Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Bernie Sanders Goes On The Warpath As Trump Nominee Signals Cuts To Social Security


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted Donald Trump for lying about protecting Social Security after the president-elect nominated a man who is dedicated to killing Social Security and Medicare to run HHS. 

Bernie Sanders Goes On The Warpath As Trump Nominee Signals Cuts To Social Security
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted Donald Trump for lying about protecting Social Security after the president-elect nominated a man who is dedicated to killing Social Security and Medicare to run HHS.

Sen. Sanders reacted to Trump nominated Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) to run HHS in a statement, “Donald Trump asked workers and seniors to vote for him because he was the only Republican candidate who would not cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – programs that are of life-and-death importance for millions of Americans.

Now, he has nominated a person for secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, who has a long history of wanting to do exactly the opposite of what Trump campaigned on. Rep. Price has a long history of wanting to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

What hypocrisy! Mr. Trump needs to tell the American people that what he said during the campaign were just lies, or else appoint an HHS secretary who will protect these programs and do what Trump said he would do.”

Sanders is correct. There is no way that Trump would nominate a man who is deeply committed to cutting Social Security and Medicare if he had any intention of keeping the programs fully funded and in place. The nomination of Rep. Price to HHS indicates that the Trump administration is going to be targeting two programs that are beloved by the American people.

Trump has signaled that he is about to make the one move that will turn Bernie Sanders into an immediate and lifelong political enemy of the incoming administration. Sen. Sanders will fight tooth and nail to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Donald Trump is coming for the Social Security and Medicare of those who voted for him. 

Democrats tried to warn seniors that this would happen if they voted for Trump, and it looks like all of their warnings are about to come true.

Tom Price isn’t coming to HHS to save Social Security. Price is coming to destroy it.

Why Is The USDA Dumping Millions Of Pounds Of Fatty Cheese On Poor People?

By Lorraine Chow

Here’s a problem that may have slipped under your radar: The United States is in the midst of an epic 1.25 billion pound cheese glut. Low world market prices, increased milk supplies and inventories, and slower demand have pushed the country’s cheese surplus to its highest level in 30 years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said. Blocks, crumbles and curds are sitting in cold storage stockpiles around the nation; a mountain of cheese so large that every American man, woman and child can eat an extra 3 pounds of cheese this year.

You might have noticed that the cost of dairy products has fallen across the board at the supermarket, and while that’s good news for cheese lovers, dairy farmers and producers have seen their revenues drop 35 percent over the past two years. With more cheese than it knows what to do with, the USDA decided to make two $20 million purchases of surplus cheese in August and October and donated them to food banks. Critics say that the government is simply waving money—ahem, taxpayer funds—at the problem.

This handout abets large-scale dairy producers, who despite the glut, are on their way toward churning out a record 212 billion pounds of milk this year. Michigan dairy farmer Carla Wardin told the Wall Street Journal that she and her colleagues plan to deal with the situation by “doing the same thing … you milk more cows.”

The problems don’t end there. Cheap dairy is not only bad for the health of the environment (from methane-burping cows to water pollution), it’s bad for public health. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine criticized the USDA and its decision-maker Tom Vilsack for effectively dumping artery-clogging food products on poor people. “Please take a moment to ask Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to reconsider the USDA's plan to distribute the fatty cheese to programs that are already struggling to provide participants healthful foods that fight disease,” the group writes in an online petition.

Although cheese has some healthy properties such as bone-building calcium, cheese is loaded with fat and sodium, and even low-fat varieties can contribute to “bad” cholesterol levels. And let’s face it, the way we usually eat cheese is slapping it generously on top of pizza or nachos, making it a delicious but unhealthy treat.

“Typical cheeses are 70 percent fat and are among the foods highest in cholesterol and sodium, exacerbating obesity, heart disease, and diabetes," says PCRM. "Cheese is the number one source of saturated fat in the American diet."

PCRM's petition concludes that the USDA should help food banks and food assistance programs by providing healthier fare such as fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains. The diabetes epidemic has risen in poor populations, and sending highly processed, high-fat cheese to food banks isn’t going to make things any better.

Manel Kappagoda, senior staff attorney and program director at ChangeLab Solutions, wrote in a 2014 article that food banks are “a lifeline” for the 50 million Americans who live in food-insecure households and lack access to affordable, nutritious food."

Food pantries, she noted, are critical in maintaining and improving the health of food-insecure Americans. For this reason, many food banks across the country have implemented nutrition standards that eliminate unhealthy products such as candy, sugary drinks and other junk foods. Citing a survey from the Alameda County Community Food Bank in San Francisco, Kappagoda said that families and individuals who go to food banks don’t just want any food—they want fresh produce, low-fat items and other healthy staples.

As Kappagoda wrote, “to help improve the health of the people they serve, food banks can’t just offer food—they must offer good food.”

Lorraine Chow is a freelance writer and reporter based in South Carolina.

Guys, I've got to say, I'm sort of terrified right now.

By Tommy_Carcetti

The man in line to be the 45th President of the United States spent yesterday re-tweeting:

a) a 16 year old with absolutely no sense of logical thought

b) someone who posts things like this:
#IslamIsADeathCult #IslamIsTheProblem #BanMuslimsNotGuns #BanSharia #IslamIsCancer
#Muslims did not come to America to be Americans! WAKEUP!
in order to justify his position that he somehow was the victim of voter fraud in an election that he won electorally.

He then attacks a media outlet and claims he won the election in a "landslide" despite the fact he received over 2 million less votes than his opponent.

Finally, he decides to attack the pressing issue of flag burning and says people who burn the flag ought to be imprisoned and stripped of their US Citizenship.

The man is an mentally incompetent lunatic, pure and simple. And we're supposed to trust this person with our country?

I know there are some people who claim he's doing this all to distract against other issues, that he's playing multi-dimensional chess, but....no. He's not. He's essentially chucking checker pieces at his opponent. That's as deep as he gets.

Forget politics for a moment. Forget policy. Throw that all out the window for the time being--we can come back to all that if Pence gets into power. Right now, this is a watershed moment in US history, and in a very bad, dark way.

I've never be someone to be an alarmist. I've always tried to maintain a calm, reasoned and rational outlook on things. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling in 2000, I was pissed. I predicted we'd go back to war with Iraq and I was proven right. And in 2004, I was flabbergasted that we would re-elect Bush.

But throughout all of that, I could clearly see four years down the road, what our next plan would be for the next go-round. And God help me, but I'm not seeing that clearly for 2020. I can hope we're still basically functional, but that's no longer a given.

And that's absolutely terrifying.

The first few months of the Trump presidency will have its ups and downs but won't feel too out of sorts. The problem will be when he faces his first major crisis, and at some point he will face that major crisis whatever it is. How he reacts will be everything, and I can't trust him to react normally because he's not normal. Will he send us to war? Will he attempt to expand his own powers? Will he crack down on fundamental rights? Will he threaten to punish or imprison his opponents? I can't believe I'm imagining any of this happening, but the day after election day I woke up literally shaking for the first time in my life and there's got to be a reason for that.

We cannot depend on this man to lead us. He's not right in the head and I fear he's going to take the country to some very dark places before we can right this ship again.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

No, Trump, We Can’t Just Get Along

By

Donald Trump schlepped across town on Tuesday to meet with the publisher of The New York Times and some editors, columnists and reporters at the paper.

As The Times reported, Trump actually seemed to soften some of his positions:

He seemed to indicate that he wouldn’t seek to prosecute Hillary Clinton. But he should never have said that he was going to do that in the first place.

He seemed to indicate that he wouldn’t encourage the military to use torture. But he should never have said that he would do that in the first place.

He said that he would have an “open mind” on climate change. But that should always have been his position.

You don’t get a pat on the back for ratcheting down from rabid after exploiting that very radicalism to your advantage. Unrepentant opportunism belies a staggering lack of character and caring that can’t simply be vanquished from memory. You did real harm to this country and many of its citizens, and I will never — never — forget that.

As I read the transcript and then listened to the audio, the slime factor was overwhelming.

After a campaign of bashing The Times relentlessly, in the face of the actual journalists, he tempered his whining with flattery.

At one point he said:

“I just appreciate the meeting and I have great respect for The New York Times. Tremendous respect. 

It’s very special. Always has been very special.”

He ended the meeting by saying:

“I will say, The Times is, it’s a great, great American jewel. A world jewel. And I hope we can all get along well.”

I will say proudly and happily that I was not present at this meeting. The very idea of sitting across the table from a demagogue who preyed on racial, ethnic and religious hostilities and treating him with decorum and social grace fills me with disgust, to the point of overflowing. Let me tell you here where I stand on your “I hope we can all get along” plea: Never.

You are an aberration and abomination who is willing to do and say anything — no matter whom it aligns you with and whom it hurts — to satisfy your ambitions.

I don’t believe you care much at all about this country or your party or the American people. I believe that the only thing you care about is self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment. Your strongest allegiance is to your own cupidity.

I also believe that much of your campaign was an act of psychological projection, as we are now learning that many of the things you slammed Clinton for are things of which you may actually be guilty.

You slammed Clinton for destroying emails, then Newsweek reported last month that your companies “destroyed emails in defiance of court orders.” You slammed Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for paid speeches and conflicts of interest, then it turned out that, as BuzzFeed reported, the Trump Foundation received a $150,000 donation in exchange for your giving a 2015 speech made by video to a conference in Ukraine. You slammed Clinton about conflicts of interest while she was secretary of state, and now your possible conflicts of interest are popping up like mushrooms in a marsh.

You are a fraud and a charlatan. Yes, you will be president, but you will not get any breaks just because one branch of your forked tongue is silver.

I am not easily duped by dopes.

I have not only an ethical and professional duty to call out how obscene your very existence is at the top of American government; I have a moral obligation to do so.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, but rather to speak up for truth and honor and inclusion. This isn’t just about you, but also about the moral compass of those who see you for who and what you are, and know the darkness you herald is only held at bay by the lights of truth.

It’s not that I don’t believe that people can change and grow. They can. But real growth comes from the accepting of responsibility and repenting of culpability. Expedient reversal isn’t growth; it’s gross.

So let me say this on Thanksgiving: I’m thankful to have this platform because as long as there are ink and pixels, you will be the focus of my withering gaze.

I’m thankful that I have the endurance and can assume a posture that will never allow what you represent to ever be seen as everyday and ordinary.

No, Mr. Trump, we will not all just get along. For as long as a threat to the state is the head of state, all citizens of good faith and national fidelity — and certainly this columnist — have an absolute obligation to meet you and your agenda with resistance at every turn.

I know this in my bones, and for that I am thankful.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Mourning for Whiteness

By Toni Morrison

This is a serious project. All immigrants to the United States know (and knew) that if they want to become real, authentic Americans they must reduce their fealty to their native country and regard it as secondary, subordinate, in order to emphasize their whiteness. Unlike any nation in Europe, the United States holds whiteness as the unifying force. Here, for many people, the definition of “Americanness” is color.

Under slave laws, the necessity for color rankings was obvious, but in America today, post-civil-rights legislation, white people’s conviction of their natural superiority is being lost. Rapidly lost. 

There are “people of color” everywhere, threatening to erase this long-understood definition of America. And what then? Another black President? A predominantly black Senate? Three black Supreme Court Justices? The threat is frightening.

In order to limit the possibility of this untenable change, and restore whiteness to its former status as a marker of national identity, a number of white Americans are sacrificing themselves. They have begun to do things they clearly don’t really want to be doing, and, to do so, they are (1) abandoning their sense of human dignity and (2) risking the appearance of cowardice. 

Much as they may hate their behavior, and know full well how craven it is, they are willing to kill small children attending Sunday school and slaughter churchgoers who invite a white boy to pray. 

Embarrassing as the obvious display of cowardice must be, they are willing to set fire to churches, and to start firing in them while the members are at prayer. And, shameful as such demonstrations of weakness are, they are willing to shoot black children in the street.

To keep alive the perception of white superiority, these white Americans tuck their heads under cone-shaped hats and American flags and deny themselves the dignity of face-to-face confrontation, training their guns on the unarmed, the innocent, the scared, on subjects who are running away, exposing their unthreatening backs to bullets. Surely, shooting a fleeing man in the back hurts the presumption of white strength? The sad plight of grown white men, crouching beneath their (better) selves, to slaughter the innocent during traffic stops, to push black women’s faces into the dirt, to handcuff black children. Only the frightened would do that. Right?

These sacrifices, made by supposedly tough white men, who are prepared to abandon their humanity out of fear of black men and women, suggest the true horror of lost status.

It may be hard to feel pity for the men who are making these bizarre sacrifices in the name of white power and supremacy. Personal debasement is not easy for white people (especially for white men), but to retain the conviction of their superiority to others—especially to black people—they are willing to risk contempt, and to be reviled by the mature, the sophisticated, and the strong. If it weren’t so ignorant and pitiful, one could mourn this collapse of dignity in service to an evil cause.

The comfort of being “naturally better than,” of not having to struggle or demand civil treatment, is hard to give up. The confidence that you will not be watched in a department store, that you are the preferred customer in high-end restaurants—these social inflections, belonging to whiteness, are greedily relished.

So scary are the consequences of a collapse of white privilege that many Americans have flocked to a political platform that supports and translates violence against the defenseless as strength. These people are not so much angry as terrified, with the kind of terror that makes knees tremble.

On Election Day, how eagerly so many white voters—both the poorly educated and the well educated—embraced the shame and fear sowed by Donald Trump. The candidate whose company has been sued by the Justice Department for not renting apartments to black people. The candidate who questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the United States, and who seemed to condone the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester at a campaign rally. The candidate who kept black workers off the floors of his casinos. The candidate who is beloved by David Duke and endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan.

William Faulkner understood this better than almost any other American writer. In “Absalom, Absalom,” incest is less of a taboo for an upper-class Southern family than acknowledging the one drop of black blood that would clearly soil the family line. Rather than lose its “whiteness” (once again), the family chooses murder.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

No, Trump did not win 'fair and square'



The problem with many liberals is that they simply don't know when they should be outraged.
Since the disgusting and destructive presidential election, many pundits, conservative and liberal alike, have remarked that Donald Trump won the election "fair and square."

They state it with tremendous authority, as if it's some unquestionable tenet of any election discussion: "Well, we can't argue that he won it fair and square." Even Bill Maher and David Axelrod agreed on this point on Maher’s most recent show.

There's just one problem with this argument: It's nonsense.

Trump only won the election fair and square if you have no idea what either "fair" or "square" means.

This is not simply liberal sour grapes, though I'm sure many Trump supporters and self-defining "open-minded" liberals will characterize it as such.

First off, once all of the votes are tabulated, it appears that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton will beat Trump in the popular vote — the only vote that should count — by about 2 million votes.

Sadly, none of these votes truly matter due to our ridiculous Electoral College system, which we're the only country on Earth to employ.

Of course, many Trump supporters will cry out against this by claiming that Trump would've campaigned differently had it been the popular vote that counted.

Maybe, but, obviously, Clinton would've done so as well, and probably could've racked up even more votes in cities, especially those in states that she didn't bother to campaign in because the Electoral College gives such an inordinate advantage to rural areas.

Generally, voter turnout tends to be considerably lower in solidly Democratic or Republican-leaning bastions, such as New York and California, where approximately 52.4 percent and 53.8 percent of eligible voters turned out, respectively, or Texas (51.1 percent) and Oklahoma (52.1 percent) (statistics from The Election Project).

More competitive states like Florida (65.1 percent), Ohio (64.5 percent) and New Hampshire (70.3 percent) tend to have much higher participation rates — a definite argument against the Electoral College. (In fact, the U.S. recently ranked 31st out of 35 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations when it came to voter participation.)

So while Trump would've stood to garner more votes in conservative states if the Electoral College didn't exist, given that Clinton's lead in big blue states was often bigger than Trump's in big red states, the overall likelihood is that a straight popular vote would've increased Clinton's popular vote lead.

Even Trump himself has acknowledged that the Electoral College makes no sense. In 2012, he called it a "disaster for a democracy."
More recently, he told "60 Minutes" that he'd rather see a straight vote.

(Of course, in typical Trump fashion, he followed that two days later with praise for the very same institution, tweeting out, "The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!")
No one can seriously argue that the Electoral College is not a severely anti-democratic hindrance and that it should be abolished.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

There's little doubt that Clinton's popular vote tally would've been millions more had it not been for several other factors: the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby v. Holder, which allowed 868 polling stations to close throughout the South; voter ID laws that are especially cumbersome to the poor; the purging of voter rolls based on cross-checking and the elimination of convicts' voting rights, even after they've served their time; WikiLeaks dumps; excessive voting lines intended to suppress votes (in 2012, for instance, the average wait time across Florida was 45 minutes); and the shenanigans of one James B. Comey, FBI director. (Does anyone doubt that this last one alone was enough to swing the election?)

Many liberals — in typical "blame ourselves" fashion — have consistently repeated the notion that Clinton lost because she didn't inspire enough people to come out and vote. And there are indeed legitimate complaints to be logged in that regard. After all, she's likely to finish with about 2 million or so less votes than Obama did in 2012.

But how many votes would Obama have received if he had been forced to contend with the FBI, WikiLeaks, Russian hackers and a media set on promoting a nonsensical false equivalency for the purpose of improving ratings?

The truth is that our so-called democracy is more of pseudo-democracy, with ridiculously gerrymandered districts, large-scale voter suppression tactics, unequal representation, an Electoral College system that disregards the popular will of the people, and fake news sources that play to echo chambers and voter ignorance.

And although Trump succeeded without it, the ability of rich donors and corporations to pour money into elections should not be discounted either; nor should the corruption caused by the close association of Congress and K Street — both of which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others have rightfully decried.

Yes, for all the things you can say about this election and our system in general, the one thing you can't say is that it operates in a manner which is "fair and square." Unless by "square" you mean that it squares with the wishes of the Republican leadership.

The question then remains: What can be done?

I've heard many liberals argue that nothing can be done — that the peaceful transfer of power and the continuity of government are the most important aspects of our democracy. But they're wrong. The most important aspect of our democracy is the democracy part: the voting. And if we don't protect that — if we don't fight for it — the rest isn't worth much.

It now appears that change will not come through the Supreme Court. And the prospect of passing a constitutional amendment to fix the Electoral College and the other voting issues I've enumerated is extremely unlikely without a wide-scale national movement. The same is true for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

We need that type of movement. We need protests. We need criticism. We need emails and phone calls to members of Congress. We need a news media that is responsible and that addresses these issues on a daily basis. We need to show our dismay in a very public way.

Ordinarily — in the past — I would've always had the greatest respect for the office of the president.

Even presidents I did not agree with, I would've treated with respect. I would've never, if in their presence, have considered turning my back on them or not addressing them as "Mr. President."

But that's exactly what I think we should now do. Any American who objects not only to the things that Trump represents, but to the fact that our democratic institutions have largely been undermined, should refuse to show this president — and any president who does not win the popular vote, for that matter — any respect. Because, while we must accept the reality that he is in fact our president now, there is no rule that says we must revere him.

That is how you make your voice heard.

This does not mean that you should not pay your taxes (which support our military) or that you should disobey the rule of law.

But it does mean that you should turn your back on the president; that you should refuse to stand when he enters a room; and that you should refuse to call him "Mr. President."

It means that Democrats in leadership should do everything they can to stop him from infringing on the rights of our citizens, and that, in the Senate, they should refuse to approve any Supreme Court justices and stop Republicans from getting any of their projects passed — through protests, filibusters and other procedural measures until election reform occurs.

It means that members of the House should emulate their efforts of this past June and engage in sit-ins and other demonstrations to bring Republicans to the table.

Of course, such tactics would bear consequences. The Democrats would be accused of undermining the very republic that they seek to defend.

But it must be kept in mind that these types of things have already been occurring. Our Congress is remarkably inefficient, and Republicans have set plenty of precedent when it comes to obstruction, making it a general policy to strike down or delay practically every reasonable attempt at legislation and every appointment attempted by President Obama, including refusing to take a vote in the Senate on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, whom many Republicans had previously praised.

Despite Republicans' insistence that Trump should be given a chance, they never gave Obama much of one, did they? Whatever he achieved, he achieved despite them, not because of any real willingness to cooperate.

Still, in order for such an effort to succeed, it would have to be supported by the public — if not a majority, at least a vocal minority. Organize under hashtags like #InaugurationProtest, but keep in mind that hashtags and Facebook posts alone won't do it.

You need to show up.

We need not only a massive protest on Inauguration Day, but regularly scheduled protests outside of the White House and the Capitol. We need a movement, not just the dressings of one. It was large-scale movements that gave us women's suffrage, the Civil Rights Law and gay marriage.

We need to make our representatives hear the clarion call in no uncertain terms.

Maybe then they'll get the message that every vote should count and every person should count.

Rosenfeld is an educator and historian who has done work for Scribner, Macmillan and Newsweek and contributes frequently to The Hill.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Here's How the Rising Sea Will Remake the Coastlines of Endangered U.S. States and Drown Much of the World We Know

Climate change has been steadily shifting the planetary environment in myriad ways, from receding glaciers and melting sea ice to longer and more intense heat waves, droughts and storms. The changing environment has pushed many plant and animal species out of their normal habitats. And one dramatic effect is going to force humans to relocate: the…

Thanksgiving


Monday, November 21, 2016

Hypocritical, Obstructionist Republicans Now Think It's Time To Sing Kumbaya And Back Our New President

Where was all that acceptance of the will of the people when Obama was elected?
 
By Michael Hayne

A former reality TV star who bragged about sexually assaulting women, cheated hundreds of contractors and workers out of pay, insulted the family of a slain Muslim soldier, mocked a disabled reporter, sent out mean-girl tweets to a former beauty queen at 3 am like a psychotic ex-boyfriend, avoided paying millions in tax obligations, and made a whole political career out of resurrecting the racist birther movement with continuous assaults on President Obama, has been elected president.

Donald J. Trump will soon have access to the nuclear launch codes and the power to do the following terrifying things: nominate alt-right judges to turn America back at least 50 years, fill his cabinet with people as manifestly unqualified as he is to ravage the planet, crash the economy, infringe on civil liberties, destroy reproductive rights, repeal Obamacare, and scrap longtime alliances like NATO, allowing Russia's dictatorial Putin to do as he pleases in the Middle East and Ukraine.

If all of this sounds like grounds to nurse a bottle of Jack with some Xanax in a dark corner, that's because it most certainly is.

But the very same Republican Party that spent eight solid years making President Obama's life a living hell, obstructing and blocking everything he proposed under the sun all while hurling vile and racist attacks on the man, well, suddenly wants the country to come together and sing kumbaya and accept the electoral outcome. To that end, Republicans have done everything to delegitimize the outbreak of passionate protests taking place across the country in the wake of Trump’s unexpected victory. While there have been a few reports of anti-Trump protesters engaging in violence, the demonstrations have remained largely peaceful.

And a bit of bad behavior might be expected with any major protest, especially after one of the most insane and contentious presidential election in modern history, which featured Trump's frequent incitement of his supporters to violence. Even before he was telling supporters that the election would be "rigged" and they might want to arm themselves, Trump had shown a willingness to tolerate violent resistance when things did not go the way he wanted. Well before anyone had the inkling that he might run for, let alone win the presidency, Trump tweeted an invitation for resistance by any means necessary following President Obama's reelection win in 2012: “We can't let this happen,” he implored his army of Twitter followers. “We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided.”

He did not need to march on Washington, the recalcitrant Republican Congress did it for him, vowing to obstruct every single action the president attempted to take, refusing to hold hearings on his budget, and hitting peak obstruction when they refused to meet with his Supreme Court nominee. The American people be damned. They were not going to do their jobs.

Outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, now Trump's chief of staff, is one of the newly converted, peace and democracy loving Republicans admonishing anti-Trump protesters, while simultaneously claiming to love party unity. The hypocrisy here is so strong it needs to come with a warning label.

“I’m sure that the vast majority of people are just very disappointed with the outcome of the election, so I’ll give them that, and I’ll also say I understand the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights," Priebus said. "But this election is over now. And we have a president-elect who has done everything he can do over the last 48 hours to say, ‘Let’s bring people together.’”

Priebus thinks 48 hours is plenty of time. Never mind that Republican obstruction and disrespect for President Obama endured eight long years. Not to mention the fact that this plea comes from the committed public servant who put his country in jeopardy when he assembled a task force to ensure that President Obama's constitutionally mandated duty to nominate a justice for the Supreme Court would be blocked at all costs. But now that Priebus has landed the position of White House chief of staff, he's just in love with bipartisanship and finding common ground.

But it's not just high-ranking Republican officials who are guilty of this Olympic-level hypocrisy, some of the loudest voices in right-wing media are whining about how unfair it all is as well. After spending the Bush years serving as the state-sponsored media and hating on Americans upset with unwarranted surveillance, a dishonest war and the destruction of the environment, Fox News suddenly became a bastion of resistance and opposition at all costs when President Obama got into office. Now that their guy is in, it's time again to toe the administration line. Cherry-picking protest movements is a regular Fox ploy. The network blatantly promoted Tea Party protests and more recently armed takeovers of federal lands, while showing utter contempt for anti-Trump protests, which Fox has said features "losers without jobs" and "paid insurgents by the DNC."

Indeed, those million-moron marches of pre-deplorables spewing treasonous (and racist) hatred at President Obama not only received an infinite amount of positive coverage from Fox News, but reporters for Fox out and out supported them. Fox News' embedded reporter Griff Jenkins lavishly praised Tea Party Express rallies in 2009, though he claimed he was "simply reporting" on them. Reporting, cheerleading, what’s the difference? The network vigorously promoted the 2010 Tea Party Express Tour, which featured a number of white supremacists who openly called for armed insurrection. You know, people just accepting an electoral outcome.

In short, after spending an entire year fanning the flames of hate and misogyny and inspiring his supporters to threaten armed insurrection if he lost, Trump, Republican leaders and members of the right-wing media suddenly think liberals should just get in line and fall in love with their new president.

Where's Michele Bachmann to mispronounce chutzpah when you really need it?

Michael Hayne is a progressive comedian, writer and voice artist. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook or visit ImpressionsGuy.com.

Democrats Wake Up, Change Their Tune, And Promise To Fight Trump Tooth And Nail

Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) shifted away from the overly positive talk of working with Donald Trump by promising to fight Trump tooth and nail during an interview on ABC's This Week. 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/20/democrats-wake-up-change-tune-promise-fight-trump-tooth-nail.html


Minorities And Muslims Should Fear The Incoming White Supremacist Administration

By

These Trump appointments of extreme racists and religious bigots do not bode well for any Americans who are not white and not Christian.
Minorities and Muslims Should Fear the Incoming White Supremacist Administration
*The following is an opinion column by R Muse*

As this column confesses more than one wants to, it is a travesty that the American people are so woefully ignorant and in many cases just plain stupid. Of course no citizen wants to admit that their fellow citizens are “thick,” but as a classical Cynic one calls it exactly as they see it.

There is a misconception among some of the more cognitively challenged in America, typically on the right, that what made America exceptional was its predilection to interfere around the world and use its military might to impose its will on people and nations; kind of like what the incoming fascist administration promises.

However, what really made America exceptional, and helped build America into a great nation, was its policy of accepting any and all people, no matter where they are from, or no matter what color they are, or no matter what religion they observed into the country with a clear path toward citizenship; that exclusively American exceptionalism is about to be eradicated with a decidedly white supremacist administration chosen by a minority of the people.

As a few Americans learned over the past few years, it is not just the idea of foreigners who want to emigrate and live in America that offends those who voted for Trump, they are offended that any non-white and non-Christian person lives in ‘their’ America.

Subsequently, those white supremacists were crucial to electing a swindler and television celebrity who is already building an administration staffed with white supremacists; supremacists that polite company refers to as “white nationalists.”

What that incoming administration means for a very significant percentage of the American population is that this country is a couple of months away from having a White House administration with a clear agenda of specifically targeting about a third of the population to put them in a place the majority of Trump voters demand; at the mercy of a toxic white supremacist movement. As Ned Resnikoff noted, “The doctrine of the Trump administration will be white nationalism [supremacy].”

Many readers are already aware that to keep tabs on his administration’s progress to racially and religiously cleanse America of undesirables, Trump appointed white supremacist and all-around malcontent Stephen Bannon as most senior adviser and strategist. Some people may have heard that Bannon is being tapped to begin spreading Trump’s white supremacy hate throughout the European Union; more on that in another column. But Bannon is just an adviser and strategist for Trump and although he has the happy fascist’s ear, the real impending damage is going to come from the administration’s appointees who will wield a dangerous amount of white power under the guise of “governing.”

It is difficult to call to mind when in American history an incoming administration not only campaigned on white supremacy, but immediately upon winning began choosing avowed racists and religious bigots to serve and advise; at least a third of the population should be absolutely terrified.

As an aside, world leaders should also brace for some of Trump’s white supremacy if confirmed Islamophobe Rudy Giuliani, also a blatant racist, eventually becomes Secretary of State. He will be free to spread some Trump and Fox News’ hatred around the globe through official government and diplomatic channels.

Closer to home, people of color can look forward to institutionalized white supremacy that will erase whatever Civil Rights gains they have made over the decades when the federal criminal justice system is administered by a man that was too racist to serve as a federal judge and rejected by the Senate. If Jeff Sessions (R-AL) does become attorney general, and there is every reason to believe he will, it will signal the end of the Justice Department enforcing Civil Rights laws or holding Republican states to account for voting rights violations.

Sessions is notorious for claiming the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was “an intrusive piece of legislation;” with Sessions running the Department of Justice, voting rights violations will be celebrated, not prosecuted and it is hardly an exaggeration based on his past statements.

In testimony before Congress in 1986, a prosecutor, J. Gerald Hebert said that Sessions agreed with another racist and federal judge that a white lawyer was “a disgrace to his race” because he dared represent African American clients. Mr. Hebert also testified that Sessions referred to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.) as “un-American” for “trying to force civil rights down the throats of people.”

Remember, this was in 1986 and over two decades after passage of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and 210 years after the “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence was signed by the Founding Fathers; it was also 118 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing all citizens equal and civil rights. Any hope that any person of color or a person of a non-Christian religion may have had that the Department of Justice in a “white nationalist” administration will fight for every American citizen’s constitutionally-protected equal and civil rights likely took a major hit with news that Trump wants Sessions as Attorney General.

Trump’s choice for National Security Adviser, Former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, will be just as devastating to the Muslim community as Sessions will people of color. According to Flynn, like many Republicans, in his mind there is no distinction whatsoever between terror organizations like ISIS and the Muslim religion. Flynn obviously subscribes to Trump’s hateful campaign rhetoric that fearing and hating Muslims, even American Muslims, is only logical since he claims that Muslims are terrorists. He actually used Twitter to declare that “fear of Muslims is ‘RATIONAL’” and only left it to the reader’s imagination to go to the next step and believe that “hatred of Muslims is RATIONAL.”

Flynn also supported Trump’s “big deal” during the campaign that to defeat “radical Islam” that it is vital that all politicians use that pejorative, radical Islam, ad nauseam. Flynn also dared all leaders in the Middle East to renounce their Islamic religion because in his mind that Abrahamic faith is terrorism.  Flynn took to Trump’s favorite means of communication, Twitter, and wrote:

“In next 24 hours, I dare Arab & Persian world “leaders” to step up to the plate and declare their Islamic ideology sick and must B healed.”

One wonders how long it will take a cretin like Flynn to convince Trump to issue an executive order demanding, not daring, all American Muslims to “step up” and declare their Islamic faith sick, and that it must be eradicated off the face of the planet. It is not out of the realm of possibility either. It is still two months before the fascist administration takes power and already there have been serious discussions on implementing a national registry for Muslims and the precedent of internment camps to “make American great again;” or some such bovine excrement.

These first set of Trump appointments, or proposed appointments, does not bode well for Americans who are not white and not Christian; the Census Bureau regards people from the Middle East and Northern Africa as part of the white population, but they are predominately Muslims so they have plenty to fear. What is clear is that Donald Trump is following through on his white nationalist (supremacist) rhetoric he promised throughout the campaign.

It is bad enough that a white supremacist (Bannon) and Muslim hater (Flynn) will have Trump’s ear and advise him according to their particular hate, but worse that the head of the Justice Department cannot countenance that all Americans are guaranteed equal rights.

The combination of two bigots advising an authoritarian with an attorney general unwilling to enforce equal and civil rights laws will not make America great again; it will make America a mirror image of the incoming white supremacist administration and there is precious little anyone can do to stop it.

Dear Hard-Working White People: Congratulations, You Played Yourself

Donald Trump's not bringing back those imaginary factory jobs—so I hope racism keeps you warm at night.

By D. Watkins

You aren’t going to make any extra money under Donald Trump, so I hope your racism, or your attempt to ignore it, keeps you warm at night.

OK, we have all gotten the memo that it’s not cool or politically correct to yell “I hate the blacks, I hate the Mexicans and I hate the Jews!” But seriously, when was the last time the KKK celebrated a presidential election? They’ve got a glowing picture of an airbrushed, Photoshopped and digitally toned Donald on the homepage of their website. He stands heroic under a presidential seal that reads “Trump’s Race United My People.”

I can’t do much these days but sit back and laugh as I watch the president-elect build an all-star cast of white supremacists — Steve “Breitbart” Bannon, Teddy Cruz and Rudy Giuliani — or at least, if they don’t like that label, a group of men who get offended when they are called “racist,” but continue to cosign, commit and endorse racist ideas and actions.

Trump and his team may not be card-carrying Klan members, but they aren’t doing nearly enough to reject that support,­ while providing the rhetoric that’s gassing the hate-fueled fires spreading throughout the country. Schools all over, in every corner of America, are reacting to this hate, as if they’ve been suppressing it until this campaign gave them the heart to flex those feelings. The problem is that this isn’t 1802 and you can’t just roll up on black people and start attacking them.

There will be consequences, and people on both sides will be hurt.

The real question is this: What’s the point? What do these white working-class people we’ve heard so much about really expect? Having a race-baiting president will not — I repeat, will not — transform into any opportunities for hard-working whites in America, just like the Obama candidacy didn’t deliver any black person from the issues that African-Americans have been facing since long before I was born.

A common theme that’s being tossed around is that Trump’s election was the white working class’ chance way to say “Fuck you!” to the political elites who forgot about them, sucked up their factory jobs and left them out to dry. I take issue with this for a number of reasons.

The first and most obvious reason is this: How do you buck a system ruled by elites by electing a billionaire who was born rich, employed the Mexicans he blamed for taking jobs away and could never possibly understand someone else’s struggle? Next, I don’t fully understand the term “hard-working whites.” I come from the blackest community in one of the blackest cities, and I don’t know how not to have 10 jobs. Everybody I know has 10 jobs, even the infants. Black people, Asians and Mexicans alike work their asses off, so why is the “hard-working white” class even a voting bloc?

What’s sad is that these angry, hard-working white people don’t understand that they saw more economic gains under President Obama than they did under George W. Bush. Unemployment went down across the board except among African-Americans— the rate actually doubled for us — so those folks should be praising Obama, not championing Trump or subscribing to all this alt-right B.S.

Then there’s the myth of returning factory jobs. It’s not a real thing! And trust me, I used to subscribe to the same ideas, all caught up in the nostalgia of the old dudes from my neighborhood. My friend Al’s grandpa used to park his Cadillac on Ashland Avenue, hop out and roll up on us nine-year-olds like, “Finish high school, get a job at Bethlehem Steel and your future is set!” He’d spin his Kangol around backwards, pull out a fistful of dollars, give us each a couple and continue, “I made so much money at the steel factory, my lady ain’t worked a day in her life! I bought a house that I paid off and that shiny car right there! Yes sir, life is good!”

Those jobs were long gone by the time we came of age, at Bethlehem Steel and almost every place like it across the country. They weren’t taken by Mexicans or sent overseas­­ — industries changed, new products were made and robots were invented that could do the job of 10 men and work all night without complaining. Those beautiful factory positions for uneducated hard-working whites (or anybody else) aren’t coming back, and I don’t care what Trump says. What’s even weirder is that we have created a generation of people complaining about jobs that they have never had and will not see in their lifetime — and again, for what?

We should be asking ourselves what’s going to happen when the forgotten Trump supporters are ignored by him­­. I challenge the Klansmen, the closet racists and the rest of his supporters to look deeper into Trump’s life and his business. Unlike you, he’s not committed to white, he’s committed to green, and your financial situation will not change.

In the immortal words of DJ Khaled, “Congratulations, you played yourself.”

D. Watkins is the author of "The Beast Side: Living and Dying While Black in America." He has been published in Salon, New York Times, The Guardian and other publications, and he is a frequent contributor on NPR, CNN and elsewhere. He holds a master's in education from Johns Hopkins University and an MFA in creative writing from the University of Baltimore and teaches writing at Coppin State University. He was the winner of Baltimore magazine's "Best Writer" award in 2015.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Like a Double Dose of Dubya: Donald Trump's Presidency Will Be Like the George W. Bush Disaster - Only Worse

Like a Double Dose of Dubya: Donald Trump's Presidency Will Be Like the George W. Bush Disaster-Only Worse


In yet another post-election example of wish fulfillment, there are rumors circulating that president-elect Donald Trump won't actually stay in office all four years because he won't want to do the job. After Trump met with President Obama, we heard reports that he "seemed surprised" by the scope of the job. We have also heard that…

Saturday, November 19, 2016

They're Coming For Medicare - Be Ready

By Karoli Kuns

 

One of the best ways we can fight Trump right now is on the battlefield of Medicare. I'm sure everyone remembers how angry and stirred up Republican masses got at the idea of even one small change to Medicare.

Throughout his campaign, Trump assured his adoring followers that there would be no cuts to Medicare and Social Security. He tried to run to the left of Clinton on it, saying he would save it and make it better for everyone.

Those of us familiar with such empty promises knew that "make it better" was code for cuts, but his followers were having no part of it. Now is the time for battle, and the first battleground is going to be Medicare.

As I write, Paul Ryan is drafting his legislation to privatize Medicare and cut benefits. The Republican Congress has promised they will shovel this legislation through using budget reconciliation as their goal.

To make it palatable for today's seniors, Ryan has also promised that the current Medicare system will remain in place for people age 55 and above. That's a terrible idea, as Jonathan Cohn explains:
If at the same time Republicans shrink Medicaid, those seniors will suffer even more, since today the poorest seniors can use the program to pay for whatever medical bills Medicare does not.
Ryan promises that the proposal would not affect seniors who are 55 or older, since the new system wouldn’t begin operating for 10 years. But realistically the entire Medicare program would change once premium support took effect ― private plans would almost certainly find ways to pick off the healthiest seniors, for instance ― and, at best, the damage would simply take longer to play out.
Ryan’s Medicare scheme includes one other element ― a provision to raise the eligibility age gradually, so that seniors would eventually enroll at 67, rather than 65. Particularly in a world in which the Affordable Care Act no longer exists, 65 and 66 year olds searching for private coverage would find it harder to obtain, more expensive and less generous than what they’d get from Medicare today.
There are two things to keep in mind here.

First, our response must be swift and vocal. That means that you must have the telephone numbers of your elected representatives at hand and be prepared to call them and register your opposition to any cuts to Medicare. No slacktivism. No online petitions. In-person telephone calls to your representatives, personal visits, and visible opposition.

Second, health policy is always complex. Always. People don't understand it. One of the reasons Medicare is so popular is because it's simpler than any private insurance plan. People pay a payroll tax and when they're 65 they enroll in a Medicare plan that covers most of their costs. They can buy a supplemental plan at low cost to cover what traditional Medicare doesn't. It's simple, and it's elegant, and it works. It's going to be up to us to keep this message clear and plain everywhere. When we talk to people, when we post on social media, and when we comment on blogs.

Do not let them use muddy terms and oversimplify their plans, like they did with the Affordable Care Act. They are the ones slogging through complex policy. Know your facts, be armed with them, and be prepared to fire a volley at anyone lying about their plans.

Make no mistake. This is the battleground. Gear up for it. Forget the distractions with outrageous claims and just stay focused on fighting. If we fight, we will win.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Like America, I'm Feeling Broken

Posted By Rude One

A dear friend has a brother with Down Syndrome. This year, he voted for the first time, and he couldn't have been more excited to push a button for Hillary Clinton. After Clinton lost, my friend, his sister, asked him how he was feeling. He said, "We're having meatloaf for dinner tonight."

Goddamn, I want to have that response.

I've gotta be honest here, and feel free to call me a "pussy" or whatever you need, but very early last Wednesday morning, around 1 a.m., when I knew that it was really, truly over (although we all pretty much knew by 11 p.m.), something broke in me, to the point that I don't know how to react. In case you haven't noticed, the last week around this joint, it's been pretty messy and morose.

I have barely been able to watch any of the complicit news networks as they recalibrate to the reality of a Donald Trump presidency. And when I do, I hear things, as I did on Saturday, like a Trump supporter on a CNN panel decrying the protests because they are chanting and marching about "old news." That's right. The campaign wasn't 5 days over, but, as far as this sycophantic slug was concerned, it may as well have been years ago. "We need to look to the future," he explained.

So I watch briefly and I get pissed and then I just feel broken again. Hell, it's better than the nausea I get, triggered by Trump's voice. I'm guessing that it comes from the helplessness of the situation, the feeling that we can't change this, along with the feeling that we did this to ourselves. I knew the nation was racist and dumb. I just didn't know how racist and how dumb. Now I do.

I have thought about how ridiculously wrong so many of us had been, we who blog and pontificate and punditize, rudely or cleanly. And I was especially angry at myself for not listening to an especially wise person. That'd be me back in 2008, when I said one reason that I was supporting Barack Obama over Clinton was because "somewhere in some cellar in some Little Rock or DC mansion, there's a machine that's been whirring its gears on low for the last seven years that's getting greased up and ready to kick into full speed once more, and it's aching to chew up Clinton, ready to get sticky with her blood and bones, for once it's really chugging, that fucker needs to be fed, ready to spew once again to willing, slavering media dogs who lap up that anti-Clinton vomit like it's kibble from Walter Cronkite's ass." I knew exactly what would happen. But I let myself think that it wouldn't. And I don't blame Clinton. I blame pretty much everyone except her.

Things are gonna be bad. I believe with the fervent faith of a crazed minister awaiting the Rapture. A fight is coming. A big fucking fight, possibly the worst in my lifetime, and I've faced down Operation Rescue, angry cops in riot gear at anti-Iraq War protests, and a raging George H.W. Bush supporter. I want to be part of that fight. But if I'm going to be in fighting shape, I gotta tap out for a little while. I gotta get my head straight and my voice and fists ready.

I'm not gonna do that spending the next couple of months writing constantly, "Boy, Donald Trump sure is gonna suck" or "Boy, that cabinet choice sure is gonna dick us all over." Because, really, we don't know how bad it'll be and what he's gonna do until his tiny moisturized, manicured orange hands are holding the reins of power. I know that it's the privilege of whiteness and maleness that allows me to pretend I can ignore the rise of the Trump-tatorship. But I want to be the best ally to others that I can be.

So, after over 13 years of almost continuous daily blogging, I'm taking a leave of absence for a while.
I'm not going cold turkey. I will probably post every now and then if something insane happens (although, c'mon, "insane" is relative at this point) or if the mood strikes.

I'll definitely still be on Twitter. And I'll be piping up on Facebook, too.

Also, if someone would like me to write for their publication (c'mon, Guardian, you know you want me), I'll pop up there.

Oh, and as long as I'm pimping myself, I've got what I think is a kick-ass new play, political and feminist as hell, if any professional theatre or group is interested in checking it out. When there are public readings, I'll let you know.

Before checking out and switching to a much lighter political diet, lemme leave you with a few thoughts:

1. I believe that the most patriotic thing that President Obama could do would be to bypass the Senate and appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

2. The members of the Electoral College have a constitutional duty to save us from someone like Trump. They would be derelict in that duty if they let him take office.

3. If Clinton had won, the next 4-8 years would have been a nightmare of impeachment hearings and endless investigations, all emails, all the time. So that's one small blessing amid the conflagration.

4. Donald Trump is in this to enrich himself and his family. Whether or not that's what he intended, it's what he will do because it's the only thing he knows how to do: make himself richer on the backs of others.

5. Trump will do everything that he condemned Hillary Clinton for and worse. And Republicans will give him a pass. This will be the most enraging part of the next couple of months.

6. You should give money to organizations like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign, and others. You should make sure you donate to local groups that are helping undocumented immigrants, the homeless, the dis-empowered all around. And you should subscribe to things like Mother Jones and give money to Talking Points Memo. They are the good guys. They'll need all the support they can get.


That's it. I may come running back here after a short hiatus. It's entirely possible. Addition is like that. If not, I'll be back by Inauguration Day in 2017, after this shit year has ended. We've got a nation to save but, as they always tell you, you have to put your own oxygen mask on before you can help others do the same.

I need to go wander in the desert for a while. I need to down peyote and go on a spirit journey. I need to wantonly fuck wayward bikers and lonely bartenders and rough waitresses and howl at the moon as we orgasm in the dust.

And then I will come back, righteous rage restored, pieces back together, ready to face down the motherfuckers who would break us all again and again.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Note To President Obama: Blow The GOP's Shit Up

Posted By Rude One

One of the things I have always faulted President Obama for is that, when it comes to his domestic political enemies, he has sought to give them the benefit of the doubt. Even when they greeted his outstretched hand by waving their dicks at him, Barack Obama has told us for most of his presidency that Republicans were honorable, rarely ever raking them over the coals, rarely impugning their motives, rarely calling out the motherfuckers for fucking their mothers. It has always been to his detriment that he has tried so hard not to demonize demons.

Even now, as Donald Trump bumblefucks his way through a bullshit transition into a sad, disastrous presidency (that he will inevitably get richer from), Obama has avoided confrontation. Now, you could say that Obama is such a decent man that he can sit with the orange prick who provoked some of the most racist responses to him and his family and try to teach that orange prick how to not blow the joint up. And you can look at Trump's gracious response to Obama and desperately seek some comfort in it, hoping that it indicates that Trump is taking his new job seriously.

But you're being a fool. And so is President Obama in this case.

What we know about Donald Trump is that he will lie and lie and lie. He will fart in your face and tell you it was a ghost. Breitbart will report it as real. And his idiot hordes will insist that they saw that flatulent specter. We also know that Trump will say whatever he thinks his audience at the time wants to hear. He said almost exactly that at some of his rallies, where the red hats replaced the brown shirts, testing something on a crowd and when they didn't respond, trying something else that got applause and cheers. That's his method: say whatever the fuck people want to hear, agree to just about anything that isn't legally binding (or that can't be overwhelmed by dickish lawsuits), and then do whatever the fuck he wants, fuck you if you don't like it. It's what he's doing right now by refilling the DC swamp with sewer water instead of draining it. Take that, rubes. And they will.

Trump is playing Obama. As much as you think Obama is flattering Trump's ego by respecting his election, Trump is using Obama's innate decency to legitimize his ascendance. It's frustrating as hell because Obama ought to be smarter than this.

Oh, sure, yeah, you can say that this is Obama's patented 11 dimensional chess game, that he's hoping all this attention will educate Trump and that, as a result, Trump won't gut the Affordable Care Act and other accomplishments of the last 8 years. Yeah, that ain't Trump. And any hope that Republicans will stand up to Trump is pure fantasy. Think of the most assholish thing they can do. Now multiply it by control of the entire government.

What Obama can do in his last couple of months in office is push Republicans into a confrontation.

The easiest one is the appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court under the idea that the Senate's failure to act is a kind of consent, a "we don't fuckin' care, do what you want." It's like when a president refuses to act on a bill within ten days while Congress is in session. It becomes a law, no? Presentment clause, motherfuckers. Let's take it to the Supreme Court for a decision.

Your Prankster Joe Biden memes are hilarious. But blowing up the GOP's naked hijacking of the Supreme Court would be the ultimate joke to play on these America-hating bastards. 

What should Democrats in Congress — and Barack Obama, and you — do now?


When he took office in 2001, George W. Bush inherited a healthy Republican Party roughly at parity with its opposition. When he left office eight years later, Bush had degraded his party’s image and taught a generation of Americans to loathe the GOP, and members of that generation have clung to their disgust through every election cycle since (though their enthusiasm for showing up at the ballot box has waxed and waned). 

Bush was such a comprehensive political fiasco that his only saving grace, in terms of the brand management of the Republican Party, was handing his successor a financial crisis so deep it allowed Republicans in Congress to run against his successor’s attempts to recover from it. The Bush administration cratered because it was filled with hacks, ideologues, and business cronies and led by a mental lightweight. Many people believed that for the Republican Party to recover, it would have to develop a governing class that grasped science and evidence.

It is safe to say that this has not exactly transpired. The Trump administration will make the last failed Republican presidency look like an age of reason. The United States has never elected a president so openly contemptuous of democratic norms. There’s no So You’ve Elected a Bullying, Racist, Authoritarian Swindler As President pamphlet within easy reach. The loyal opposition faces an unusual paradox. What will almost certainly be a catastrophe for the Republican Party in the long run will also be a catastrophe for the United States much sooner. The threat posed by Trump requires a massive counter-mobilization of people and resources with the dual tasks of safeguarding the large-D Democratic Party and small-D democracy.
A letter to Trump from a first-grade student at Woodland School, Portola Valley, California.Photo: Bobby Doherty/New York Magazine
The immediate theater of action will be in Washington, where the key political dynamic has been identified by Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader. “We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” he told The Atlantic in 2011, referring generally to the agenda of Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress. “Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.” 

Democrats in Congress have to understand this. Most people, and especially low-information voters who decide elections, pay little attention to legislative details. Bipartisanship tells them things are going well. Partisan conflict tells them things are going badly. McConnell filibustered the first bill that come up in 2009, a conservation measure with broad bipartisan appeal that ultimately passed with 77 votes.

The second element of this dynamic is equally crucial: It is the governing party that will be held accountable by the voters. Bipartisanship suggests high presidential approval, which leads to more success for the governing party in Congress and for the president’s reelection. Helping the majority govern means helping the majority maintain power. As McConnell said in 2010, “The reward for playing team ball this year was the reversal of the political environment and the possibility that we will have a bigger team next year.” The conventional wisdom of the pre-Obama years, that the minority would pay a price for obstruction, was precisely backward. The minority party pays a price for bipartisanship.

This does not mean Democrats should ape destructive tactics like shutting down the government or threatening default (which, in any case, they have no opportunity to do without the majority in either chamber of Congress). It does not even mean they should rule out all cooperation. It means they should carefully weigh every policy concession they can win, assuming that any present themselves, against the enormous political price they will pay by getting it. A few policy goals could meet this test. If Trump is somehow willing to abandon his catastrophic plan to destroy the international climate accords and unleash irreversible planetary catastrophe, or perhaps rethink his party’s plan to deny access to medical care to millions of Americans too poor or sick to afford it, the political sacrifice of offering bipartisan cover to Trumpian moderation would be worthwhile.

In the short run, this calculation is almost entirely theoretical. Trump’s allies in Congress are prepared to collect on their devil’s bargain. House Speaker Paul Ryan described the election as a “mandate” — a curious term for an election in which his party will finish second in the national vote — and Republicans will move with maximal haste on plans to cut taxes for the rich, deregulate the financial industry, and cut social spending for the poor. There is no other conceivable course of action: The Republican Party in Washington has been organized over the last three decades as a machine to redistribute resources upward. It has no other ideas and automatically rejects any proposals with any other effect. The political cost of waging class war for the rich will not deter them because it is their reason for existing. Trump managed to pass himself off to many hard-pressed voters as an enemy of concentrated wealth, but concentrated wealth mostly knew better, which is why stock of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase swelled on the news of the incoming friendly administration. Democrats in Congress must make it their task to expose the contradiction Trump has heretofore concealed.

So should anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton. The day after the election, protesters swarmed the streets of major cities shouting that Trump was “not my president.” Good for them. They were not expressing the traditional postelection decorum, but then again, many were simply describing reality: Trump has almost explicitly promised not to be the president of large swaths of this country. His campaign was rooted in his belief that Mexican-Americans and Muslim immigrants cannot become real Americans. There can be purpose beyond catharsis to theatrical expressions of alienation and anger. Just look at the tea party.

Trump’s loyal opposition has a duty to respect the law. More than that — for all those who are wondering, everyone must hope he can avoid the worst. It might help Democrats regain power if Trump throws 20 million Americans off their insurance, dissolves NATO, or prosecutes Hillary Clinton, but that is not an agenda to root for. Less horrible is better. At the same time, Americans who did not support Trump have no obligation to normalize his behavior. To the contrary: Upholding the dignity and value of the presidency means refusing to treat the ascendancy of a Trump into the office as normal. Trump is counting on a combination of media weariness and Republican partisan solidarity to allow him to grind governing norms to dust. Two days after the election, his attorney reaffirmed his intention to have his children run his business even while he serves as president — an arrangement creating limitless opportunity for corruption, as his use of the presidency enriches his brand and foreign leaders strike deals that curry personal favor.

Whatever signs of normality he has given since Tuesday’s triumph are, thus far, purely superficial. To submit to a world where we say the words President Trump without anger or laughter is to surrender our idea of what the office means.

A broader and even more vital mission, one that should attract support far beyond the Democratic Party, is to safeguard and expand space for political dissent. American politics has regularly been stalked by authoritarian figures, from Charles Coughlin to Joseph McCarthy to George Wallace. 

None of them has ever had command of a party with full control of government. It is now within the realm of imagining that the United States will come to resemble some sort of illiberal democracy or quasi-democracy — Berlusconi’s Italy or, eventually, even Putin’s Russia.

This is no mere Trumpian personal idiosyncrasy. The GOP is absorbing the ideological tendencies of other far-right nationalist parties. The Nevada Republican Party chair raged at evening early-voting in Las Vegas: “Last night, in Clark County, they kept a poll open till ten o’clock at night so a certain group could vote … Yeah, you feel free right now? Think this is a free or easy election?” Alabama’s Jeff Sessions, Trump’s closest Senate ally, has railed against “a global intellect — elites with their big money” and “George Soros and his globalist crowd.” Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke, who spoke at the Cleveland convention and has been touted as a potential Homeland Security secretary, tweeted that anti-Trump protests “must be quelled.” A recent Pew survey asked whether certain characteristics are important to maintaining a strong democracy. Fewer than half of the Trump supporters surveyed agreed with the statements “Those who lose elections recognize the legitimacy of the winners” and “News organizations are free to criticize political leaders.” Traditional Republicans in Washington will go along with all this, provided Trump signs Paul Ryan’s fiscal agenda into law.

American small-D democrats need to treat the election of Trump’s party in a way not unlike how we respond to authoritarianism overseas. The nonprofit sector has a long tradition of subsidizing institutions to safeguard open discourse, human rights, labor rights, and ballot access. (Not coincidentally, Soros has made enemies in the Putinsphere by doing precisely this.) Trump’s government will probably set itself the task of grinding down all these rights, from union organizing to civil-rights enforcement to freedom from torture. Philanthropists should subsidize legal defenses for journalists threatened by the tactic, embraced by Trump and his ally Peter Thiel, of bankrupting critics through exorbitant legal action. America already has a nonprofit infrastructure devoted to safeguarding domestic civil, human, and political rights, but it will have to scale up radically to meet the threat of a Trumpist party in full command of the federal government. Democracy will not disappear overnight, but it can be eroded over time. The fight to defend it must be joined in full.

There is one glimmer of — dare I say it — hope. Opposition parties tend to suffer from a lack of charismatic, high-profile leaders. American liberals enjoy the unusual good fortune of having the most popular politician in America on their side in Barack Obama. Obama has floated plans to devote his postpresidency to mentoring young black men. This is both a worthy endeavor and no longer the most high-leverage use of his time.

Obama very properly offered his deference to the validity of Trump’s election (proving himself a more committed democrat than the president-­elect, who refused beforehand to bind himself to the outcome and who, in 2012, took to Twitter on Election Night to call for revolution when it momentarily seemed that Obama would win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote). But the political-cultural norm of former presidents’ steering clear of politics is not rooted in any particular public interest. All recent living ex-presidents left office either infirm, unpopular, or in some way disgraced. (A pardon scandal in his final days, compounded by his sexual dalliance, created an especially noxious odor around Bill Clinton.) There is no example of a young, popular former president facing a successor committed to destroying all of his work.

And so the man who thought he was through with politics has, it turns out, one more essential role left: Beginning next year, Obama needs to rally the opposition, to community-organize his coalition, and to exploit his celebrity to make the case for saving his legacy. His visibility alone would serve a vital function. Trump’s election has sent a statement to Americans and the world about the country’s identity. It has been received viscerally, by bullies abusing minorities as well as by fearful allies overseas. Obama is a powerful symbol of rationalism, thoughtfulness, and pluralism — the ultimate anti-Trump, both ideologically and symbolically. Women, religious minorities, immigrants and prospective immigrants, transgender people, young Africans with iPhones, the beat-down opposition in places like Russia and China, and the people who bully all the preceding groups and more — the whole planet, really — need reminding that Obama’s version of America has prevailed before and will prevail again.
The night after the election.Photo: Andres Kudacki
And prevail we can. The aftermath of every election plunges the losers into despair and launches the victors into giddiness, and Trump’s shocking victory has had an unusually distorting effect. American progressives are burdened with a habit, stretching back decades, of handling political success badly — taking power for granted, bemoaning compromised progress, and collapsing into sectarian cannibalism. 

Hillary Clinton suffered from the same liberal ennui that bedeviled Al Gore in 2000, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and Harry Truman in 1948. She suffered additionally from the self-inflicted wounds of bad decisions regarding hired speeches and her private email server, months of bruising attacks on her ethics from Bernie Sanders, and a widespread sexism that made her ordinary shortcomings seem sinister. Add to that a press corps that obsessed over her email lapse and twin attacks by Russian intelligence and rogue, right-wing FBI agents. It all culminated with the director of the FBI’s breaking all precedent to float new insinuations of wrongdoing against her ten days before the election, sealing her image as an untrustworthy and even criminal figure. Polls taken at the end of the campaign demonstrated that voters, astonishingly, believed that she was less honest and trustworthy than her opponent — a man who is literally facing trial for fraud.

Trump will solve the Democrats’ voter-complacency problem for them. He may also help them solve another problem: massive Republican gerrymandering. The House map is redrawn every ten years, and Republicans had the good fortune that the last redrawing followed their 2010 anti-Obama midterm wave, allowing them to lock into place a map of districts designed to virtually guarantee Republican control throughout the decade. Should Democrats generate an effective response to Trump, an anti-incumbent wave could allow the party to capture governorships in 2018 and legislatures that year and in 2020. They would then be in a position to create district maps that are more fair and democratic — and which, more often then not, would turn more Democratic.

Remember: When Trump showed the first signs of seriously challenging for the nomination, the panicked Republican Establishment identified him as a political calamity — a candidate who appealed to the party’s shrinking white, non-college-educated base and alienated the minorities and educated voters whose share of the electorate was growing. Its calculations were off, but only to a degree. Trump drew every ounce out of a shrinking coalition.

The party Establishment was on track to wipe its hands of the foul nominee after his expected defeat, clearing the way for fresh-faced, conventionally right-wing figures like Ryan and Marco Rubio to rebuild their party’s standing. The flip side of a president who will sign Ryan’s agenda into law is that there will be no more oh-so-­earnest Ryan speeches apologizing from the bottom of his heart for the nominee’s transgressions. Instead, a man who embodies hateful, misogynistic bluster will define the party’s imprint in a lasting way. Tens of millions of young voters, and children too young to vote, will grow up associating the Republican Party with a man who embodies reactionary hate against them.

The Trump stink will not wash away easily.

Notwithstanding his ability to appear reasonable from time to time, Trump has character traits that are consistent and long-standing. The postelection hope that his lifelong childlike attention span, monumental ego, obsession with dominance and vengeance, and greed verging on outright criminality will abate in his eighth decade is fanciful. More so the notion that the experience of enjoying electoral vindication against his critics, then ascending to the most powerful position in the world, will curtail these tendencies.

Trump’s election is one of the greatest disasters in American history. It is worth recalling, however, that history is punctuated with disasters, yet the country is in a better place now than it was a half-century ago, and a better place than a half-century before that, and so on. Despair is a counterproductive response. So is denial — an easy temptation in the wake of the inevitable postelection pleasantries and displays of respect needed to maintain the peaceful transfer of power. 

The proper response is steely resolve to wage the fight of our lives.

*This article appears in the November 14, 2016, issue of New York Magazine.