March 22, 2016--Yes, Yes Trump

A heretical thought--

Shouldn't progressive Democrats hope that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination? Even, where they can, cross over and vote for him in their state's primaries?

Before you pull the plug on this, hear me out. And, as a hint, remember what happened to the GOP in 1964 and thereafter.

First, Trump's winning the nomination would assure Hillary Clinton's election.

Head-to-head she would trounce him. Forget current polls showing him doing decently in the general election. Imagine Clinton and Trump on stage debating. What do you think would happen? That's easy--he'd make a fool of himself, reveal that he is not temperamentally fit to be the Commander in Chief, and remind people the presidency is serious business and that political playtime is over.

As a consequence, Hillary would win at least three-quarters of the Electoral vote.

Then, as we've already seen, Trump is currently leading the pack of three after demolishing 14 other aspirants by self-funding his campaign. This is rendering high-roller donors such as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson irrelevant.

Remember Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio? All were odds-on favorites, supported by big-buck PAC groups, and all are out of the race. The Kochs and Adelson types may be crazy, but they're not stupid--they know that the party for them is over if Trump continues to do well without their help. Actually, shows disdain for it.

He is a one-man wrecking crew when it comes to Citizens United. This could be the beginning of the end for dark-money interests who for decades have owned conservatives in Congress as well as the White House. This goes back to Dwight Eisenhower's and Ronald Reagan's time, both of whom were propelled forward and unduly influenced during their presidencies by corporate plutocrats.

Then there is the matter of Fox News.

Since it's launch in 1996, funded by Australian media-mogul Rupert Murdock, current fiancé of Mick Jagger's ex, Jerry Hall, and overseen by GOP spinmeister Roger Ailes. It has been the most powerful and influential of conservative institutions. Perhaps even more so than Rush Limbaugh or the Republican National Committee. What GOP politicians, including presidential aspirants, have not pandered to Fox's so-called reporters and talk-show hosts? No one but Donald Trump who uses them or ignores them on his own terms.

While Trump was getting his political career launched he was as ubiquitous on Fox air as John McCain and Sarah Palin. But as he was propelled into the lead, he began to treat Fox with dismissive contempt. After being effectively taken down by Megyn  Kelly during the first debate, he began a sustained campaign to assassinate her character and professionalism. It's hard to forget his "bleeding from wherever" slander and then how he petulantly decided not to participate, before the Iowa caucuses, in the Fox-hosted debate. And just this week, about another Fox-organized debate, he said "enough." And, knowing that without his showing up the ratings would plummet, Fox canceled it.

Not satisfied, Trump then launched another campaign of criticism directed at Kelly. Some said he was losing control, that he is "obsessed" with her, even that he is "stalking" her.

Who knows. But his not genuflecting at Fox's altar is beginning to affect their numbers. Without Trump-breaking-news-all-the-time, for the first time CNN and MSNBC, both of which are devoting almost full time to covering Trump, are seeing their comparative ratings creep up.

If Fox News is diminished because of Trump, rather than see in his attempts to control the press (which politician or president hasn't attempted to do that?) signs of fascism, maybe we should acknowledge, hate him-love him, that in this case Trump may be contributing to the diminishment of the heretofore all-powerful Murdock-Ailes media axis.

And then there is the 1964 effect. Another reason progressives should consider "using" Trump.

Recall, that was the year Barry Goldwater and his acolytes soundly defeated moderate Republicans Bill Scranton and Nelson Rockefeller for the GOP nomination. This was when Goldwater famously declared, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice . . . and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Goldwater went on to be overwhelmed by Lyndon Johnson, winning only six states while securing less than 40 percent of the popular vote. It took until 1980, 16 years, before the Republicans were reconstituted. A lifetime in political history.

Establishment Republicans are so fearful (I almost said freaked-out) about the prospect of a Trump nomination that they are talking about changing the party's nomination rules when they convene this summer in Cleveland or, if that fails, putting forth a third-party candidate such as Rick Perry. Yes, the hapless former governor of Texas. Or if he's not available, maybe they'd run Herman Cain. But not to worry--about him, I'm making that up.

Thus, a Trump nomination would not only assure a Clinton victory and likely enable Democrats to regain control of the Senate (and with that the ability to confirm progressive Supreme Court nominees) but would also dismember the Republican Party such as it is for at least a political generation.

So, my friends . . .

August 4, 2015--The Southernization of America

Anyone interested in understanding the conservative resurgence or revolution, if you will, should turn off Fox News and read Godfrey Hodgson's prescient, 1996 eyeopener, The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America.

If you are interested in the intellectual roots, he does a good job of summarizing the contributions of serious economists such as Friedrich Hayek; pseudo-serious novelists such as Ayn Rand; polemicists like William F. Buckley, Kevin Phillips, and Irving Kristol; evangelical religious leaders such as Jerry Falwell; and political figures including Barry Goldwater and of course Ronald Reagan.

All of this is familiar ground for anyone paying attention to the cultural and political shift rightward, but nowhere all pulled together as well as by Hodgson.

For me, noteworthy is Hodgson's insight--or at least his clear statement--of how the ideology and politics that followed on in the South, transforming it from the Democrats' Solid South, after the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 were signed into law, and quickly became solidly conservative and Republican. The South at that time became the South that we now know and live with, continuing today to shift inexorably to the right.

Nothing that new about that. But what is new is Hodgson's perception that much of the North shortly thereafter--certainly by 1980 when Ronald Reagan became president by picking off millions of so-called Reagan Democrats--became southernized.

This happened in two stages--first there was the dramatic population shift of northerners to the former Confederate States and thereby their accruing electoral power. Reallocation of members and redistricting meant more seats in the House of Representatives for conservatives at the expense of liberal states such as New York and Pennsylvania; and, as Texas and Florida passed New York to become the second and third largest states, there was a dramatic increase in the South's number of votes in the Electoral College. With the South also becoming solidly Republican that made it much more difficult for Democrats to control Congress much less the White House.

The second stage, the result of Reagan's appeal to traditional blue collar Democrats and his election and reelection, subsequently turned a number of blue states into purple states (Pennsylvania is a good example) and over time threatened to turn a few northern purple states to red states.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of that transformation, and perplexing to progressives because of its role in the history of the emergence of the Progressive Movement, is Wisconsin, where Scott Walker managed to get elected governor three times, largely by acting as if Wisconsin were South Carolina.

As in the South he appealed to hawkish hyper-patriotism, belief in American exceptionalism, evangelical impulses, anti-affirmative action forces, a desire to limit government of all kinds, dog-whistle racism, and above all attacks on unions. Thus, Wisconsin has tipped to the right and now culturally and politically could become a permanent part of the emerging conservative majority.

September 4, 2014--Fear Itself

Reading Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, the first of Rick Perlstein's monumental trilogy of books about the contemporary conservative movement, there is this about Fred Koch, the Koch Brothers' sire, and his comrades in 1960 when they were working largely out of view to promote the conservative movement. Specifically about the role of fear in American politics:

. . . Conservatism was a conservatism of fear. They harped endlessly on the "communist income tax," how the economy would be decimated by inflation every time a worker got a raise. (Taft Republicans, joked The Nation, feared "only God and inflation.") Their scapegoats were unnamed subversives who were invisibly destroying the system from within: "I am at a lose to understand the current public attitude deflating the inflation psychology," Fred Koch wrote in a self-published pamphlet. "Perhaps it is propaganda, of which we have been fed much of late--pink propaganda, in as much as, in my opinion, Russia's first objective is to destroy our economy through inflation."  

Politically the philosophy lost when it won [my italics]: if you removed the fear of subversion by catching subversives, you ended the fear that brought you to power in the first place--although, of course, you could never catch all the subversives, for the conspiracy was a bottomless murk, a hall of mirrors, a menace that grew greater the more it was flushed out. 'The Communists have infiltrated both the Democrat and Republican Parties for many years," Koch wrote. "If we could only see behind the political scenes, I am sure we would be shocked."

Thinking about this early the other morning, I speculated that there are basically two underlying sources  from which political power derives--

Fear is one force. Real, imagined, and often, by politicians, manipulated. Recall that during the 2008 primary campaign Joe Biden, famously calling Rudy Giuliani out as a fear merchant, said that everything he says is made up of a "noun, verb, and 9/11."

When looking at the social psychological reasons why people, without coercion, will give up their freedom to authoritarian leaders, Erich Fromm in Escape from Freedom, offers evidence that they do so because they either have real things to fear (economic collapse, external military threat, discrimination) or are fear-driven in their orientation. Like the Kochs they see threats all around even when they do not in fact exist.

Progressives, on the other hand, are willing to give up some of their autonomy--freedom, if you will--for the collective good. At least the collective good as they perceive it--that no one should go homeless or hungry or untreated if they are ill. Seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is what drives them politically.

As with conservatives, there is with them also the possibility, and often the reality, of self-delusion. And they have not always been reluctant to embrace their own manipulative methods. What one may claim to be the greatest good for others is not often put to the test--asking those for whom decisions are being made if they perceive them to be in their best interest.

So, in the first instance the instinct for a version of survival drives belief and behavior and in the latter case arrogance can take hold as those with power decide for the rest of us what is supposedly in our best interest.