From The Nation Mag – “To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy”

I have been very critical of the American Left in this blog, and I have made the people at The Nation magazine the exception to my ire against the Left.

This is the latest article by them titled “To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy”. I hope they don’t mind that I’m copying it here. You can go to their site if you want more articles about the Left and Hillary.

 
To My Friends on the Left: Hillary Clinton Is Not the Enemy
In James Comey’s latest investigation, too many of you see the right’s caricature of “Crooked Hillary.”
By Jeffrey C. Isaac

I am uncomfortable with political labels, especially as applied to me. But to most people in the world, I would be considered someone on the left. I am a contributing editor of Dissent magazine; I recently edited a new edition of The Communist Manifesto to which I contributed a rather sympathetic essay; through the early summer I was a supporter of the Bernie Sanders campaign, and published a number of pieces seeking to explain and to (critically) support this campaign. Only after the Democratic convention did I decide to support Hillary Clinton, which decision I explained in a July 26 piece titled “Why I Support Hillary Clinton for President: A Letter to My Friends on the Left.” Since that time I have been a strong Clinton supporter, for the reasons outlined in that piece: because I believe that her centrist liberalism is strongly preferable to the neofascism of Donald Trump; because her neoliberal feminism and multiculturalism is strongly preferable to the anti-feminism, racism, and xenophobia of the Republican party; and because I believe it is a good thing, symbolically and practically, for the United States, for the first time in over 200 years, to elect an establishment woman who is a feminist to the presidency rather than an establishment man who is a misogynist. Clinton is not running against Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren—who both strongly support her. She is running against Donald Trump.

This piece was first published by Public Seminar.
I never thought that Sanders could be a viable Democratic candidate for president; I doubted he could win the primary, I doubted that he could survive a red-baiting general-election campaign, and I was skeptical of some of the claims of having mobilized a mass movement in support of “political revolution.” But I supported him and, had he won, I would be supporting him now. Alas, he lost. Clinton won. She won because she had more power and money and resources and she used these things to win. That is politics.

I have many friends on the left, and many of them are to my left by any stretch of the imagination. They are smart people and good people, and among them, unsurprisingly, there exists a range of opinion on Clinton and whether to support her. But most of them—most of you—have made clear that they strongly oppose a Trump presidency, and that while they do not like Clinton, they intend to vote for her, even if they have to hold their nose while doing so. This sentiment was perhaps most cleverly and also intelligently summed up in the piece by Adolph Reed published a few months ago bearing the title “Vote for the Lying Liberal Warmonger: It’s Important.” I understand and respect this position. At the same time, this kind of language—“Lying Liberal Warmonger”—has made me uncomfortable, even if it is intended in a tongue-in-cheek manner—and I am not sure that it is. Because it is so excessive. Perhaps some consider this justified. I don’t. And the firestorm that has erupted in the past two days in response to FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress, announcing that the FBI will be evaluating the e-mails of Huma Abedin found on the laptop of her estranged husband Anthony Weiner, underscores why: because in this electoral contest, right now, it is very important for intellectuals on the left to help get out the vote to defeat Trump and elect Clinton, precisely so that, as a recent Nation editorial states, the left can continue to best advocate for greater social justice.

That right-wing witch hunters such as Representative Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, would immediately jump all over the Comey letter is no surprise.

But I have been taken aback by the responses of some (not all) of my friends on the left, who have basically said, “I told you so. We always said that Hillary was flawed and corrupt and that she was vulnerable to these accusations and now it is all coming to pass and her corruption is going to result either in a Trump presidency or four years of congressional investigation of her corruption. You should have listened to us when we supported Bernie instead of supporting Clinton. Now you are reaping what you have sown. Your candidate has fucked up everything, like we knew she would.”

She is being attacked by the right wing because the right wing hates her. And they hate her because she is a liberal and a feminist.
I understand this kind of indignation, though I do not share it in this case. But I urge my friends to consider that while moral outrage has its place—and in the end only each individual can decide for themselves what this place is—at this moment, less than two weeks before a very consequential presidential election, such indignation serves no good consequence. Even if you say “of course I’ll vote for Hillary, because I hate Trump, but she is a Lying Liberal Imperialist and I hate her and she deserves everything she is getting,” what you are doing, it seems to me, is giving credence to all of those young people—who read you, respect you, and learn from you, inside the classroom and outside of it—who cannot bring themselves to vote. At this moment, when it is so important to support Clinton and to encourage others to do so with their votes, your words are conveying a different message.

Behind the reaction that concerns me lie two premises. One is that Sanders would have been a stronger candidate against Trump. I do not believe this is true, but it is also a moot point, because Sanders lost, and conceded his loss, and while the Clinton campaign worked very hard to undermine Sanders and to defeat him—this is what presidential campaigns do—defeat him they did. Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic party because she was the insider candidate and she had the resources and the organization and she won the primary by getting both more votes and more delegates. It makes perfect sense to keep one’s eyes on the prize of further reforming the Democratic party and supporting the forces of Sanders and Warren. But right now, the Democrats have a candidate, and it is important to support this candidate.

The second premise is that Clinton is a uniquely flawed and corrupt politician whose record cannot stand serious scrutiny, and who has brought these troubles on herself by being such a wheeling, dealing, corrupt individual who plays fast and loose with the rules.

It is this premise that I wish to question here.

And my basic reason is simple: I honestly don’t understand why so many of my friends on the left, who are so adept at employing the powers of critique to challenge conventional wisdoms and to uncover forms of power, are so willing to accept at face value the version of Hillary Clinton that has so assiduously been developed, purveyed, and prosecuted, for decades, by her right-wing opponents in their pursuit of power.

Related Article
Why Progressives Should Vote for Hillary Clinton
The Nation
I do understand the reasons why serious people of the left would oppose much of what Clinton stands for and would struggle for a more left platform—indeed, the current Democratic platform is such a platform! But I urge my friends to reconsider their animus toward Clinton, especially at this moment.

First, let us consider FBI Director Comey’s letter.

Comey’s letter is very disturbing, and many people, myself included, have responded with annoyance and even outrage to this “October surprise.” The immediate response of some of my friends on the left to this outrage has been a kind of defense of Comey. On this view, Comey was compelled to send the letter, and in doing so he was simply following standard procedures of investigating a corrupt and possibly criminal wrongdoing.

Perhaps. But why lend such credence to the self-justification of the director of the FBI in this case? Why ignore what is known—that Comey has conservative ties; that when he publicly “exonerated” Clinton months ago, he did so in a very awkward and troubling manner that raised questions about his professionalism; that he had clearly placed himself in an odd position with Republicans legislators hoping for a different outcome, and he might clearly have aapsychological reasons to seek to ingratiate himself with these legislators by sending them a letter like the one he just sent? Such things are part of the political situation that surrounds Comey, his letter, and the way that it was predictably seized upon by the Republic right and the Trump campaign. And yet some seemed inclined to simply take his letter at face value.

Only hours later, it is now clear that the FBI has had access to Weiner’s computer for some time, weeks if not months, and yet still has not analyzed the e-mails in question; that the e-mails in question had nothing to do with Clinton’s e-mail account or her e-mail server, and at most regard the judgment of Clinton’s aide; that the Comey letter itself was very awkward and misleading, because in fact the only information it conveyed is that the FBI has some other e-mails that may or may not have anything to do with Clinton (there is always “something else” that “may or may not” be relevant; how often does the FBI Director send letters to Congress about such things?); that Comey’s letter, like his earlier press conference, was contrary to Justice Department policy; and that Comey had actually been instructed by his superiors at the Justice Department not to send the letter that he sent anyway. This is all quite stunning and suspicious.

One response to the entire e-mail “scandal” is the one offered months ago by Sanders during the primary debates: it is a side issue, and it has been extensively investigated and no criminal wrong-doing has been shown, and while Clinton’s judgment in this case might be questioned, what she did was little different than what her Republican predecessors Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell did, and it is time to let it drop as a matter of investigation and inquisition, and to focus on the issues at stake in this election, which is now a contest between Clinton and Trump.

A second response is the one adamantly expressed by the Trump campaign and by every Republican elected official: Hillary is “crooked,” and this must be investigated (and litigated) ad infinutum, and the slightest shred of “information” even remotely connected to Clinton or her associates ought to be treated as an occasion for further outrage and further scrutiny of Clinton and the matter ought never to be left to rest.

Comey apparently decided to lean toward the second response, and through his own very questionable judgment, he has thrown red meat to the Republican sharks eager to prosecute Clinton and to defeat the Democratic ticket in the upcoming election.

This entire matter is a prime example of the many ways that the Republican leadership continues to play “hardball” with the Obama Administration and with the Clinton campaign—about the Supreme Court, about all legislation, about everything. The Republicans are about attack and obstruction.

This seems obvious. Why treat it as if it is about the corruptions of Clinton when it is primarily a Republican effort to frame Clinton as a criminal? Why treat it as a matter of individual personality when it is clearly a matter of politics?

In this light, let’s give a second thought to Clinton herself, this supposedly corrupt woman whose corruption, it would seem, exceeds all bounds of normal politics and warrants special investigations. I have to confess, it is the animus expressed by some of my friends, including women friends, about this, that most perplexes me. For in almost every way that matters, Hillary Clinton is nothing more and nothing less than a successful professional woman like most successful professional women we all know and that we often like, and that indeed many of us are.

  • She preaches and practices a kind of “lean-in” feminism that valorizes meritocracy and the professional success of elite women like herself and her daughter.

Is this really different from the way most professional women, including left academic women, proceed? The university is as much a corporate institution as is a corporate business or a government bureaucracy. Do we fault our colleagues, our friends, for seeking prestigious research grants that give them course release, and for asking their famous friends to write letters of recommendation or to organize book panels promoting their work? Do we fault our colleagues for being preoccupied with publication in the officially sanctioned journals, so that they can build records of accomplishment sufficient to earn tenure and promotion, and the privileges these involve, privileges that are not available to most women in the work force? Do we cast suspicion on our friends who do everything possible to promote the educational performance of their children so that they can be admitted into elite universities? In her pursuit of movement up the career ladder, and her valorization of this approach to success, is Clinton that different than most of us who, honestly, belong to the “professional managerial class” as much as she does, and who work through its institutions in the same way she does?

  • She has achieved positions of leadership in hierarchical corporate institutions, where she has traded on connections, and has mixed with members of a power elite with access to money and power.

In this, is she any different than other colleagues, women and men, who become Distinguished Professors, and department chairs, and Deans and Provosts and College Presidents? I have many friends—feminists, leftists—who have achieved such positions, and who have embraced them. These positions are obtained by “playing the academic game,” by cooperating with others in positions of institutional authority, by compromising on ideals in order to get something done in a conservative bureaucracy, by agreeing to manage programs and personnel, i.e, colleagues, by agreeing to fundraise from wealthy alumni and corporate donors, and to participate in events that please such alumni and donors so that they will support you and your institution. Is Clinton’s “game” really that different?

  • She uses her professional connections for personal advantage, making connections that can benefit her in the future, accepting side payments in exchange for her services.

Is this that different than colleagues in the academic bureaucracy, who accept the salary increases and bonuses and research and travel accounts and course release that come with this kind of work? I am a Distinguished Professor at Indiana University. I enjoy these things. Many of us do, including many wonderful scholars to my left who really dislike Clinton. But is she really so different than the rest of us? Really?

In some ways, the differences are obvious. Clinton has succeeded largely through public institutions. She has succeeded on a much larger scale. She has benefited financially on a much larger scale. She is a woman of great power and influence and wealth, who has sought out a degree of power and influence and wealth that greatly exceeds the norm for anyone and especially for any woman. And she is on the public stage, so that every aspect of her action, and her self-promotion—and her e-mailing—is potentially subject to public scrutiny. But is this a sign of her personal corruption, or simply a sign that she has learned how to play the establishment political game and to win at the highest levels? What man who has ever served in the US Senate or been Secretary of State or has been elected President of the US has behaved otherwise than she has?

Hillary Clinton may be more insular, self-protective, awkward in public, etc., than most politicians—but how many of them have been Hillary Clinton, the first woman to endure this level of scrutiny in the history of the United States, and someone who also had to endure eight very public years as the First Lady of a philandering husband, and whose husband was impeached for this philandering? Might this not generate a level of insularity and suspicion in any woman?

She might surround herself with a very insular group of trusted confidants, at the expense of transparency—but don’t all politicians do this?

She might have gained great wealth from her connections—but does this distinguish her from any other powerful person?

In short, Clinton is a successful political leader who is also a woman in a man’s world. And, as Plato taught us millennia ago, political leaders tend to be loved by their friends and hated by their enemies.

And Clinton’s principal enemies are clear: partisans of a Republican party that is led by Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and a cadre of right-wing extremists, that selected Donald Trump as its presidential candidate, and that seeks to turn back the clock on decades of progress for women’s right, civil rights, the rights of minorities, and the (already very attenuated) rights of workers.

Clinton is a centrist liberal, not a socialist or a social democrat. She is a liberal feminist, not a socialist feminist. She is a foreign policy hawk, but within a bipartisan mainstream. She is an insider and an experienced operative in an oligopolistic two-party system, and not a radical or participatory democrat. These are the reasons she is the presidential candidate of a major political party in the United States, which is not Sweden! It is true, on every one of these dimensions she comes up short when judged from the left. On every one of these dimensions of politics and policy, she deserves criticism. This was true before, it is true now, and it will be true if she wins the White House.

But this does not make her an evil or an irredeemably corruption person, and it does not make her a political enemy.

Her opponents on the right have demonized Clinton for decades. They have succeeded in raising her to a level of distrust and opprobrium in the eyes of the mass public that exceeds any reasonable sense of proportion. Mike Pence is now saying that she has a “criminal scheme” to take over the US government. Donald Trump calls her a “criminal” and he promises to jail her. The Republican Congressional leadership is pledged to either defeat her or to dedicate four years to a legislative politics of inquisition modeled on the Benghazi hearings.

She is being attacked by the right wing because the right wing hates her. And the right wing hates her because she is a liberal and a feminist and a woman and because she supports the things that most anger the right wing: gender equality, reproductive freedom, equality for gays and lesbians, gun control, racial equality, and civil rights.

These things that she supports are the things that we support. The things she supports have their limits. She has her limits. But she is not evil, and she is not an enemy.

In the next 10 days leading up to Election Day, Clinton will be subjected to a list-ditch barrage of attacks from the right. She does not “deserve” these attacks. And while the attackers target her, what they attack is much of what is valuable to you and to me. To us.

Let us not exult in her travails. They are undeserved. And such exultation does no good in any case.

Let us defeat a Republican neofascist by electing a Democratic neoliberal feminist.

And then let us treat that Democratic neoliberal feminist, once in office, the same way that any president ought to be treated: with suspicion and critical scrutiny and a determination to press forward an agenda of greater social justice and political responsibility.

 

Advertisements

Summing Up the Elections: The Horrors, the Fun, and the Historic

SUMMING UP THE ELECTIONS

This presidential election cycle has been a wonderful mix of horror and entertainment, simultaneously. Call it whatever you want but ‘boring’, which is what typical presidential elections are.

Four issues stand out, in my view, in this election, which I discuss in this post, namely: the “political outsider”, racism, ‘class warfare” (aka ‘voter anger’), and misogyny in the historic time of the first woman running for the presidency of the USA.  I’ll start with the horrors, though.

The Horror

The horrific character of this election is not solely due to that magnificent mediocre-entertainer-turned-GOP-slayer-and-Democratic-party-unifier, do I have to call his name? OK, the Pussy-grabber. You see? Horror and fun simultaneously.

The Late Show Screengrab

More horror has been elicited in the hearts of sane people by the response in some sectors of our body politic to the Donald’s unnatural presidential campaign than by he himself. Consider the following.

When a person lacks the ability to feel shame and remorse (guilt), the sky is the limit to the cruelty one can inflict in other humans and animals with nonsense excuses. Shame and remorse are the legs on which morality stands, remove them and you have personal and social chaos; remove them and you have verbal and physical aggression dominating human interactions.

Donald Trump showed himself to be the walking poster-boy of an amoral human being, bragging about not abiding by ‘political correct” attitudes. His lack of shame and remorse allows him to insult and humiliate ANYONE who displeases him or is in his way to grab something, scam the poor and the rich (in that he is ‘fair’), treat women as veritable sexual objects, propose heartless policies, discriminate and show racism…The man has no limits on hatred nor a minuscule sense of loyalty to anyone but himself.

But what has truly scare the bejesus out of sane people is how many people are out there who find AFFINITY with his behavior or who are gingerly dismissing as ‘clownish’ precisely the statements that show his lack of morals, and propose voting for him. Dismissing Hitler’ shameless racism is what brought him to power, didn’t it?

Publicly out there defending Trump’s racist and misogynist remarks are Hollywood entertainers and people in our nations’ political right and left wings.

Susan Sarandon (and ex hubby Tim Robbins) as Trump Apologist. They went public to say that Trump is “less dangerous than Hillary”.

Mainstream America is not aware of how the Left, in its totality (except the people at The Nation, who support Hillary), joined the right wingers and became Trump Apologists to explain to the working class why, despite his racism and misogyny,  he is a better alternative for them than Hillary Clinton. Their support of the Donald is more pornographic than the right wingers screwing America. The immorality of the Left supporting this racist and misogynist elitist ‘billionaire’ has been the topic of this inartful blog since February.

mac

Trump may be a pompous, clownish ass, but Hillary Clinton is a world-class dissembler whose most prominent personality trait happens to be pure, old-fashioned, unbridled Ambition.” 4 Reasons Not to Fear Donald Trump by David Macaray [a man, of course] June 3, 2016 at Counter Punch

And of course,  had the mainstream media (MSM) (MSM = NYT, WaPo, Cable News stations…) refuse to give free coverage to the Don’s absurd campaign from the beginning, we wouldn’t be now running like headless chicken trying to fend off this  third-rate new millennium Hitler. C’mon, at least Hitler knew what he was doing and was ‘good’ at it.

Then there was the horrifying spectacle of Sanders supporters following Hillary Clinton around and hurling insults at her and threatening to ‘kill’ her, while he was  vilifying her. It was horrifying, not only because it was unfair and disrespectful to her, but because most of us knew that Sanders was feeding Trump the ammo to shoot at Hillary. Trump later adopted the insults and thank him for them.

attacking-children

Hillary Clinton’s rally in California was cut short this week when a group of Bernie Sanders backers broke out into a loud protest, with some of the demonstrators even turning their anger against children who were backing Clinton.http://www.inquisitr.com/3070700/hillary-clintons-rally-shut-down-by-angry-bernie-sanders-supporters-protesters-reportedly-ripped-up-young-girls-pro-clinton-sign/#sarAjmyeljyU22yp.99

Interestingly enough, Sanders NEVER apologized to Hillary publicly for those names (“cooked”, etc.,) nor made any gestures to denounce Trump for appropriating his negative sobriquet.

The Fun

Well, I’ll let you identified what was entertaining to you in this campaign. Both Hillary and Trump gave us reason to laugh at them, didn’t they? This is one of those Trump statements that made me laugh:

[Angry when asked why he interrupted his campaign to go cut ribbons for his new hotel he gave a litany of campaign stops and said:] “For you to ask me that question is actually very insulting, because Hillary Clinton does one stop and then goes home and sleeps, and yet you’ll ask me that question. I think it’s a very rude question, to be honest with you.”

LOL You can also check SNL for more campaign fun.

It All Started with Angry Voters and Political ‘Outsiders’:

Angry Voters and Class Wars

It all started with ‘angry voters’ in the primaries, remember them?  I know, the media doesn’t talk about them anymore. That’s because the angry voters have been properly channeled to the two parties to waste their anger on attacking Hillary and Trump, not on those who they claim have actually made them angry in the first place: the oligarchs and ‘globalists’. But I’m digressing.

Those who the GOP considers the plebe (the middle class, mostly the lower end of it) were justifiably angry at how they have been pushed by the oligarchs, the elites and politicians down with the ‘untouchables’ (the poor), identified by the right wingers as the colored ‘free loaders’ and ‘illegal aliens’ living in poverty. The left-wing (Sanders’ followers and the American Left) took as the object of its rage, not the oligarchs, but Hillary Clinton. See “she’s a liar” shouted at her face:

It should be noted that the oligarchs/globalists were never threatened by the angry voters in the Dem party. As I discussed in this blog, they, represented by Larry Summers, came out against Trump, not against Sanders. Why? Because, while Sanders was busy vilifying Hillary and blaming her for all the problems in the world, Trump was ‘shaming’ the globalists publicly, blaming them for the loss of jobs here. They, the globalists, were the ones who admitted that this election is about class wars, but the people don’t want to hear about that.

So, these angry voters populated both the GOP and the Democratic parties, and threatened a revolution within the parties, not outside. They railed against their respective parties’ “establishment” but marched right into them to turn them into the opposite of what those parties are. Sanders’ supporters wanted to turn the DNC into some form of ‘not picante’ Bolshevist Party and Hillary Clinton into a female Lenin.

The revoltosos at the GOP want…I’m still trying to figure that out. I know they want capitalism and globalism, but not too hot either.

The Outsiders: Trump and Sanders

Donald Trump entered the campaign waving the flag of the billionaire outside of politics (we are still waiting to see his taxes to confirm his status as billionaire), and the MSM did not question his claim of being a political ‘outsider’.

Image result for trump outsider politics

I discussed the issue of billionaires, elite and oligarchs as pseudo outsiders in politics here. Is a myth, folks. Anyway, Trump admitted, during the primaries debates and later, that he paid politicians and later got from them what he needed. His own words. So he admits that he is NOT an outsider in politics, he is a manipulator of politics and politicians for his interest. I know, nothing wrong with that, but the point is made that he and other wealthy businessmen are  NOT outsiders in politics. It does matter, people.

Image result for trump political outsider

He is not “controlled by lobbyists” because he is his own lobbyist. He ‘donates’ to politicians to get his wishes.

Sanders, good ol’ Sanders. Not only was he paraded as an ‘outsider’, his followers made a saint out of him, with trip to the Vatican and all to get sainthood status (another fun moment in the elections).

Image result for saint bernie sanders

The MSM promoted the illusion that, because Sanders was an ‘independent’ and ‘socialist’, he was an outsider in politics, that as such he NEVER, in 30+ years in Congress, participated in the parties ‘establishment’.  Of course, the media has refused, to this day, to vet his votes in Congress. Sanders became a threat to Hillary Clinton only because the MSM gave to him the same thing they gave Trump: free coverage.

On top of that, they preserved the image of Sanders the ‘he never lies, he is so honest’, and Hillary the born-liar. You can’t have a bitch without someone to bitch on, can you? The media gave us Sanders to highlight Hillary’s ‘corruption’. But it was Sanders the one hurling insults, calling Hillary ‘corrupt’ and ‘crooked’, she never insulted him…and the media don’t show us his record nor his emails. Remember: The first instance of campaign hacking was his campaign stealing Clinton’s donor and supporters list.

Image result for sanders stealing data from dnc

The Democratic National Committee suspended Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign’s access to the DNC voter database after the party organization said the campaign was able to take advantage of a software error to access Hillary Clinton’s confidential voter information.

Image result for sanders is the only one telling the truth

The Confrontations: Hillary & Trump Feel the Angry Voters’ ‘Burn’

Then there were the protests at Trump’s and Hillary’s rallies. This is where all hell broke loose: the MSM took an uncharacteristic support of leftist ‘rioters’.

As I commented in the post mentioned above, while up to these primaries the media had ignored the OWS and BLM movements, they turned their cameras in FAVOR of those  same people who were disrupting Trump’s and Hillary’s rallies. The media did not accuse the protesters of marching into Trump’s rallies to provoke violence, it accused Trump of inciting violence.

Funny thing is, the American Left DID organize protests to provoke violence.

…include[ing] mobilizing the greatest number possible of radicalizing people of color, youth, Bernie Sanders supporters and others to confront and shut down his campaign events at every opportunity possible. [Quote link in my post .]

And recently, the media and Assange’s Wikileaks want to blame Hillary for it, when it is clear that everybody had dirty hands. The media, above all, for covering the violence and exculpating the protesters as  not inciting violence when they did.

Misogyny Makes History with Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has the historic distinction of being the first woman running for president of the USA, but, were it  not for Trump, that would have been a negative for her in her campaign. During the primaries she was not allowed to boast about that historical achievement: she was publicly criticized by just about everybody for trying.

[Update: Article re MSM “They’re already trying to erase what they did to Hillary Clinton“]

As the first woman running for office, Hillary Clinton has had the undesired and undeserved distinction  of having been dragged through the mud, humiliated for openly running as a woman, blamed for ALL the evils in the planet (no man, president or not, has achieved this feat), called a bitch in her face, have her life threatened by men (not one woman has gone so far as to wanting to assassinate her), condemned by the MSM, the Left and by Trump and his supporters as the ‘most dishonest person on the planet’…

This is the manifestation of hatred of women, and it is historic. This presidential cycle will go to the history books as one where misogyny became a campaign issue by default.

The MSM refused to highlight the historical feature of her candidacy, and on the day she won her party’s nomination as the first woman nominated for the highest office, the Washington Post published this on its cover:

    The Take: Clinton got what she needed, but her image is underwater

It was a hit piece, promoting the ‘conventional truth’ that Hillary is a born-liar and NO ONE likes her. You know ‘conventional truths’, don’t you? They are accepted without evidence and by the force of repeating them over and over.

It is a fact that having someone of your kind (race, gender, nationality) in high office works as a role model, a boost in the collective ego of that group. No need to elaborate here on the importance of a President Obama in that respect.

But women are not allowed, yet, that benefit. Nonetheless, one thing this presidential campaign has done, by this woman running for office, is cast the light at the intensity and depth of misogyny in our culture.

Even women were afraid to praise Hillary in her effort, afraid to put women’s issues in the forefront. It took the king of the misogynist, pussy-grabber Trump, to break the damn dam of misogyny.

Now, as I write this post, it is clear that women, the majority of voters in the land, are inclined to vote for Hillary PRECISELY because of all the misogyny that Trump illuminated. These women saw how many men, from right to left, up and down the social scale, mansplained Trump to them.

That’s why Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is so important. It open the national conversation on women’s issues. No president has cared for it, because they all were men.

Like the saying goes, ‘it ain’t over until is over’. We still have a couple of weeks before we vote, anything is possible, horrible surprises can happen. There are historical evidence to that, like when no one believed that Hitler could win the German elections.

But all in all, this has been the most horrific and positive election in a long time. The last bastion of oppression, after class, race and nationality, i.e., of women, is open for a cleaning. People are angry about the economy and globalism and the elite is listening, for good and for bad.

The MSM has done a superb job at being dishonest, attacking BOTH Trump and Hillary, doing its job for the globalists who don’t want Trump and are not sure about Hillary.

Turmoil will be in the future, but I’m looking forward to the administration of the first woman President  of the USA.

I have discussed most of these issues in this blog. I know I have an unconventional take on things, I’ve been told so. I invite you to stroll around the posts’ titles and take a look. My ESL shows, but you understand what I’m saying. May not agree, but understand the message.

Thanks for reading.

Did Hillary Clinton Force Trump On The GOP?

The American Left (AL) accuses Hillary Clinton of having CONSPIRED to “lower the level of the political conversation by making the GOP recruit Trump”, knowing in advance (but not the GOP) that he would be making an ass of himself and of our presidential election process.

Of course, they don’t explain how she managed to control the minds of the men in the GOP, nor do they present Wikileaks emails as evidence that she personally ‘made them’ recruit him. Evidence is not needed. The ‘conventional’ knowledge is that Hillary is ‘crooked’, so there’s no need for evidence of how that evil feminist woman controls men’s minds. She just does, doesn’t she?

And how exactly did the AL raised the level of that conversation, despite Hillary’s plan and Trump’s potty mouth? Basically, they clean after him, they clean his racist and fascist remarks and give to  them ‘leftist’ meaning: he is ‘anti-globalist!

The AL has given his words a meaning and intention that they, as ‘socialist and Marxists’, should know is not there. There is no excuse for that because, even if they forgot their Marxism, there was this to remind them that Trump is no ‘leftist’:

Do you remember when Trump said early in the primaries that he could kill a man on 5Th ave in broad day light and no one would accuse him of a crime? You remember that comment,  don’t you? It was not idle talking, he knew what he was saying: That he was aware that normal and reasonable people, let alone socialists and Marxists, would be CORRECT in being appalled by his racist and misogynistic comments and would normally make him pay for it one way or another.

By comparing his campaign ‘conversation’ to  a crime, he was admitting knowledge of the meaning of his words.

The unstated conclusion of his comment was “given that no one seems to care, heck, I’ll go all the way”.

In other words, YOU, the AL, heard that and did exactly what he described, you didn’t care,  and you joined his DEPLORABLES   in ignoring his ‘criminal’ behavior.

Actually, you have done worse: you EXPLAIN to the American working/middle class (thank god they don’t read your magazine), what Trump REALLY means – more correctly – what you wish he means.

The AL’s Crime

Many of you consider yourselves within some shades of Marxism, and most surely socialists. Where is the discussion about class identity, consciousness? Do you remember ‘class identity’?

Why have you been EXPLAINING to the middle class that Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, with a history of helping no one but himself, no history of putting his money where his potty mouth is to help the middle class or the left, who has done nothing for America, why do you explain to them that he represents the interests of middle class, AND that he is a better alternative than Hillary? (I can hear that voice in your mind saying ‘but Hillary…’ Focus on what I’m saying, I will talk about her later.)

He is proud of evading taxes and of being an ‘excellent’ realtor, because evicting poor people is part of being an ‘intelligent’ businessman. “Hey, is necessary to take advantage of the loopholes”.

Is it ignorance, or willful desire to deceive our people; or are you truly that callous as to disregard the American non-elitist classes and women to pursue some ineffective intellectual Bolshevist ideal? Yes, Bolshevist:

“In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.” Peter Lee Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism at Counter Punch

The reason the AL ignores, as the Deplorables, his racist and misogynist remarks is because they don’t care about that, they care only about ‘Bolshevist” ideas, the same ones that have kept them ignored by the American working class.

Yes, you are disregarding the poor, women and the ‘colored’ people for your pseudo Bolshevist agenda. Evidence:

“A President Hillary will kick up anger already on the boil in the Trump camp. The Bernie camp will match that anger if she lays aside his revolutionary call and settles on “children and the family,” issues at most peripheral to the battle against plutocracy Bernie took on.”

That was an expression dismissive of “children and the family” issues. The ONLY thing that matters to the pseudo-intellectual AL are the “issues” that Sanders “took on”. We know for a fact that he didn’t “took on” the issue of women right to abortion, for he DISMISSED Trump’s suggestion of prison for women who have abortions. “No need to react to that”, he said.

The AL’s online ‘think-tanks’, and Counter Punch more consistently and explicitly than others, are nothing but Trump Apologists. This is what an ‘apology’ looks like:

“There’s a difference, though. A relatively isolated figure in New York, imprisoned like some Gothic maiden in the gilded aerie of Trump Tower, Melania likely felt compelled to defend her philandering husband in order to preserve her stake in the untaxed Trump fortune. And who could blame her? We know how ruthlessly Donald “schlonged” Marla Maples in their divorce settlement… By contrast, Hillary leapt eagerly to Bill’s defense, desperate to safeguard her shot at power. “ Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead

The Counter Punch writer explains to us, interpret for us Melania’s thinking, and concludes, without saying it openly, that neither Trump nor Melania have interests in “power”, only ‘evil Hillary’ does. Interestingly enough, most articles portraying Hillary as a “power thirsty bitch” are written by men.

But, the crown jewel of Counter Punch Trump Apologist is in the article where they explain to us that Trump is no fascist, with the unstated (in this one, but stated in many others) message that you should not be afraid of Trump, instead be afraid of “that woman”, the feminist bitch.

“Second thing is, Trump isn’t fascist.  In my opinion, Trump’s an old-fashioned white American nativist,

Peter Lee Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism

That’s all there is to him, he is “old fashion” racist, not a billionaire with elitist class consciousness, interests and behaviors. No need to fear him.

Apology in action:

“Tagging him as “fascist” allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years…”

Don’t call him fascist, is truly unfair to that poor misunderstood man. ‘Here, let me explain to you why he is OK.’

“In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.”

There, in a nutshell, why the AL finds Trump worth defending and voting for him: because he attacks colored people BUT has (gulp!) working class identity and goals: attacking the globalists. Trump is following “the SUPREME” leftists’ god: the Bolshevist class/money issue, the other human issues are immaterial. Racism and rape of women, nah, not worth a Bolshevist’s attention.

They LAMENT that Trump is losing on account that “…Trump ain’t no fascist.

He’s a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.”

In my inartful blog I have christen the AL as ‘the zombie AL’, the ‘living-dead AL’. We all know what a zombie is. That piece up there is one evidence of how dead the AL is.

I have stated that the AL state of decay started to show when they drank Obama’s Kool-Aid. In “Why I’m Not Voting” Lara Gardner described (Counter Punch) pretty well how she saw that Obama was, in my words, a fake in terms of his ‘leftist’ promises. I too saw it back there in the primaries and tried to join the conversation to call the attention to what I had found about him.

Then, the AL became zombies when they decided to TRUST the Donald. They are so dead that they can’t feel the shame that any living human being calling him/herself ‘Marxist’ or ‘leftist’ would feel if they saw another one of their group supporting Trump.

The point is that the zombie Left joined Obama, attacked Hillary, got used to hating Hillary and are now continuing the job of killing her with ‘conventional truths’ propaganda. They will NEVER look at themselves and admit their errors. Intellectuals don’t make mistakes, it seems. Is us, the politically ignorant minions who can’t understand them.

If they drank the Kool-Aid, why should we trust them now and vote for Trump, as they are asking us to do?

I will address the Hillary-hating misogyny in my next post.

How Donald ‘Zoolander’ Trump Killed The American Left, or How The Left Became Trump Apologists

I hope you will agree by the end of this post, not only that the American Left (AL) has reached its expiration date early in the new millennium, but also that it was Trump who, unbeknownst to himself,  delivered to the Left its coup de gráce. Let’s  declare the American Left to be D.O.T.A: Dead on Trump’s Arrival.

Let me show you, before its burial, two pieces of the AL’ sad corpus mortuum in the form of two excerpts from two articles representing the new American Left’s mantra: that fraudster-Trump is not to be feared because he is an innocent well-intentioned schmuck who deserves our vote over conniving Hillary Clinton:

4 Reasons Not to Fear Donald Trump
by David Macaray June 3, 2016 at CounterPunch

mac

People are actually afraid that this narcissistic, non-religious, uber-pragmatic Manhattan real estate tycoon would launch a thermonuclear war? That is even more absurd than the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) inviting Hillary Clinton to speak to their group, given that this woman was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, the most breathtakingly anti-union corporation in America.

Trump may be a pompous, clownish ass, but Hillary Clinton is a world-class dissembler whose most prominent personality trait happens to be pure, old-fashioned, unbridled Ambition. While Trump’s reason for wanting to be president remains a friggin’ mystery, Hillary’s reason for wanting the job can be expressed in four words: It’s my turn, goddamnit.

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton “more dangerous” than Donald Trump

“But this is what we’re fed. ‘He’s so dangerous. He’s so dangerous,’” Sarandon said, shrugging off Trump’s most controversial rhetoric as too implausible to be considered a serious threat.

“Seriously I am not worried about a wall being built, he is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country… but seriously, I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from, and I do know that she is no transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it”

It brings tears to my eyes, that dead body; seriously. The AL calls Trump an “uber-pragmatic real estate tycoon”, not a racist corrupt fraudster elitist aspiring to be an oligarch/dictator of the USA. You will hear less and less the decrepit AL calling Trump a corrupt elitist or anything worse.

Trump Apologists

The AL’s death is coming in the form of painful political and emotional identification with this hate-spewing enemy of the working class and of humanity, with this unconditionally and merciless elitist, racist, misogynistic and homelessness- producing real-estate/casino mogul fraudster . They have become, on their death-bed,  Trump’s Apologists. They defend and explain him to the working class so that they (the workers) don’t have to “fear Donald Trump” and vote for him instead of for ‘evil she-devil’ Hillary Clinton

The aristocratic Leftist ‘Marxist’ intelligentsia sees itself as the intellectuals of the working class. Their self-assigned job is to ‘educate’ the ‘intellectually deficient’ working class on how to do the ‘revolution’. But the following quote by Mr. Macalay tells us either that they are intellectually/politically confused and, consequently, incapable of ‘educating’ the working class, or that they have turned against the working class and embraced the elite they claim to hate:

“Trump’s reason for wanting to be president remains a friggin’ mystery”

How can the reasons this elitist have for wanting to be a president be a “friggin’ mystery”  to any professional Leftists in professional Leftist’s magazines, whom one has to assume are well versed on Marxist theory? How can they unashamedly express that statement, with sympathetic under  tone and all, and pass it as a ‘politically intelligent Marxist’ opinion? I’m just shocked and horrified by it.

That comment published by CounterPunch not only shows frustration by the author at not understanding Trump’s intentions, it and the whole article is written in an attitude of sympathy for the man.

According to Mr. Macaray, Trump is a buffoon, not an elitist, not a member of the class that enriches itself by scamming the poor, the working and middle classes. Not ONCE in the article is the word ‘elitist’ used to refer to fraudster-Trump.

First, it can’t be a surprise to any Marxists that elitist Trump is running FOR PERSONAL POWER. But the AL thinks he is running because he is an ‘anti-globalism revolutionary’. More on that later. Second, his ‘reasons’ must be denounced, not confused or denied, precisely because he is running on a racist/misogynistic/fascist platform.

Instead, the AL has renounced its duty to enlighten the people, and instead are brainwashing them by portraying elitist Trump as a magnanimous fool whom we should support when Sanders is officially defeated.

 

A the end of the article Macalay  implies that trickster-Trump is a victim of the establishment (oh, like Sanders, let’s feel his pain) and that, if he becomes president…poor him:

A “liberal” Trump is boxed in by a conservative Congress, and a weird, “impulsive” Trump is de-fanged by the Democrats.

(highlight by me.) Macalay probably meant neutered, not ‘de-fanged’. From dismissing Trump’ statements about his ‘readiness’ to use nuclear force against anyone who gets under his skin and  his racist/misogynistic rants, to admiring his virile impulsiveness, Trump Apologists have his back covered, explaining and justifying his attacks on anyone who is not male and white and millionaire. They admire his impulsiveness! Since when that is a personality trait to be admired in a president?!

As for Susy Sarandon:

“But this is what we’re fed. ‘He’s so dangerous. He’s so dangerous,’” Sarandon said, shrugging off Trump’s most controversial rhetoric as too implausible to be considered a serious threat.

Someone ought to remind her that Adolf Hitler was dismissed as a crazy angry German before he was elected; no one believed he could take control of the nation.

By stripping the class element from their opinions, that Trump is NOT an anti-working class member of the elite, the AL  exonerates tax-evading-Trump of the same ‘crimes’ they comfortably attach to Clinton:

whose most prominent personality trait happens to be pure, old-fashioned, unbridled Ambition

Trump, even though a member of the elite,  a callous profit seeking  elitist whose idea of education policy is creating a Trump University to scam the ignorant  elements in the middle class,  is free of ambition, his personality traits are, according to the American Left, innocence mixed with childish ‘buffoonery’: he is a well-intentioned fool. Hillary Clinton, well, she is the boggy woman of the  American Left: they are literally TERRIFIED of her, she causes them to have nightmares and to go unhinged making conspiracy theories about her.

Some of the SCARY things Hillary says that terrifies the decrepit American Left

The American Left has been dying a slow death since the 1980s, in my view, becoming less relevant and more insignificant with the passing of each political crisis. But their death was made official when they decided to embrace elitist/racist/misogynist Donald Trump and package him for the working class.

It was maybe an act of self-delivered euthanasia to spare themselves of the pain of irrelevancy and to expedite their death. Had Trump not show up in the primaries, the AL would still be zombieying around. When Trump said “to make America great again”, the AL drank the Kool Aid…died and morphed into this:

morphoed

But what is the source of both the admiration for Trump and the intense hatred of Hillary Clinton?

That’s the topic of my next post.

 

When Tyrants are Entertaining and Serious Politicians are Boring

The other day I read, I think it was in the WaPo, a comment by one of its opinion writer telling us that we can expect Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Trump to be a “boring” exposition of how she will make things better for the voters.

Boring. Yes, there’s lot of that in her campaign. Trump and Sanders, however, are superbly entertaining. How is that?

Voter Anger And The Art Of Revenge

I have commented in this blog that even Trilateralist/globalist Larry Summers agrees with me in that voter anger comes from the oligarchs-globalists’ economic policies. One of the big flashing neon signs of political opportunism is when candidates join you in blasting your enemies, but offer no plans to return LIBERTY AND FREEDOM to you.

That’s what Trump’s and Sanders’ revolutions amount to: opportunism.

Trump is an entertainer by profession and by nature. He himself has said, lost in the many coverage he is receiving and his many flip-flops, that he knows people are angry and he is giving them what they want to hear. And what is that? REVENGE.

The entertaining part of Trump’s campaign is that he is verbally torturing and ridiculing both the GOP ‘establishment’ and Hillary Clinton (that’s the joy he is giving to the berniebots). What can be more entertaining and satisfying to people who feel enslaved by his ‘victims’ than seeing them publicly mocked and humiliated?

The other thing Trumps knows is that the people wants to be released from the oppression coming from the globalists oligarchs. But that he can’t give you: he can’t give you freedom nor liberty. That much he knows too.

Sanders is doing something similar, but he is not mocking, he is Hillary Clinton’s judge and his followers are the jury. He is not mocking in the literal sense of the world; there is no ‘fun’  in his angry attacks on Hillary. The satisfying part of his ‘campaign’ is in giving his followers the role of jury: ‘I herein publicly find you guilty of all the crimes raised by innuendo and unproven by our leader Sanders, and condemn you to suffer our rage all the way to the convention.’ But like with Trump, there is ‘no path’, not only to the nomination for him, there is no path to release you from the real culprits of your sense of oppression and indignation.

Sanders’ campaign promises are a pie in the sky; even his followers know this deep inside. But pouring their anger and revenge exclusively on Hillary is more satisfying than confronting the truth of  Sanders empty slogan about ‘revolution and socialism’. Notice, by the way, that he doesn’t use the word socialism much any more. He wants regular Joe and Jane forget he used it.

Only the boring one, Hillary Clinton, is offering you real and achievable policies.  You don’t have to be “with her” 100% of the time. There’s much that needs to be asked and fixed about her plans, but contrary to Donald and Bernie, she actually answers the media questions. She is not channeling your anger, she is not taking advantage of your anger for her personal interest. All politicians have their ego and self-interest invested, she is not the only one doing so; but she offers you something, that’s the difference as compared with the other two. Hillary Clinton is not giving you a carnival show for you to feel ‘revenged’ over the oligarchs.

That’s why she is boring, and the MSM will use her seriousness to make you like Trump better.

The MSM Tabloid

So why is the MSM giving so much air time to the Donald and portraying him as a buffoon? Because it is entertaining in the way described above. Also, because it takes the edge off the Donald. I have also been arguing in this blog that the oligarchs and the ‘paleoconservatives’ will find in Trump an outlet for the angry voters to keep that status quo intact without having to give too much in exchange for the ‘peace’ with voters.

You see, the divided oligarchs are taking sides, some with him or not. The MSM will make you like Trump when it matters the most: when he is facing Hillary. That’s their price, people, defeating Hillary. There are reasons why they don’t want her, discussed in this blog too, immaterial of the fact that they give her money (they give money to all candidates). They rather have Trump. How will they achieve that?

If and only if you stand by your expressed belief that the MSM is not only yellow but a tool of manipulating public opinion, then you must accept that, to be successful at manipulating your opinion, they must have a plan and a technique: they don’t manipulate emotions and opinion by chance. It is all choreographed.  All that coverage 24/7 of all things Trump by all the MSM, it is not by  coincidence.

Do yourselves a favor: when you finish reading this post, go to the WaPo and read this article: The spokesman who knows Trump best: Himself, and tell me that it was not written as gossip, as entertaining, as worthy of TMZ.

Trump’s fascination with the name “Barron” persisted for decades. When he was seeing Maples while still married to Ivana, he sometimes used the code name “the Baron” when he left messages for her. In 2004, when Trump commissioned a dramatic TV series based on the life of a New York real estate mogul like him, his only request to the writer was to name the main character “Barron.” And when Trump and his third wife, Melania, had a son, they named him Barron.

People, this is a ‘prospective’ president of the USA; this is not an audition to a TV program. The signs that this man would be a tyrant and that the elite is piling behind him are there for you to see.  You can’t say later  ‘oh, the MSM fooled me, I didn’t know any better’.

No matter how much ‘negative’ coverage the Donald is getting, as he himself says, ‘negative’ is better if it makes him look entertaining and  “telling it as it is”. The negative coverage Hillary is getting is not the ‘good type of negative’; there’s nothing funny or endearing in been called a liar, dishonest and untrustworthy because you have been a manipulative bitch all your life. That’s how they portray her, she is giving you nothing, not even the fun and joy of ridiculing the oligarchs; she only gives you plans.

The MSM is giving you Trump the same way they gave you the invasion of Iraq: with impunity and subterfuge. Pay attention; they don’t want her. When the oligarchs don’t want you…somehow you must be a threat to them. Sanders is not even a threat, he is there to destroy Hillary.

The MSM is mainstreaming Trump for you. Enjoy.