Just a reminder: Trump is terrible. For example, see this video about how his pardons, clemencies, and commutations gave crooks $2 billion for reimbursements and court fines they now don't have to pay.
Meanwhile, Obama gave Wall St. a pass for the subprime/derivatives meltdown--arguably the largest theft in human history. Nobody went to jail (except one Swiss banker). Nobody lost their job. Heck, nobody lost their bonus.
For an idea of how big this was, according to the Federal Reserve's own audit, it extended $16 - $29 trillion in credit to Wall Street's thieves to cure the subprime disaster.
And a trillion is 1,000 times bigger than a billion.
So who's the biggest crook here? And is this a contest anyone would want to win?
My Democratic friends seem to think Trump voters are just ignorant bigots. I say they have a legitimate reason to be angry--not that anger always leads to the clearest thinking or the most sensible solutions.
The imperial boomerang is the thesis that governments that develop repressive techniques to control colonial territories will eventually deploy those same techniques domestically against their own citizens. This concept originates with Aimé Césaire in Discourse on Colonialism (1950) where it is called the terrific boomerang to explain the origins of European fascism in the first half of the 20th century.[1][2]Hannah Arendt agreed with this usage, calling it the boomerang effect in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).[3][4][5] According to both writers, the methods of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were not exceptional from a world-wide view because European colonial empires had been killing millions of people worldwide as part of the process of colonization for a very long time. Rather, they were exceptional in that they were applied to Europeans within Europe, rather than to colonized populations in the Global South.[6] It is sometimes called Foucault's boomerang even though Michel Foucault did not originate the term.
One of my Democratic friends was ready to accept the idea that the Obama presidency had no scandals--in contrast to the scandal-ridden Trump administration. I've already disclosed that Obama's presidency was rife with scandal (here and here), but disclosing such malfeasance apparently makes no impression. The response: "You're entitled to your opinion!"
So the belief that Obama was a "good guy" persists, without much modification. Reminding that Democratic friend that Obama bombed Libya--a war crime--provokes comments like "Well, I trust he did the right thing." [unsaid "You cain't bomb or unbomb them Ay-rabs, they just won't behave!"]
So to such people, Trump voters don't have a legitimate complaint that Obama didn't do a good job. They're simply ignorant bigots! [Oh the irony!]
And if you could come up with a more effective way to divide and confuse the voting public, I don't know how you would do it. Insisting on Obama's innocence ensures the persistence of Boss Tweed's maxim "I don't care who people vote for as long as I can pick the candidates." We bounce between corporate donor-indentured Democrats and corporate donor-indentured Republicans, but short of a catastrophe, nothing much will change.
So both major parties are completely committed to servicing their donors rather than doing public service. One example: while large majorities of the American public and the Democratic party do not support Israel's genocidal attacks on Gaza (and the West Bank), both of California's Democratic Senators vote for the US to continue its support for this very unpopular war.*
The Democrats need to repent, yet there's no sign that's happening. The central party apparatus just killed a resolution to end support for Israel's genocide.
Ralph Nader's latest email blast laments that no one is standing up to Trump's attacks on American values, laws and traditions, but given the alternatives currently available, what is available besides sorrow? (And to handle that sorrow, resignation, and/or despair, there are tools.)
Honestly, I still want to believe some Trump voters elected a wrecking ball simply to get the attention of the smug patricians backing the likes of Obama, who I believe--and I'm entitled to my opinion--is the single most influential person in electing Trump.
Meanwhile, the conditions for the kind of public anger were set up by Obama, whose Simpson-Bowles commision was designed to implement an agenda of austerity. And austerity, cutting public services, leads almost inevitably to anger. Unfortunately, anger doesn't always make for sensible thinking.
...which produced Trump.
On the other hand, if you believe Obama was just an innocent victim of a Republican Congress, despite the fact that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of his presidency, then Trump voters are just ignorant bigots, at least to Democrats. But if Trump voters have a legitimate grievance, then the population isn't divided. They may disagree, but it's not Morlocks and Eloi, Republican thugs and Democratic crooks...both major parties have betrayed us.
As Dave Dayen says: "Trump pulls back when criticized...populism without popularity is doomed. ....What I didn’t account for was the complete uselessness of the opposition party that could turn those trends into successful pushback that retains some semblance of a democratic system—but hasn’t…."
_______________
*My letter to Senator Schiff:
Senator Schiff,
You wrote me a long email protesting that you really, really, really want peace. Sorry, you can't say that and continue to vote to provide the weapons for Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.
I don't care how long your letter is. I don't care about whether you believe Hamas started things in Gaza. I don't care if you're ignorant of the Netanyahu government's support for Hamas in aid of killing the two-state solution.
I really, really, really don't care.
All your excuses, explanations, and rationalizations are the typical corporate Democrat's expressions of support for the donor class rather than the people you're meant to represent. You will not get my money or my vote by continuing this pathetic charade.
In just 2 months, Britain's preeminent historian has gone from cheerleading the "Milei Miracle" to cheering the US taxpayer bailout of Milei's collapsehttps://t.co/l3DFbAcAOkpic.twitter.com/42nlkROOJn
The US Treasury — one of the architects of the Washington Consensus — is offering to bail out a neoliberal capitalist experiment in order to prove that it works.
"If it weren't for lies, there wouldn't be any politics" - Will Rogers
Some recent social media conversations between anti-monopolist Matt Stoller and anti-punishment-bureaucracy Alec Karakatsanis demonstrate they have a feud of some kind, yet they're both fans of freedom from arbitrary coercion. Stoller writes to oppose the coercion of monopolies, Karakastanis opposes the coercion of the "punishment bureaucracy," as he calls it. They look like they should be allies, but they're quibbling about some political disagreement. Responding to an email query, Stoller said "It happens."
Unfortunately, quibbling--especially among the left-of-center--is common. Politicians are experts at avoiding the buzz saw of fights they deem lost or unnecessary, so they're frequently called "spineless." Stoller's comment: "People get mad at Chuck Schumer/Hakeem Jeffries for not fighting, but the passivity is pervasive in every major liberal institution, including many unions."
What's more, small "d" democracy absolutely requires compromise, even compromise between those who disagree. It's naive to expect ideological purity from any politician in a democracy.
This kind of rough-and-ready disagreement / compromise is baked into the democracy cake. It's not going to change no matter who is in power, unless of course we have the dictatorship--and a dictatorship of the oligarchs appears to be the way public policy is happening now.
Ralph Nader has been so frustrated by this he's sent out an appeal to readers asking what else he can do since federal public policy makers won't even return his phone calls, much less do something constructive.
So, to this writer, anyway, it looks like some kind of dislocation or catastrophe that's impossible to deny--a war, a depression, an environmental breakdown--is what we're left with to break this frustrating deadlock. The big question is whether our so-called "democracy" can handle it. After all, the Princeton study demonstrating that the US has an oligarchy, not a representative democracy, is more than two decades old now.
LBJ is a perfect example of how confusing political calculations can be. He literally stole his Senate seat and pioneered the way the Senate majority leader (like Mitch McConnell) could railroad or delay legislation. He had multiple mistresses, was a crook in business. and a bigot with his fellow southerners. He was everything you could imagine is wrong with Donald Trump. The big difference: he grew up poor.
Yet LBJ was instrumental in passing Medicare, Civil Rights legislation, and the "war on poverty." These are considerable accomplishments. His nemesis: the Vietnam War, bungled so badly he couldn't get out (and Nixon / Kissinger apparently sabotaged the peace process).
What to do?
As Matt Stoller writes: "The thing about politics is that in order to have an impact, you have to know what’s going on." In addition to this blog, I recommend Naked Capitalism.
My first academic article was on the dictatorship of Uzbekistan inventing a group called "Akromiya" that did not really exist but which they used to arrest anyone with whom they disagreed under the pretext of "terrorism". Just bringing this up for no reason whatsoever!
