. Curto further helps the reader by reviewing these ideas at the end. His list for improvements to the civil justice system include the following:

• Set trial dates as soon as summons are answered
• Broaden the authority of judges
• Eliminate pretrial paperwork
• Require plaintiffs to pay expenses if appeal is lost
• Enforce court decisions
• Settle jurisdictional disputes upfront
• Require litigants to attend their trials
• Keep the same judge on a case
• Expand small claims court

The only major problem with the book is how Curto assigns blame for the current state of the civil judicial system. Understandably, he wants to focus on exposing the problems that the courts face without getting bogged down in partisan politics or demonizing the legal profession. However, claiming that time is the chief enemy focuses the blame in the wrong direction. After all, time is a mere abstraction. Curto confuses a chief weapon of those who deny justice with those who allow them to get away with it. Instead we should be learning who is actually responsible for our state of affairs and who is in the way of effective reform.

By telling the reader that only time is the villain, our system appears to be tragically broken. Lawyers, judges, law enforcement, plaintiffs, and defendants are depicted as merely acting out a choreography of delay.  The story behind who or what created the rules that guide them is hardly discussed. Curto’s list of specific reforms is a good start of what should be done, but without being told what individuals or organizations are working to advance them, the average citizen is given no blueprint for actually making them a reality. All that can be done, it seems, is to try and appease Chronos for the return of a judicial golden age of quick and speedy trials.

Boosting My February Stats

In case you missed it, I had poems up in Tinfoildresses. My work starts at page 14 of the issue. Also, there is a poem to read at Bone Orchard Poetry. Now, here are some interesting links that I came across and have nothing to do with me. The first is an interesting piece about John Berryman and the carnival life. The second is a project dedicated to creating police composite sketches of characters drawn from literature using the descriptions given of them in the novels they inhabit.

Marco...Polo...Poem...Essay

My first ever poem accepted through the good ole' postal service. It's up at the Marco Polo Quarterly. A wonderful publication. It was also the first poem I ever showed in a workshop that got acknowledgment from my peers. So consider it a real piece of history in its creation, though I cannot speak for the history contained within the lines themselves. A poet's license to to reveal his tricks. In addition, read an essay by my friend Andrea Kannes.