Hillary's "Deplorables"

Hillary’s “Deplorables”

P. Schultz

            Hillary has claimed she “misspoke” when she asserted that half of Trump’s supporters were “deplorables,” They are “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” But she only misspoke if we ignore how her characterization of some of Trump’s supporters is quite consistent with  - and thereby reminds us of – the origins of what is called “Progressivism.”

            The Progressive movement began as an effort to “cleanse” or “purify” American society, an effort that required regulating, managing, and even sterilizing those people(s) who were threatening the “healthy” people(s), viz., white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The threat was two-fold: First, the healthy people were in danger of committing was called “race suicide,” and they should, as Teddy Roosevelt asserted, “Work, fight, breed!” Second, the unhealthy people had to be controlled as they threatened to overwhelm the healthy people by winning the “battle of the cradle.” And to win that battle, many Progressives were led to support eugenics, including Margaret Sanger, the feminist, who proposed sterilizing entire “disugenic” populations in order to prevent the birth of “hordes of defectives,” as Teddy Roosevelt’s advisor on “inferior races” put it. Such thinking culminated in the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell, where Justice Holmes, in upholding Virginia’s compulsory sterilization law, claimed “It is better for the world if. . . .society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind….Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

            The “defectives” included Jews, Catholics, blacks, the Chinese, etc., etc., etc. As Roosevelt’s advisor on “inferior races” put it: “You can’t make boy scouts out of the Jews.” And a Baptist missionary manual claimed that the lower classes and races were characterized by “Low living, low intelligence, low morality, low capacity, low everything.” And as one well-known zoologist put it: “the mixture of two races reverts to the lower type [so] the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro, a white man and a Hindi is a Hindi, and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.” [All quotes are from Hellfire Nation, by James A. Morone.]

            There is a dark side to progressivism, a racist, xenophobic, and sexist side, and Hillary’s use of the word “deplorables,” just like her use of the words “super predator” to describe “inner city male youths,” should remind us of this fact. Our national policy of mass incarceration, which received quite a boost from Bill Clinton, is not an aberration. Rather, it is a policy quite consistent with a “progressive frame of mind,” one that does not and cannot inoculate its bearers from racist, xenophobic, or sexist policies because it is, ultimately, “the other” who threatens us, creating a politics of fear that in turn facilitates hatred, a hatred that breeds oppression and justifies inhuman policies like torture, the killing of innocents labeled “collateral damage,” and endless wars. Remember Roosevelt’s admonition: “Work, fight, breed!”

            The bottom line? It is not enough for Hillary to say she “misspoke.” She needs to repudiate her assertion and explain why. But this she will not and cannot do because it would mean repudiating her progressive politics, and she has no idea why she or anyone needs to do that.

Trump and Hillary: Rival Claims of Superiority

Trump and Hillary: Rival Claims of Superiority

P.  Schultz

            Trump and Hillary are sounding more and more alike, with the latter of late sounding a lot like Trump in claiming that half of Trump’s supporters are “deplorables,” implying of course that Trump himself is “deplorable.” And, of course, Trump has long talked about Hillary’s supporters and others in similar ways.  But why should this concern us? After all, isn’t this just “business or politics as usual?”

            It is useful to distinguish between claims of “merit” and claims of “superiority.” Politicians may claim that they “merit” an office, here, the presidency; or they can claim that they are “superior” to their opponents. And this is not a difference without a distinction. And, currently, it is the latter claim of being superior that is being made by both Trump and Clinton. Each is claiming his or her superiority to the other and not claiming that she or he merits being president. So when Clinton claims that Trump is “unfit” to be president or that his supporters are “deplorable,” her implicit claim is that “I, Hillary, am superior to Trump and my supporters are superior to his supporters.” And Trump makes the same, implicit claims.

            Now, such claims make the candidates’ rhetoric and campaign more intense, more personal than these would be were the candidates to claim that they merited the presidency. “Proving” or demonstrating one’s superiority to another requires that this other be shown to be inferior; that is, shown to be an inferior human being, a human being who is not entitled to the equality that comes from a recognition of commonality, a recognition of sameness. That “half” of Trump’s supporters who are “deplorable” should not be entitled to participate in our politics, just as the “47%” of Obama’s supporters that Mitt Romney called out in 2012 should not have been entitled to such participation. Conversely, though, debating one’s merits does not require the superior/inferior paradigm. My merits may be judged independently of your merits, whereas my claimed superiority requires your inferiority. “I am fit but you are unfit!”

            This distinction is crucial in a republic founded on the claim that all are created equal. Basing one’s claim to rule or govern on merit is consistent with such republicanism, while basing one’s claim to rule or govern on superiority is not. For if officials think that they govern because they are superior to those being governed, then they can claim to govern independently of “the consent of the governed.” Their superiority justifies severing the link between them and that consent, which is of course the basis of all legitimate government power. And, further, without consent, there is no politics. There is only administration or bureaucracy and the disempowerment of “we the people.”

            Insofar as Trump and Clinton are claiming the right to govern us because they are superior, just so far they are claiming the right to govern without regard to “the consent of the governed.” They might take this consent into account but they do so only as a matter of accommodation, not as the essence of republican or popular government. Conversely, were they to base their claim to govern on their merits, they could do so only with our consent because claims to govern based on merit do not subvert the kind of commonality between the governing and the governed that lies at the core of republican or popular government. Claims to govern based on superiority do subvert both the commonality and the equality needed by and aspired to in republican societies. And insofar as Trump and Clinton makes such claims based on their superiority, just so far each of them has embraced an elitism that is unalloyed by a recognition of the human sameness and it accompaniment, the affection or caring that should characterize republican citizens and their governors.

            In the “corporate world,” a world populated by managers who seek to manipulate others so as to increase the corporation’s and their own power, such caring, such affection is or seems simply “idealistic.” But in the political world, at least in a republican political world, such affection is not only indispensable but is or should be the very essence of citizenship.  

Funny How Falling Feels Like Flying

Funny How Falling Feels Like Flying

P. Schultz

            “The past isn’t dead. In fact, the past isn’t even the past.” Thanks to William Faulkner. The future is a mystery to us because it is unknowable. But so too is the present mysterious because we cannot know the future or how the present will play out.

            So, we have to ask: What is our present? What might it augur for the future? Many are saying that this presidential election is crucial, that it will determine the nation’s fate for some time to come. This is, of course, conjecture and a conjecture based on the assumption that we are faced with a choice between two competing, even incompatible options, with one those options representing “progress” and the other representing “reaction.”

            Leaving aside the personal qualities – or lack thereof – of the two major parties’ candidates, this assessment assumes that our nation is “on the rise,” that it is getting stronger, more secure, and freer; not that it is actually getting weaker, less secure, and less free. If the latter is a more accurate picture of our nation’s status and prospects, as most Americans seem to think, than the idea that we are confronting a choice between “progress” and “reaction” obscures the most important or what should be the most important issue: How do we restore the nation’s health? To pose the choice as, “How do we continue our progress?” when we are not and have not been progressing is to court, even to guarantee, further failures. Or if we mistake superficialities – such as electing the first black president or the first female president – for real progress, we also facilitate or guarantee further failures.

            One of my favorite songs, from the soundtrack of the movie Crazy Heart, contains the line, “Funny how falling feels like flying – for a little while.” While the argument that this presidential election is crucial because our allegedly healthy political order faces a reactionary threat is a comfortable argument to make, it is more likely that we are in danger of thinking that we are flying when, in fact, we are falling. And if this is the case, then once again the slogan, “Yes We Can!” will morph into the slogan “No We Can’t!” Looking back to 2008 confirms that “falling feels like flying.” It is also confirms that it feels that way only “for a little while.”

Stepping Out

Stepping Out

P. Schultz

            It is frustrating dealing with so many people, usually the “respectable,” who feel or think that it is not “respectable” or “prudent” to vote for those they consider marginal candidates, those like the nominees of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party, those who have no chance to win. So, it is concluded, better to vote for one of the candidates put forward by our two “major” parties, even though that means voting for someone who is “the lesser of two evils.”

            As “respectable” and “prudent” as this strategy appears to be, it overlooks a singular fact of political or communal life, viz., that change, significant change, only comes after people, especially people in groups or in large numbers, step out. Stepping out, that is, rejecting in one way or another the established order, even in what seems like and what are presently losing causes, is the key to fomenting significant political, social, or economic change. And without this stepping out, the status quo, no matter how unsatisfactory it might be, not only continues but is fortified. That lesser evil becomes a greater evil.

            Think about it. The conservatives in the Republican party stepped out in the 60’s, by nominating Barry Goldwater who was then defeated in a landslide by LBJ. Yet, in 1980, Ronald Reagan, who first came to the nation’s attention by means of his speech supporting Goldwater at the 1964 Republican convention, was elected president in 1980. Al Smith in 1928, a “wet” Catholic and a New Yorker to boot, after being nominated by the Democrats, went down to a landslide defeat to Herbert Hoover, only to help prepare the way for the election of FDR in 1932.

            Stepping out, African Americans in the 60’s lit a blaze that became the civil rights revolution of the 60’s, which included the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of the same year. Stepping out, women banned their bras, took the pill, and generally reclaimed their bodies, their selves at about the same time. Stepping out or “coming out,” gays and lesbians chanted, “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’d like to hello!” And now gay and lesbian marriage is the law of the land and no longer can gays and lesbians be punished criminally for who they are or what they do.

            This is why the supporters of Bernie Sanders were right to feel betrayed or “burned” when Sanders, unlike them, refused to step out against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment. No stepping out, no change; just more of the same kind of politics we have had to live with since at least the presidential election of 1992, a politics that has enriched the wealthiest Americans and impoverished the middle and lower classes, while keeping us involved in what have been endless wars. No stepping out, no change. It’s just a fact of political or communal life.

            Every vote not for Clinton or Trump represents a stepping out and, as such, each such vote undermines the status quo. So, show some smarts. Step out in November. As was once said, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

1928: Another Landslide "Victory"

1928: Another Landslide “Victory”

P. Schultz

            In 1928, Herbert Hoover overwhelmed Al Smith in that year’s presidential election. Hoover won 58.2% of the popular vote and Smith carried only 8 states in the Electoral College. Also, some traditionally strong Democratic areas, in the South and the Midwest, went for Hoover in impressive numbers. Superficially, it seemed as if the Democratic Party was weakening, perhaps even dying.

            But this was far from the case. What the numbers above obscure is the degree to which the political landscape was changing, and changing significantly. Smith and the Democrats appealed to blacks, ethnic, working class voters – showing up in significant numbers as new voters – in the nation’s largest urban areas, such as Pittsburgh, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia. Coming to the fore, it now seems apparent, was a new political landscape, one that would lead to the election of FDR in 1932 and his New Deal. In that landscape, which the Great Depression helped to create, white Protestant nationalism, as represented by Prohibition, the Klan, and the Republican Party’s ascendency, would no longer control the nation’s politics. However limited the New Deal’s impact on the existing American apartheid, it nonetheless laid the groundwork for the end of white supremacy, at least as it had been practiced since the presidential election of 1872 and the end of what had been labeled “Reconstruction.”

                        Is there a lesson here for us today? Al Smith, a Catholic and anti-Prohibitionist, the epitome of “rum and romanism,” was treated with the same disdain as Donald Trump is being treated today – and by the same people, the “respectable classes.” However, Smith was a harbinger of a future political landscape few could see in 1928, a future then obscured by Hoover’s landslide victory. And that victory did not make it possible for Hoover and those “respectable classes” supporting him to maintain the rule of white, Protestant nationalists.

            The current bastions of the “respectable classes” today, the war on drugs, mass incarceration, the war on terror, “free trade,” are increasingly controversial, are increasingly under attack. And the disdain for Trump, like that for Smith in 1928, only serves to obscure without weakening these attacks. And even a landslide victory by Hillary, hailed as “revolutionary” because she is a “she,” will not significantly weaken these attacks on what are, clearly, the failed policies of a failing political order. Just like the results of Hoover’s landslide victory in 1928 failed to stop the demise of white supremacy as then practiced in the U.S.

            Once challenged, the “respectable,” both as policy and as persons, lose much of their luster, as was evident with Hoover then and Clinton now. It is not that Hoover was and Clinton is a mediocrity, although they both fit that bill. It’s that Hoover was and Clinton is irrelevant as forces gather[ed] to overpower the established order.

Presidential Landslides

Presidential Landslides

P. Schultz

            Because it seems likely that this November we might witness a landslide victory in the presidential election, it is worth asking what happens after such victories in these elections. At times, the answer might seem surprising.

            Consider, for example, the aftermath of LBJ’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964. The term that followed upon this victory was little more than a disaster, with LBJ being driven from office in the sense that he decided not to seek re-election in 1968 in large part because he had become so unpopular that he was, almost, a prisoner in the White House. Usually and understandably, this is attributed to Johnson’s Vietnam War policy, viz., his decision to send more than half a million American soldiers to Nam, while bombing both South and North Vietnam relentlessly, all of which proved to be futile in terms of winning that war.

            Why didn’t Johnson’s landslide victory protect him, insulate him from rejection and ostracism, as it were? That is, what does a landslide mean for the victor?

            The same questions arise when looking at the aftermath of Richard Nixon’s landslide victory over George McGovern in 1972 insofar as Nixon’s second term ended with his certain impeachment, which was avoided only because Nixon chose to resign the presidency. Again, whatever a landslide electoral victory might mean, it does not insulate the victor, protecting him or her from the vicissitudes of politics.

            This vulnerability of such victors could seem a bit strange at first glance. However, upon reflection, such a phenomenon is not all that strange if one notices that these landslides occurred in part because of the actions of the losing party, most importantly, the candidate they ran in the election. Both LBJ’s landslide victory and Nixon’s were victories over candidates that could not be considered “mainstream” candidates. Both Barry Goldwater and George McGovern were what may be labeled “fringe” candidates who were more representative of the outliers and insurgents in their parties than they were of mainstream Republicans and Democrats. It can also be assumed that these candidates were not given the wholehearted support of their parties. In other words, the actions – and the inactions – of the losing parties in these elections contributed to the landslide.

            Therefore, what looks like a smashing victory that leaves the losing party prostrate or barely alive, turns out to be something like a purge of that party, and a purge that cleanses that party, leaving it more unified and even stronger than it was before it lost the election by a landslide. In other words, despite appearances, landslide victories are not smashing nor do they create a political arena that is controlled by the victorious party. And insofar as the victorious candidate believes his or her victory to be devastatingly powerful, granting a “mandate” to govern that will brook little opposition, s/he will be surprised by and vulnerable to political opposition more formidable than s/he expected. As a result, the victor’s attempt to govern as if s/he had such a mandate, allowing her to govern unilaterally or while disregarding the opposition, is almost bound to fail.

            Does this mean that the losing party was collusive, that it helped to set up what is labeled a “landslide electoral victory?” Well, that would be a difficult thing to demonstrate or argue but what isn’t so hard to argue is that “landslide electoral victories” benefit at times the losers as well as the winners. And the winners would be prudent to keep this in mind.

Random Thoughts on the Current Scene

Some Random Thoughts on the Current Scene

P. Schultz

Although it seems counter-intuitive, this election is not about Trump. The Kochs know it. It is about fortifying the mainstream ruling class, composed of both Democrats and Republicans, so they can continue governing as they have for the past 16, 24, or 36 years on behalf of inequality and the American empire. And in the face of widespead public anger, they are about to pull it off. And the Kochs know they have nothing to lose by supporting Hillary. And they are correct.

People have the impression that the increasingly unequal society we have is unintended, a by-product of the politics practiced by our ruling political class. It isn't. It's the goal, the purpose of our ruling elites.

As with inequality, we like to think that our war making is unintended, a by product of our "realist" foreign policy. So if Assad wasn't "murderous," we wouldn't be making war in Syria, et.al. And we want and need to think this so we can go on thinking we are a peaceful people. But it just ain't so; our war making serves our empire and so we embrace it and the politicians who advocate for war.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-will-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/kochs-will-not-help-trump-as-republican-donors-gather-for-weeken/