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.  

 

Some Virtual Housekeeping

My short story, Delusions of Failure is up at the Purple Wall. You can still vote for it to be your favorite versus the other story by that other guy. 

These Lines contains these lines by me, look for the poem "Some Virtual Housekeeping"

Beliveau Books in Stratford, Ontario (city hall pictured) has put out another issue of the Beliveu Review, and I'm in it with a poem called Easy to Ignite.

Plus, a reminder another reminder to read and vote for my short story Delusions of Failure

A Short Story Up Against the Purple Wall

A short of mine, "Delusions of Failure" is up at Purple Wall. Normally I would tell you to read it and enjoy this story about a mysterious DVD of the movie Ishtar. HOWEVER, this is different. Purple Wall posts stories and readers can vote on their favorites. So, read the story, vote using the link at the top, and look for an email with a code you can use to confirm your vote. Said email might be in your spam folder, so check there too.

Part III: The Plain and the Mountain

In my last post, I discussed a tier of candidates who will pretty much do everything in their power to return the party to the 90s and keep it there. Whether it’s the 1890s or the 1990s is the main point of contention among them. None want to update the Democratic party to fit in with the values of its members, or confront a changing world. Their solutions are unworkable and their ideas are old. They believe in a return to a much-fabled normalcy, which is about as Utopian as the proposals of Fourier or Lyndon LaRouche. Putting them at the top of the ticket would be wrong and it would be a losing strategy, especially down-ballot.

Now we move on to those candidates who are slightly better than the Backset Democrats previously discussed. They at least understand the direction the party and the country are moving in (left, and towards disaster, respectively) and what to do to accommodate these changes. Some of them are fairly chameleon-like in their politics, such as Gillibrand, and that is worrying. However, this group of Democrats, are still amenable to pressure. They may not be ideologically committed to either change, nor the status quo, but they can be moved.

Call them the Progressive Centrists, although I think the term Centrist here has to be understood in relation to the party as a whole. It is not about left or right, rather the Plain and the Mountain. Students of the French Revolution will understand what I mean. Listeners of Mike Duncan’s podcast will too. The terms left and right are based on where people sat in the National Assembly in 1789. Supporters of the king sat on the right of the legislative body, those who wanted more radical changes sat on the left. Since then, we’ve come to use left-wing and right-wing to describe political beliefs. However, back in Revolutionary France, this distinction gave way in the subsequent National Convention, where delegates grouped themselves based on a different arrangement that was dictated by the particular seating of their meeting hall in the Tuileries Palace.

Here, there were seats close to the main dais, seats behind them, and then seats on an elevated platform around the room. Delegates chose to sit close together based on their beliefs, with the right-wing Girondins sitting together near the front and the left-wing Jacobins and others sitting in the gallery. In between them was the majority of the Convention, men who would vote with either faction. They became known as the Plain (or Marsh) while those radicals who occupied the galleries became known as the Mountain.

The reason for this little history lesson is that I think this arrangement shows how the factions in the current Democratic party operate. The National Convention in sense looks very much like a political convention today, with more conservative party leaders at the front and center, the party faithful representing states in the middle, and the activists and radicals in the rear and the galleries (the new Mountain). The candidates of the Plain represent those who believe in the Democratic Party, but also want it to do more. They are reformists and progressives of different stripes who are moved by the voices coming from the radical peanut gallery.

Here are the candidates of the Plain as I see them:

Kamala Harris
Kirsten Gillibrand
Andrew Yang
Bill De Blasio
Julián Castro

…and sometimes

Buttigieg (Schrodinger’s candidate)

Of course, unlike the Plain in the French Revolution, they are more willing to lead on their own terms, rather than allow others in the Democratic Party’s factions to dictate the direction of the party. They want to bring the left and right together in the spirit of common agreement on the common good in order to defeat Trump. They see the need to update the Party as well, and do things to appeal to younger voters. Hence you have Andrew Yang and his proposal for a basic income, and his internet-centric campaign. You also have Castro arguing for Reparations for African-Americans and Harris even talking about potential support for Medicare for All (though she’s walked that back recently, remember the Plain listens to both the Mountain and the donors up at the Dais).

They all have their problems, which is why I put them above the Backset Democrats and below the candidates who are either of the Mountain, or willing to come down from it. The first is that they do not go far enough to solve the problems of this country. The second, is that they are too willing to moderate themselves for the interests of the donor-class. The third is that most of them have been in office before and haven’t used it to try and advance their own agendas. Harris was a reactionary prosecutor. Castro didn’t do much about the affordable housing crisis at HUD. Gillibrand was a fairly conservative congresswoman when it came to immigration. Yang was a capitalist.

DeBlasio probably has the most progressive accomplishments of anyone running besides Warren and Sanders. However, what’s concerning about him is the lack of a structural vision for the government and the party. After all, he was hampered the most in office from a fellow Democrat: Governor Andrew Cuomo. It would be great if he could run with ideas about improving the power of cities and local government at the expense of states, and how to revolutionize the country’s transportation systems. DeBlasio’s a big guy, but he needs big ideas to stand out. Things could change. DeBlasio might start issuing one policy idea after another, making pledges left and right to the Mountain.

This primary has had an interesting effect so far, with candidates releasing all kinds of proposals in order to catch up with one another. Warren leads the pack here, with Sanders, Booker, Castro, Harris, and Yang behind. It’s an interesting contrast to the 2016 Republican Primary, where there were so many candidates running and hardly anyone felt the need to create any policy proposals. The only person with any ideas was Trump. They were all terrible, but no one was trying to meet him with ideas of their own. Consequently, it helped him dominate the discussion at the Debates. If anything, it shows just how intellectually bankrupt the Republicans are, and how “conservatism” in America has reached a complete dead end. Unfortunately, this sclerotic movement still holds sway over a major party, creating a situation I outlined in my previous post, where only one party has any real debate inside it, and then has to compromise with a party that doesn’t.

Oh well, now let us turn to our attention to the Mountain. This is where the activists, the radicals, the rabble rousers, and left-wing of the party sit. In the Convention, they are elevated, seeing all the action, but at a distance. Consequently their voices travel farthest and they are closest to the doors, making them the faction most likely to bolt if things go bad enough for them. The Mountain has its candidates, but I think it’s important to distinguish that they fall into to two groups. There are the candidates who are of the Mountain first and foremost and willing to stay there. Then there are those who have been on the Mountain, have seen the promised land, and want to lead the rest of the Democrats there. You can probably guess who I believe are in the latter group. The former includes the following:

Jay Inslee
Marianne Williamson
Tulsi Gabbard
Mike Gravel

What makes these candidates “of the Mountain?” Well I think in part its because they are identified with a particular issue. They are not generally interested, it seems, in advancing a broader set of proposals. Instead, they want to argue for a radical position in regards to a single problem facing the country. There’s nothing wrong with that, only that you can’t win the nomination this way, unless it’s 1896…the issue is bimetallism…and you’re William Jennings Bryan.

That said, I’d prefer these candidates over the Plain and the Backset Democrats. Why? Because they are willing to actually change the status quo on issues that have caused or will cause immense suffering here and abroad. One thing about the Mountain, is that it can look into the future and across national borders. That’s a strength, but the Mountain, like any political faction has its weaknesses. There’s the issue of seeing so far into the future, that they lose sight of the present. There’s also an impatience with the very mundane and boring aspects of politics and party processes. Finally, there can be a blinkered vision that focuses too much on a single issue (as vital as that issue might be).

As far as issues go, there are two main ones that define these candidates. The first is Climate Change, which is the center of Jay Inslee’s campaign. If the media really was as left-wing as conservatives say it is, and Climate Change the liberal conspiracy it’s supposed to be, he would be getting far more attention than Pete “the South Bend Mr. Bean” Buttigieg. Inslee understands there is a problem and it has to be confronted by all necessary means and at all deliberate speed. It’s a real issue, not like “radical Islamic extremism” or whatever combination of words thereof conservatives think you need to say to defeat terrorism. If I had to have a single-issue candidate in office, he’d be the one. Nothing else is as important.

Then there are two candidates who represent the Mountain’s views on foreign policy, more or less. The less is represented by Tulsi Gabbard. The more is being pushed by Mike Gravel. They want an end to interventions in other countries, though Gravel is willing to go much farther than Gabbard. It’s unclear how strenuous her opposition is. Is she against certain current engagements but fine with the overall size of the armed forces and the powers of our intelligence agencies? Mike Gravel is the only one who is clear on reducing everything, bases, invasions, incursions, and budgets. Unfortunately, he’s too old to be president and his campaign is more meme-powered than anything else. He represents the Mountain at it’s highest peak. Incredibly serious about the issues, not serious enough about the process.

Finally, there’s Marianne Williamson. I don’t know what to make of her or how to describe her policies. Again, it’s another peak Mountain campaign. She has a firm commitment on reparations. However there’s also an emphasis on New Age mysticism. In the past she’s described herself as a “bitch for God,” so there’s that too. Maybe she can help reclaim religion from the right, if nothing else.

Trump's 2020 Campaign Poster

If let's Make America Great Again could be taken from Reagan:

Then his 2020 Campaign can steal from Lyndon LaRouche:

A Lost Devo Album Cover?

Or Proto-Devo? Would that make it Evo?

The above is an advertisement from John R. Brinkley. He was the original GOAT. One of America's most notable medical quacks, he was almost elected governor of Kansas in 1930. Brinkley's main business involved implanted goat testicles in patients in order to cure them of a variety of ailments (I hope that's not what he did to this poor kid). Hounded by the authorities, he fled to Mexico where he built a radio station to sell his healthcare services. To help drum up listeners, he played country and bluegrass music. He helped boost the career of the Carter Family, among others.

A Poem from the FBI

When we went after the Communists, it was okay,
Because they were Communists, after all

When we went after the Socialists, it was okay,
Because they were sort of like Communists, right?

When we went after the activists, it was okay,
Because they wanted to help the Reds

And when we went after the Blacks, it was okay,
Because they were all Red underneath

When we went after the anti-War types, it was okay
Because the wars were against Communists

When we went after the terrorists, it was okay
Because they were terrorists, it’s simple

(When we went after the kids in basements
Making bombs with instructions we gave them,
It was okay because they were terrorists too)

Then we went after the Anti-War types again
Because the wars were against terrorists

But look, now the President is going after us,
Come on patriots! Why aren’t you in the streets?

The Real Reason Hillary Lost

Guys, pack it up. No more articles, books, or think pieces. This is the real deal:

It wasn't Comey and it wasn't Putin that stopped her. It was the ghost of Oliver Cromwell!At least I think it was Oliver and not that Cromwell.

Poems Dredged Up from May

It's not a protest, it's actually a close up of a Georges Seurat painting

Hey, I forgot to post a link to some poems I got published in Immix back in May. Well, it's only August so hopefully they haven't passed their expiration date yet.

Trying to Hypernormalize a New Word: Sclerotica

Chris Applegate's Brilliant Work

I coined a new word at work the other day. I didn't use it in a sentence with anyone else, however I came up with it all by myself. The word?  "Sclerotica." Here's a definition:

Sclerotica (noun): materials that reveal and revel in the hardened paralysis of the system. "Adam Curtis is a purveryor of sclerotica."

Yamamoto-ing the Alt-Right, or Theses on the future of the Alt-Right Under the Trump Administration

1) The Alt-Right threw themselves behind a narcissist who doesn't give a shit about their ideas or ideology

2) At the same time it's presence has begun to mobilize the sleeping giantess of the opposition.

3) It leaves them exposed with nowhere to go and no one to protect them now that they've come out of the woodwork.

4) They're going to be nostalgic for the days of "PC Culture" and SJWs, when would-be radicals spent their time arguing about pop culture online. They never realized that things they hate so much were just fly traps for the Left. Now they've gotten them off the internet and into the streets* and the Alt-Right is going to realize just how small they are in reality. Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people.

* I think that when historians look at this period, they will see things starting to change with BLM, but accelerating under Trump. Trump is, after all, an Accelerationist's wet dream.

The Tribe of Ben

The Tribe, a journal from India (not to be confused with the brand of hummus) has two of my poems in their current issue.

Also, I wrote a poem criticizing Trump and the critics of Trump, which can be found in this collection. I guess that makes me a cuck now, huh?

Super Tuesday Prayer

Come bring in the results, Super Tuesday bless us
With data, every single point and poll,
Help us color in the map, so we may know
Where our friends and enemies lie across the land,
Those towns and counties filled
With patriots and likewise political geniuses,
As well as the gulches and gullies
Populated by the cretins who can only use
Their opposable thumbs to oppose a righteous cause
But most of all, Super Tuesday, help us know
What desires and dreams are out there
In a country we have only heard rumors from,
Trade in every empty white space for blue and red,
And please, refrain from confusing us with any purple
Or results which bring no conclusion,
Just the cliffhanger of things being too close to call.

Is It Nothing to You, All Who Click Through?

The lovely, understanding, endlessly creative and sympathetic Quail Bell magazine has published a piece I wrote. Finally, some more prose credits to my name. Even better, it's not fiction! So if you can't stand poetry and want writing to be about "reality," here's something for you, you Bourgeois Philistine (Philatelists are cool though).

Get Lucky with Blurred Lines

I haven't posted anything in a while and I haven't posted poetry in an even longer time. But seeing Stephen Colbert using Henry Kissinger for his much praised performance, I don't know. It just disturbs me, along with the way everyone who is supposedly leftist and liberal looks past it. Then again, without amnesia, how could we expect Hillary Clinton to be president in 2016? She'll be making history then, as long as we can ignore the history she helped make in Babylon. I dread the day George W. Bush gets to trot out his imbecilic grin and give voice to it on the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror LVII. It will be heralded, maybe even nominated for an Emmy. So it goes. 

Get Lucky with Blurred Lines

You tell yourself he cannot be an Eichmann, no,

He is a Jew and an old Jew at that,

An old Jew could never commit such terrible crimes

Not for the banal reason of an promotion, a desk,

Evil always has an ideology behind it, at least

Evil in America needs a cross to rally behind or burn.

And he can easily go along with the joke, evil

Never jokes, never makes a cameo,

Evil demands the spotlight, it demands to be a star,

Of course you are a star too, with a show,

A show where you dance with him while an audience

Too young to remember a secret bombing laughs.

The script calls for him to call for security

To escort you from the premises,

Decades ago, he called on friends in other countries

To overthrow their presidents, fill stadiums up

With folksinging hooligans and gun them all down,

Perhaps you want to highlight the contrast?

Here he is now, harmless like an urchin,

A buffoon who might even drop his glasses in a toilet,

An elder statesman with his gravitas swinging

Like a snood tucked under his pale chin,

You are old enough to remember beauties hooking

Their arms with him to promenade down  red carpets.

He gives off no aphrodisiac now, not for you, no,

You dance too quickly for him to catch you,

Even if the camera lingers, the smell does not reach you,

You are too busy, you must go embrace an actor,

Meanwhile, the urchin leaves his desk behind

To sway a would-be candidate waiting in the wings.

Here's a Picture of the New Pope

Francis I, long may he reign!

Poetry from Austria, Fiction from the Future

Here are some links to follow for your consideration. There are various publications out there you can see me in though I think they both require a fee. However I'm not the only one featured, so maybe you'll see someone else you like or know alongside me.

I have a poem in this issue of Poetry Salzburg. As the title suggests, it's from Austria.

Here at the Speculative Edge, you can find a short story of mine. It's Dickish, that is, Philip K. Dickish.  Also you can vote for it as the best of the issue.

I Wish I Had Something Wonderful to Tell You

But I don't. Nothing enough to vote for at least. You can watch this disturbing clip instead.

Make Your Own Attack Ad and Read Some Poems

He was also called hermaphroditical 

If you want to make an ad either attacking or promoting yourself for a hypothetical candidacy, you can do so here. Make sure you have plenty of embarrassing Facebook pictures and statuses on hand.

Another poem of mine is up at Misfits' Miscellany

And here is one you can read over at Bard Is Bong.

My First Attempt at a Meme

I saw this ad for Mitt Romney on Facebook today and knew I had to do something with it:

So I thought I might work with it a little to "make it new" in the parlance of Ezra Pound. Here's what I came up with. Keep in mind I am new to this 21st century game: