Something we can expect from President Trump: the unexpected

"Oh shit; we won.  Now what?"  The dog chasing the car has caught it.

During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, President-elect Donald Trump offered an interesting answer about one of the most significant promises he made during his presidential campaign.

After stating that he might end up amending the Affordable Care Act instead of repealing and replacing it, Trump was asked about numerous issues and developments tied to his campaign platform. One thing that came up was that the question of whether Trump would follow through with his second debate promise and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton over her private email server.

This shifting with the winds is likely to continue.  You might recall I suggested his having Her prosecuted was something he would have to follow through on.  He could still change his mind back, but I'm out of the forecasting business w/r/t our new leader.

After Trump won on Election Night, his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway seemed noticeably ambiguous on whether Trump would do what he promised throughout the last months of his campaign. When asked about the matter himself, Trump only said this:

“It’s not something I’ve given a lot of thought, because I want to solve health care, jobs, border control, tax reform.”

Trump was also asked about his incendiary campaign rhetoric, which has now prompted protests of his victory across the country over the last few days. “I want a country that loves each other,” Trump said, but, when asked if he thinks he might have taken his campaign rhetoric too far, Trump answered with "No. I won."

Nobody's certain what he's going to say or do next.  But he sure tells it like it is.

Trump has already contradicted himself while addressing the protests. Trump first dismissed the demonstrators as professionals “incited by the media,” only to later praise them for their “passion.”

What he's thinking on any topic is based on the last person he talked to.  It appears that 25.5% of Americans has chosen a spoiled brat without much in the way of actual conviction to lead us.

(I'm not arguing against the Electoral College; I believe it should be revised to count states' votes as proportional to the winner in each Congressional district rather than winner-take-all.  And for the record, I do not support those who are petitioning and protesting for Electors to deny their oath on December 19th, when the College convenes in each state to elect the president.)

Yes, Trump is almost certainly going to be guided by the lousier angels of our country's nature in the GOP to their ends.  But if he keeps dropping campaign promises this quickly, he's bound to upset those who have installed him in the White House.  I suppose we'll have to wait for them to figure out that the joke's on them.  Unfortunately, we might be waiting a very long time for that to occur.

In the middle of composing this post, I found Echidne had said it all better, so go read her.  Also, Trump has chosen RNC head Rinse Penis as White House chief of staff and Breitbart scumbag Steve Bannon as counselor and chief strategist, calling them "equal partners".  I see Preibus as being of heavier import, which means steadying Congressional relations with the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will be more important than extremist ideology and throwing red meat to the goons.

Sunday Funnies

Racists, misogynists, and homophobes voted for Trump.

The sooner people realize that it's not blue vs. red but rich vs. poor, 

elitist vs. common man, the better off we'll be.

But not all Trump supporters are, as such.

If the headline were true, then everyone who voted for Obama (which I did in 2008, but not in 2012) would own his bombing seven countries, as well as the deaths of innocent women and children standing in drone bomb radius proximity to the suspected or "pre"-terrorists, his lack of will to get behind a public healthcare option when he had a Congressional majority in 2009-10, his "most transparent administration ever", and so on.  I reject that, and ultimately over the course of the years since have been forced to reject the Democratic Party for failing to represent me and my interests adequately.  That rejection by itself invalidates the premise of calling everyone who supported Trump a racist, et.al. which, as careful people already know, is false.

Calling them all racists is almost as bad as cheering on the protests of a legitimate election outcome when, if Clinton had won and the Trumpkins were in the streets ... you would be denouncing such as fascist and undemocratic.  But nobody in this space has accused the Hillbots of using logic effectively over the past 18 months.

An associated problem is how we are lately defining 'racist'.  Here, this explains that.

As we confront our nation’s election of a man who dwells blithely in stereotype and caricature, many of us are wondering what we are to do as responsible citizens faced with what many of us regard as a political and moral catastrophe. One thing someone opposed to Donald Trump’s unenlightened, “mean boy” perspective on women, nonwhites, the disabled, Muslims, and others might consider doing is to avoid imitating him.

It may seem perhaps the least likely thing an anti-Trumpian would do, but there’s a word we might consider tempering our usage of in the coming years, given that the way we use it opens us to certain charges involving kettles and the color black. I refer to the word “racist.”

The Martian anthropologist would recognize no difference between the way those accused of being witches were treated in 17th-century Salem, Mass., and the way many innocent people are being accused of “racism” today. Those appalled by the way people were tarred with the Communist label in the 1940s and 1950s must recognize that America has blundered into the same censorious mob mentality in assailing as “racists” just recently, people such as Ellen DeGeneres — for Photoshopping herself riding on Jamaican gold medal sprinter Usain Bolt’s back in celebration of his win — and Hillary Clinton — for referring to the black men terrorizing poor black neighborhoods as “superpredators” in describing plans for protecting people in those neighborhoods from such crime.

Or, many of us have for days been furiously dismissing Trump’s victory as the action of “racists.” However, many of the people who voted for Trump did so for populist reasons, amid which to them, Trump’s take on black people and women was unseemly, but still less of a priority than to most who voted for Hillary Clinton. Regret this though one may, do all of these people deserve to be casually tarred with the same “racist” label that we appropriately apply to David Duke and Donald Sterling?

The way we use the word “racism” has become so imprecise, abusive, and even antithetical to genuine activism that change is worth addressing. More to the point, it widens the cultural divide between the elites and the people too often breezily termed the ones “out there.”

Read on here, please, for the definition and the detours from the definition's application.

However, to understand that racism is real is not to pretend that humans will ever be perfect. If there is a way to eliminate implicit bias entirely, there are no studies showing that the way to do it is to tar and feather anyone displaying the slightest sign of any kind of insensitivity on the Internet for weeks. This new practice is more about self-congratulation than change, turning what began as an unprecedentedly mature understanding of the nature of racism into a grown-up version of tattletale-ing and cops and robbers. What happened to simply noting civilly that someone has made a mistake?

I also question another usage — take a deep breath — the hallowed term “societal racism.”

Read on for the associated "problematic habits of mind".

This can only play a part in the vague but pervasive notion nowadays that part of activism on behalf of people who need concrete assistance is primly patrolling people’s personal racist sentiments. We, as it were, think we must teach “society” not to be “a racist.” Thus it is thought more interesting to teach whites to acknowledge their “privilege” than to espouse reading programs that have been proven effective in teaching (black) kids how to read. Thus the last celebrity caught on tape saying something tacky about black people, because they have a face to hate on, is more interesting than answering poor women’s calls for easy access to long-acting reversible contraception in order to be able to plan when to have children. The war on drugs has been ruining black lives for decades — but only attracts serious attention from black activists when Michelle Alexander phrases it as “The New Jim Crow,” putting a Bull Connor face on it.

Read on for 'why nobody wants to talk about racism'.  Bold emphasis is mine.

The idea that America “doesn’t talk about” racism is absurd, and is actually a euphemism from people who feel that too few Americans talk about racism in what they would consider the right way. That is, they worry that not enough Americans consider racism to be a definitive obstacle to black advancement, and that too many are weary of people’s broaching the issue and dismiss it as unnecessarily “stirring that stuff up.”

To parse this, however, as “Nobody wants to talk about race” channels a kind of smugness. It implies that the people “out there” are actually closing their ears to any discussion at all of race and racism as if it were roughly 1947. This is unfair to a great many people who don’t deserve to be labeled Cro-Magnons for not agreeing with The Nation’s take on race, and also lends a portrait of America that sacrifices empiricism for self-congratulation. We can do better.

In our moment, my comments will elicit from many the question as to whether I consider Donald Trump a racist. The answer is yes — his feigning lack of familiarity with the opinions of David Duke and his explicit statements about black people’s purported laziness decide the case rather conclusively for me, and I am revolted that he will be our president for this and countless other reasons. However, the problem is treating Ellen DeGeneres, Hillary Clinton, or even Trump voters as if they deserve being discussed in the same vein as he does.

They don’t, and only the mission creep the word racism has undergone lends any impression otherwise. Meanwhile, the melodramatic quality in designating well-meaning people who slipped up a bit as “racists” is clear to most observers, and it dulls their receptiveness to genuine, serious accusations of bigotry. Rather, “racist” starts to come off as a mere angry bludgeon used by a certain set of people committed to moral condemnation and comfortable with shutting down exchange. A common idea among Blue Americans is that the people “out there” shirk the racist label out of what could only be naïve denial. That happens — but what if a lot of them get weary of being commanded to pretend that Ellen DeGeneres is a bigot?

Social justice is about being honest and outwardly focused. Our language must encourage us in that. The way we currently use the term racism does not.

TL;DR?  Here: Trump is a racist, a misogynist, and a homophobe.  Virtually all racists, misogynists and homophobes voted for him.  And some have been and are now using his upset victory to recruit.  But not all Trump voters are racists, misogynists, and homophobes.

It would be nice to see some stand up publicly and say that; to demonstrate their sincerity with honesty, conviction, and verifiable conduct, but in the meantime Clinton supporters should cease the blanket and false condemnation.  They lost an election they should have won on the basis of failures like that.  Why repeat past mistakes?  Until they can own their loss, we're going to keep hearing and seeing things like this.

Scattershooting other people's post-election BS

-- Let's get this out of the way first: anybody not named Michael Moore who tells you they saw this coming is telling you a story (unless, of course, they can produce a public opinion that appeared before July 21st of this year).  As you read -- or listen to the same talking heads on teevee who never saw it coming try to explain it -- keep in mind that the those with the most access to the best insider information lost 4 million pounds euros (thanks to DBC in the comments) betting on a Hillary win.  You should have no shame and you have lots of company if you are able to admit to being wrong.

-- And it would go a long way toward accepting the outcome (five stages of grief and all) if you could demonstrate some sign of being awake.  Here's another poor analogy.  Why would anyone choose to rebuild in a flood zone (aka the Democratic Party) when the hundred-year floods come every year now?  You're not a tree; move.  Take off the blinders and start thinking outside the two-party box.  All you have to lose is the next election, after all.

-- The Democratic Party should purge itself of charlatans like Donna Brazile, but we all know they won't.  If you're one of those people who simply cannot bear the thought of voting for someone besides a Democrat or a Republican; if you'd rather keep trying to reform one of them from within, here's a reform you can steal from the Greens.  It just passed in Maine.  Unfortunately you'll have to change the Texas Election Code (Title I, Chapter 2, Subchapter B; IANAL) first.  Several not-so-liberal sources advocated for ranked choice/instant runoff voting in the wake of Trump's winning the GOP nomination, so perhaps the Republicans in Austin can get on board.  As our attention turns to the forthcoming legislative session, let's ask our new state representatives -- and the old ones, too -- and see what they think.

Why did Hillary lose to Trump? Vol. III Final

Yesterday I blogged the post-election to-do list offered by David Swanson, but left off the "If Trump won" part.  Because, like everybody else, I simply didn't see it coming.  Oh, I made it plain a couple of times that if she did lose, it would be her own fault, just as it was Al Gore's in 2000, but I honestly didn't think it would happen.  Even though my 303 EC vote call was more conservative than many others -- I was still seeing people predicting 352 on Monday, after all -- the possibility of Her snatching defeat from the jaws of victory was simply too remote for me to give credence to.

But as the reality unfolded last night, I found myself less and less surprised, and with a lack of empathy to its political ramifications (not the social ones, mind you).

Some can say that's my white privilege.  I will say that it feels like my conscious uncoupling from the Democrats as the year passed has left me with a profound indifference to their plight.

Yes: Obamacare will be repealed, voting rights will be curtailed, a woman's right to choose will be eliminated as the Supreme Court veers hard right for another twenty years, Social Security will be privatized, cops will go on randomly killing people of color, the planet's ice will keep melting and its deserts will grow and its storms become more powerful.  The rich will get richer; the poor poorer.  And if I were advising Hillary this morning, I would recommend -- like Steve M -- she take a nice long vacation in a country without an extradition treaty with the United States, because I think Trump made a campaign promise that he has to at least try to keep about locking her up.

I care about the people who will be damaged by Trump's policies.  But I do not care about the Democrats who pretended to care about them, and went about the lousy business of coronating Hillary by any means necessary.  They earned their failure, and their reward is just.

Anyway, back to life.  Back to reality.

IF TRUMP WON

1. Build a movement that includes all the Democrats eager to get active.

2. Build a movement that includes a focus on rights of refugees / immigrants

3. Build a movement that resists racist violence at home.

4. Demand a swift end to NAFTA and NATO.

5. Oppose all the horrible nominations for high offices.

6. Break up the media cartel.

7. If win came through voter suppression, seek prosecution immediately.

8. If win came through fraudulent counting, launch massive campaign to compel Democrats to admit it and protest it.

Notice how little it differs from Clinton's list.

Harris County, Texas is shining, with its Democrats having won most of their races and looking nice and bluish-purple.  City council races will gear up very shortly; the HGLBT Caucus will soon start questioning candidates and making endorsements before spring arrives.  It'll be another banner year for the neoliberals.  Speaking of them, you should read this from Thomas Frank at The Guardian about who's at fault for last night's debacle.  Here's a taste, and don't forget to substitute the word 'neoliberal' for 'liberal'.

(Trump) has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. In saying so I am not referring to his much-criticized business practices or his vulgar remarks about women. I mean this in a purely technical sense: this man fractured his own party. His convention was a fiasco. He had no ground game to speak of. The list of celebrities and pundits and surrogates taking his side on the campaign trail was extremely short. He needlessly offended countless groups of people: women, Hispanics, Muslims, disabled people, mothers of crying babies, the Bush family, and George Will-style conservatives, among others. He even lost Glenn Beck, for pete’s sake.

And now he is going to be president of the United States. The woman we were constantly assured was the best-qualified candidate of all time has lost to the least qualified candidate of all time. Everyone who was anyone rallied around her, and it didn’t make any difference. The man too incompetent to insult is now going to sit in the Oval Office, whence he will hand down his beauty-contest verdicts on the grandees and sages of the old order.

Maybe there is a bright side to a Trump victory. After all, there was a reason that tens of millions of good people voted for him yesterday, and maybe he will live up to their high regard for him. He has pledged to “drain the swamp” of DC corruption, and maybe he will sincerely tackle that task. He has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and maybe that, too, will finally come to pass. Maybe he’ll win so much for us (as he once predicted in a campaign speech) that we’ll get sick of winning.

But let’s not deceive ourselves. We aren’t going to win anything. What happened on Tuesday is a disaster, both for liberalism and for the world. As President Trump goes about settling scores with his former rivals, picking fights with other countries, and unleashing his special deportation police on this group and that, we will all soon have cause to regret his ascension to the presidential throne.

What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?

Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.

And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.

Maybe all those #BernieorBust people meant it.  Maybe that #DemExit thing in the wake of the convention was, you know, a thing.

Blame the media, blame the polling, blame James Comey (who is surely not going to be fired now), blame the Greens and the Libertarians for taking a combined four percent of the total everywhere I looked.  Just don't blame yourselves.  Or Hillary.  Because that might compel some self-reflection.

Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here’s what it consisted of:

• Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.

• Her scandals weren’t real.

• The economy was doing well / America was already great.

• Working-class people weren’t supporting Trump.

• And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

Turns out it was the economy, stupid.  Again.  Specifically it was all those Rust Belt hardhats who bought into Trump's line of blaming job losses on free trade.  The polling somehow missed it.  Maybe those guys don't have landlines any more after being unemployed for so long.

Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these Democrats are the “last thing standing” between us and the end of the world. It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability.

Clinton Democrats failed to fucking get it, every day of the year and much of last year, and when I finally bailed on them it was for good.  They're still curled up in a fetal position, hung over emotionally if not from the drowning of their sorrows.  There will be much reckoning, some recriminations, probably no atonement.  A few are, shockingly, presumptuous enough to say they knew it would happen all along.

Among my blogging brethren, Neil and Egberto were so motivated by their fear and hatred, respectively, of Trump to abandon the progressive cause after Bernie Sanders quit on it, too, and pushed all in on Hillary.  Fear is a loser's motivation; it almost always leaves you holding your little sack of nightmares even after you've dodged its worst blow.  I can't feel sorry for people who are controlled by the monsters under their bed.  Hate is even worse because it makes you no better than those who supported Trump for their abhorrence of Clinton.  Kuff is stunned speechless, Campos stunned but unfortunately not speechless, and Dos -- despite having posted more about Tejano music than politics over the last six months -- asserts, on the morning after, that he saw most of it coming.  And then congratulates former clients on their victories.  And their defeats.  (Folks, that's called hackery, and I'm forced to avoid it in the future.)

Most of the Texas so-called Progressive Alliance gassed on this election from the get-go, but fellow member and non-Democrat Gadfly nailed it.  Click that link and take note of the embedded Tweet, which shows that more Democrats voted for Trump than Republicans did for Hillary.  There goes your blame game out the window, neoliberals.  If you're not looking for your pain/anxiety meds yet, try on Ted Rall.

It'd be called tough love if I still loved you, Democrats.  But you fucked that up too.