Options With Consequences

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jenice  Armstrong admits to being a longtime fan of Oprah Winfrey, who brought to prominence Dr. Mehmet Oz, now the Trump-loving, conspiracy-mongering, outwardly right-wing GOP nominee for the US Senate from Pennsylvania.

In her piece written on May 20, when results of the Republican primary hung in the balance, Armstrong noted she watched Winfrey's "show religiously and subscribed to her magazine. She's my friend in my head,"  She believes "Winfrey couldn't have predicted that Oz would become a dangerous threat to Pennsylvania by peddling pseudoscience amid a pandemic and election conspiracy theories. However, Armstrong concluded by writing "But she can use her enormous influence to make sure that voters know where she stands now. It’s time for Oprah to denounce Oz."

Though right about Mehmet Oz and the responsibility of his mentor to speak out in this critical Senate contest, Armstrong makes a common, albeit subtle, mistake (also made by the narrator in the video below) when she remarks

Her early endorsement of then-candidate Barack Obama helped turn the tide in his favor during the 2008 presidential election and helped America make history by electing its first Black president. Four years later, she turned out for Obama again in a big way during his reelection campaign. Winfrey also campaigned for Hilary Clinton and even considered a run against Trump in 2020.

Armstrong linked to an article, written by Annie Karni and published by Politico in January of 2018, which undermines Armstrong's suggestion that Winfrey actively worked for the election of Clinton. Evidence suggests that Winfrey offered only tepid, indirect support for Clinton in 2016 after having fervently opposing her in 2008. Karni wrote 

Where the heck was Winfrey in 2016?

Busy with her own business interests that made a full-throated Clinton endorsement too much of a conflict, is part of the answer, according to former campaign aides. And she was simply not as personally invested in Clinton’s candidacy as she had been in the historic run made by her personal friend and fellow Chicagoan eight years earlier — when some economists credited her with helping Barack Obama secure 1 million votes in the Democratic primary alone.

But it wasn’t for lack of trying from Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.

In June of 2016, the task of wooing Winfrey was handed over to Minyon Moore, one of Clinton’s longtime advisers, who had recently taken a leave from her consulting job at the Dewey Square Group to work as a senior adviser on political strategy for the campaign.

Winfrey had initially raised hopes in Clinton’s camp by telling “Entertainment Tonight,” during a red-carpet interview, that “I’m with her” — a quick-hit endorsement that buoyed spirits at campaign headquarters, especially because the campaign operatives had not helped Winfrey craft it, or planted it.

Moore was dispatched for some quick follow-up to see what else the country’s biggest motivational speaker and celebrity might be willing to do for Clinton, as the candidate began turning her sights from the never-ending primary against Bernie Sanders to the general election against Donald Trump.

But there was disappointment in Brooklyn when it was reported back that an occasional “I’m With Her,” sprinkled here and there in television interviews, would likely be it, according to multiple former campaign aides.

Moore was well-known as one of a fiercely loyal inner Clinton circle of African-American women whom the former first lady had surrounded herself with and promoted since her days in the East Wing. She also came with a few of her own Oprah-world connections, which originally made the campaign hopeful of more Winfrey kudos to come.

“I knew one of [Winfrey’s] top producers,” Moore said in an interview on Thursday. “We tried to figure out if there was a timing or scheduling match. We tried to figure out what type of interview could work, what kind of event she might do.”

But nothing worked. “It was a timing issue,” Moore said, noting that Winfrey was launching two shows that summer on the Oprah Winfrey Network — “Queen Sugar” and “Greenleaf.”

“She was doubled down on that,” Moore said. “I appreciate the fact that she had a big piece of business she had to deal with. I never took offense to it, and I don’t think Hillary ever took offense to it. She was grateful any time she saw Oprah’s positive comments.”

"It was a timing issue," claims Moore, who, contrary to legitimate suspicion, did not proceed to argue for the existence of the Easter Bunny.  Clinton was grateful for Oprah's sort-of positive comments because she had no reason to believe Winfrey would even imply any preference for the Democrat in the general election.

Only Oprah Winfrey knows Oprah Winfrey's private thoughts.  However, we do know that she endorsed, and avidly supported, Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008, then did little or nothing to help Barack Obama once he obviously would be the one facing the GOP ticket in the general election. Four years later she resisted efforts to do anything more than the bare minimum for Barack Obama's preferred successor, Mrs. Clinton

Ms. Winfrey has several options. She could criticize Oz and endorse Democrat John Fetterman, combining it with an endorsement; offer kind words for, but not endorse, John Fetterman; criticize Oz but avoid an endorsement; endorse Oz; campaign (however briefly) for the candidate she selects; explain that she is remaining neutral; remain neutral and silent. There may be other options.

Few people if any know how Winfrey will go in this pivotal election. However, control of the Senate, even the future of democracy, is in play and failure to use her immense influence to  help erode the destructive power of Trumpism would be an odious decision.

 

Share |

"It's great. I'm Against It."

I thought this was over and done. I thought we, specifically the people inflicted with this disease, had overcome it. But I was mistaken.

On Sundays "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the host asked Republican senator Roy Blunt of Missouri  whether he had decided how he'd vote on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the US Supreme Court. Blunt responded

Well, I have, George. And good to be with you this morning.

You know, I've thought -- initially, my sense is that the president certainly had every good intention and every right in the campaign to talk about putting the first black woman on the court. I think it's time for that to happen. I was hoping that I could be part of that. I had a great conversation with her.

"Putting the first black woman on the court. I think it's time for that to happen" means "it's not time for that to happen." He was "hoping that I could be part of that," suggesting that he would have been just fine with a right-wing black woman. Blunt continues

Really, there are two criterias, I said immediately. One is, is the person qualified for the job? And two is, what's her judicial philosophy?

She's certainly qualified. I think she's got a great personality, I think will be a good colleague on the court. But the judicial philosophy seems to be not the philosophy of looking at what the law says and the Constitution says and applying that, but going through some method that allows you to try to look at the Constitution as a more flexible document, and even the law. And there are cases that show that that’s her view.

I think she's got a great personality.  For men of Blunt's age (71), in their youth "she's got a good personality" meant "although she is ugly."

Blunt continued

I think she’s certainly going to be confirmed. I think it will be a high point for the country to see her go on the Court and take her unique perspective to the Court but I don't think she's the kind of judge that will really do the kind of work that I think needs to be done by the Court.

I think it will be a high point for the country to see her go on the Court and take her unique perspective to the Court.  You know what's coming next.

It's such a "high point" that the Senator added "I won't be supporting her but I'll be joining others in understanding the importance of this moment."

Roy Blunt on ABC says Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirming to SCOTUS will be "a high point for the country," but he won't support her. Asked why by Stephanopoulos, he offers a word salad. pic.twitter.com/QLjE4sDcMR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 3, 2022

The term "moment" is curious. If the moment is most important, it was the moment candidate Biden promised he'd nominate a black woman for the Court or the moment the President actually did so. No Republican had anything to do with that. It was all Joe Biden.

But the moment itself itself is of no significance unless it's tied to placement of a black woman on the Court. Roy Blunt wants no part of that and will not be part of that, given that he will cast his vote against Jackson.

Roy Blunt admits he will vote against someone he maintains "will be a good colleague on the Court" and whose confirmation by the Senate "will be a high point for the Court." He also applauds her "unique perspective" while asserting opposition to Jackson's judicial philosophy.

This makes no sense except in the context of the election of Barack Obama in 2008, which was followed by unaffiliated voters and Republicans expressing pride that a black man they had voted against was elected President. They had hoped (for whatever reason) he would not become President, they did their small part to block his election, and then claimed the country had triumphed over racism.  Of course, having made their point about the wonderfulness of America, they proceeded to vote against Obama's re-election, and four years later there was Donald Trump.

Roy Blunt, and very likely some of his colleagues, are viewing this upside-down, with a harmful "perspective."  If the confirmation of a judge or election of a president for whatever reason is "a time for that to happen" or speaks well of a nation, the individual should be confirmed or elected. Helping the nation always is better than hurting the nation.

It's not as if Roy Blunt, or most GOP senators, will be voting against Ketanji Brown Jackson because she is black. And the least of reasons to vote for, and the least of reasons to have nominated, her should be her race. 

For Democrats, it should be the opportunity to support a Democrat, and one whose approach to the law is one that will serve the country well. For Republicans, it could be that the Court needs a ninth member and if the nominee is of a Democratic president, it may as well be one highly qualified and personally impressive.

 

Share |

Guilt And Elections

At first glance, it seems dissonant that we elected, then re-elected, a black Democrat as President, a few years later electing a racist to the office, But only at first glance.

When right-wing Winsome Sears gave her speech Tuesday after winning the lieutenant governor's race in Virginia, she minimized racial disparities in the USA. The black Republican, who views her own victory as affirmation of racial equality in society, declared "we can live where we want, we can eat where we want, we own the water fountains. We have had a black president elected not once, but twice."

The last remark echoed a comment made to Axios in June, 2020 by White House advisor Larry Kudlow, who denied the existence of systemic racism in the USA, maintaining "you have as evidence of that view, our first black president, just a few years back, won two terms, and I regarded that with pride as an American."

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that both Kudlow and Sears voted against Barack Obama- as Sears would put it, "not once, but twice."

In an opinion piece recently in The New York Times, African-American linguistics professor John McWhorter defended the statement in which  Condoleezza Rice criticized critical race theory with “I don’t have to make white kids feel bad for being white.” McWhorter wrote

What’s more, I don’t completely trust white guilt. It lends itself too easily to virtue signaling, which overlaps only partially, and sometimes not at all, with helping people. I recall a brilliant, accomplished, kind white academic of a certain age who genially told me — after I published my first book on race, “Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America,” two decades ago — “John, I get what you mean, but I reserve my right to be guilty.” I got what he meant, too, and did not take it ill. But still, note that word “right.” Feeling guilty lent him something personally fulfilling and signaled that he was one of the good guys without obligating him further. The problem is that one can harbor that feeling while not actually doing anything to bring about change on the ground.

The problem is that one can harbor that feeling while not actually doing anything to bring about change on the ground. That has played out, dangerously, in the past thirteen years. Four years after John Kerry was defeated and eight years before Hillary Clinton would be defeated, Barack Obama was elected President with the assistance of moderate and/or independent white voters trying to assuage their guilt.

After a reasonably successful first term, Obama was re-elected, but by a lesser margin. The next Democratic candidate was handed a loss, in part by independent-minded voters whose guilt already was assuaged. They had, Kudlow and Sears would argue, eight years earlier proven that neither they nor their country is racist. Mission accomplished, they were now free to  usher out of power the party that brought them that black president.

McWhorter was not in any way referring to the presidential election of 2008. But as he understands, white guilt can be powerful and pervasive- and it can help explain more than the controversy over critical race theory. 

 

Share |

We're Doing It Again

Do you see what is happening? Rishika Dugyala of Politico notes

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are the fastest growing racial demographic, with nearly 50 different nationalities and ethnicities lumped under the “AAPI” umbrella. Those growing numbers mean growing media and political attention — and sometimes growing resentment from the majority.

Noting the increase in both the number of elected officials and incidents of hate directed toward this community, Dugyala adds

But not everyone can reconcile these two dueling trends of AAPI gains and tragedy. At a hearing on pandemic-related hate crimes last week, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) asked, “If America was such [a] hate filled, discriminatory, racist society filled with animus against Asian Americans, how do you explain the remarkable success of Asian Americans in our country?”

Here’s an answer: Don’t flatten the diversity of the diaspora into the stories of high earning STEM CEOS, politicians and Hollywood types. Yes, Kamala Harris is now the vice president. Yes, “Minari” has six Oscar nominations. That doesn’t override the hate crimes.

Absolutely! But don't condemn McClintock for his (pick one) ignorance, naivete, or disingenuousness. It's not his fault.

When Kamala Harris was elected vice-president, there were few reports, a dearth of tweets, and little talk about a US senator, a former prosecutor, a Californian, or a neo-liberal taking on the job. It was all about her being the first woman and/or first individual of either south Asian or Caribbean descent to take over the office.

It was only about factors- being a woman or having parents of a certain background- over which she had no influence. A glass ceiling had been shattered, we were vigorously reminded by social media, conventional media, and any other media. We were to congratulate ourselves.

 

A glass ceiling has been broken!

A glass ceiling has been broken! @KamalaHarris makes history as the first Black, first Indian American, and first female vice president. Congratulations! pic.twitter.com/tIEFtu0piB

— Kresge Foundation (@kresgefdn) January 20, 2021

CRASH! Did you hear that? A big old glass ceiling just smashed to pieces. https://t.co/ABGUwAi4r0

— Laurie Garrett (@Laurie_Garrett) January 20, 2021

 

It's history repeating itself. When Barack Obama was elected President, NPR reflected the zeigeist when it exclaimed "Barack Obama is promising supporters that 'change has come.' After his historic election as the nation's first black president, Obama promised to be a president for all Americans — including those who voted against him. "

Change has come, implying not only in the one office of the presidency, but to American society in its wondrous capacity to re-invent itself as a uniquely exceptional country.

Repeatedly reminded that the election was "historic," many Americans reacted in the maanner which should have been expected but even now is rarely acknowledged.  History has been made! We gave a black man the highest honor! What is it with this "original American sin of slavery," anyway? Eight years later, Donald Trump was elected President.

Pervasive is the notion that the election of Harris is nearly as historic, even though her position is one of no power other than that conveyed by the President himself. President Biden himself once referred to Harris as "President-elect" and at least once as "President Harris."  Though references to an "Obama-Biden Administration" were scarece, there have many references in media by Democrats to the "Biden-Harris Administration."

This is not accidental.    And so this: when a Republican such as Representative McClintock suggests with a straight face that the success of ethnic Asians in American society demonstrates they face no major discrimination, he is channeling the belief of tens of millions of Americans who know not to express their feelings in polite company. McClintock was properly corrected by Politico's Dugyala, but there should be no surprise.  As the media and some Democrats did with the election of Barack Obama and now with that of Kamala Harris, the response has been invited and encouraged.

 

Share |

Never Assume A Candidate Wants To Win

A Democratic-leaning political scientist would like a word with the Democratic Party:

 

a large turnout of R voters like @marcorubio and MAGA headliners.

I can tell you RIGHT NOW who is winning these run-offs.

I mean, they just failed to flip NC on this crap!!

For God's sake @ossoff don't you want to win???

— Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌 (@RachelBitecofer) November 12, 2020

The answer is "no."  Bitecofer believes Ossoff (presumably Reverend Warnock, also) should nationalize the campaign, which is to culminate in a vote on January 5, 2021. 

She's probably right that national issues should be featured by the Georgia Democratic Party to excite partisans to move them to vote, which otherwise may be difficult because the presidential election has concluded.  That is what occurred in that presidential race, which ended in Joe Biden gaining more popular votes than any candidate ever. Donald Trump now stands at #2, which did not prevent a Democratic victory. It was a base election, which the Georgia runoff also probably will be.

Bitecofer legitimately believes also that Jon Ossoff may not want to win.  It's impossible to determine because almost no one can know what he, or the Party, has in mind if he loses.  However, a candidate of one of the two major political parties disinterested in winning an election would not be unprecedented.

John McCain may have had no inkling when he selected Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate that she would prove to be an albatross around his neck in November. He may not have realized that courageously telling a supporter at a general election rally that no, Barack Obama is not an Arab, would dampen enthusiasm among Republicans. He may not even have understood that emphasizing that he and Palin are "mavericks" (accurate, within Republican Party politics) would be counter-productive when running against a guy who was aiming to be the first black President ever.

Yet, there is another clue. In a period when we are reminded of the graciousness of each losing presidential candidate to the winner over at least the past few decades, that of John McCain demands particular attention. On November 5, 2008 he stated in his concession speech

I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Sen. Obama believes that, too. But we both recognize that though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound.

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to visit — to dine at the White House — was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.

"There is no better evidence," McCain maintained, that "America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time," than "the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States." Barack Obama not only emerged victorious but "has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country."

It's hard to understand the reason even to vote against an individual whose victory he believed illustrated the fairness of the nation and its people. It would have been fair to ask the Arizona senator why he ran against the man whose victory confirmed that this is "the greatest nation on earth"  and whose election was needed to erase the stain of "the cruel and prideful bigotry" characterizing the first half of the 20th century. 

In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, issuance by a candidate lauding the election of his opponent must suggest that the loser never intended to win. So if victory in the Georgia runoff is not the highest priority for Jon Ossoff, other Georgia Democrats, or someone well-connected to the state party, they can take solace with the likelihood that twelve years ago, the GOP candidate for the presidency of the USA did not run his own race with steely-eyed determination.

 

Share |

Revenge?

When Donald Trump, with characteristic humility appreciated in conservatives by many white evangelicals, declared himself the "chosen one,"

Energy Secretary Rick Perry in an interview with Fox News over the weekend described President Donald Trump as the "the chosen one" who was "sent by God."

"God's used imperfect people all through history. King David wasn't perfect. Saul wasn't perfect. Solomon wasn't perfect," Perry said in the interview, which aired Sunday.

"And I actually gave the president a little one-pager on those Old Testament kings about a month ago, and I shared it with him," he added. "I said, 'Mr. President, I know there are people that say, 'You said you were the chosen one,' and I said, 'You were.'"

Perry, who is expected to leave the Cabinet at the end of the year, said he told Trump: "You didn't get here without God's blessing."

Former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador and media darling Nikki Haley similarly maintained "everything happens for a reason... I think God sometimes places people for lessons and sometimes places people for change."

Maybe (though probably not) they're right. Perhaps God did effect the election of Donald J. Trump, just as he once had 42 young people killed because some among them ridiculed and demeaned a man for his lack of hair.  If so, it likely is because God in various biblical verses has declared his desire to wreck vengeance upon the unworthy, even unto their descendants.

It's in Deuteronomy 32:35: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them;" in Proverbs 20:22, "Do not say, 'I’ll pay you back for this wrong!' Wait for the LORD, and he will avenge you";  and in Psalm 94:1: "The LORD is a God who avenges. O God who avenges, shine forth."

But it's not only in the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth Old Testament, but in the New Testament also: in 2 Thessalonians 1:8: "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus;" in Romans 12:19, "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord"; in Romans 12:19 "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord."

There are three choice: 1) there is no God; 2) there is a God, who wills as he wishes; or 3) God is in control and orders everything as he wishes. The Bible teaches (2) but most white evangelicals appear to believe (3). And if they are right, beware. Beginning with Genesis, there are several examples in Scripture in which God is quite displeased with mankind generally or individuals specifically, is not amused, and exerts His quite unpleasant will.

And so, as many white evangelicals will argue, it is possible that God did ordain the election of both Barack Obama and of Donald Trump, however absurd that thought appears. But if so, there probably is an ulterior motive that only white evangelicals would appreciate. For that, we are obliged to let God himself/herself have the final word, four weeks ago:

I have chosen Donald Trump to be President because I strongly dislike Western civilization and wish it to end.

— God (@TheTweetOfGod) November 26, 2019

Share |

If Sociopathy, It's Strategic Sociopathy

Social media criticism abounded of Donald Trump's campaignrally, thinly disguised as an Independence Day celebration. Stephen King remarked "Trump’s big military parade? This is what dictators do." True.

Sean Astin noted "One consequence of Trump ordering a 4th of July heavy armor parade in D.C. is that the  controversy will be experienced uncomfortably by many service members." True. Don Cheadle commented "President Trump's Fourth of July Military Parade Is Authoritarian Performance Art." True, also.

And from a famous actor and filmmaker:

In the face of a humanitarian crisis, that this malignant narcissist would steal taxpayer dollars to stage a partisan display of Autocracy to massage his damaged psyche is nothing short of sociopathic.

— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) July 3, 2019

False. I'm no psychologist, and I won't play one online, but it's generally understood that sociopaths lack "the ability to stand in someone else's shoes and understand how they feel."

Trump has an extraordinary ability to understand how someone feels- it's how he was elected (well, other than voter suppression, subterfuge by Russians, and an assist from the FBI director). Astin's tweet included" I hope they all remember that they are respected & appreciated by those who oppose the President’s political tactic."

No, they won't. Trump previously has demonstrated utter contempt for the military, as Meghan McCain reminds us. But that didn't stop active members of the military and veterans from voting for him.  The President understands that people like to be noticed and to be flattered.

That's why Donald Trump in May of 2016 posed with a Taco bowl, a patronizing act of cultural appropriation- possibly effective- and said that "I love Hispanics." He now proclaims "I love immigrants," even though his words and actions drip with contempt for both Latinos and immigrants, legal and illegal. And Hispanics rewarded him with a surprisingly high 29% of their vote, albeit 36% less than Clinton. In 2012, Mitt Romney could muster support for mere "self-deportation," a reluctant  and limpish "if you leave, we won't stop you." He received only 27% of their votes to 71% obtained by Barack Obama, a gap of 44%.

Trump had confessed his love for Hispanics. It obviously was empty and insincere, but he recognized them and showed regard for their vote, and the naive are easily flattered.

Similarly, in his Independence Day speech of 2017, the President credited members of the Armed Services with "preserving the legacy of courage and selfless service" and their "selfless sacrifice," as well as maintaining 'we love our Coast Guard."  While the only holidays devoted to service members are Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day, on Independence Day 2019 Trump declared "we celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag — the brave men and women of the United States military."

So President Trump understands how people feel and his constant pander to their emotions will pay off. Giving VIP tickets and access to GOP donors, jacking up room rates in Trump International Hotel for the occasion, and even cutting down the National Park Service to pay for the extravaganza are additional benefits reminding us that he knows how to wield power for his personal interests and that if he is a sociopath, more politicians would like a little of that disorder.

Share |

McConnell Speaking For Many

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded at a news conference to a question about reparations by stating

Yea, I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for which none of us is currently living are responsible is a good idea. We've tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. Uh, we've elected an African-American president. I think we're always a work in progress in this country but no one currently alive was responsible for that.

There is a lot, a very lot- as the cliche goes- to unpack here.

But the most intriguing point to me is the suggestion that electing an African-American president was one way in which we've tried to "deal with our original sin of slavery."

(Two notes here: That latter point was made in a separate sentence, separated by an "uh" and thus McConnell did not explicitly attribute that election to the original sin of slavery. Additionally, he did not say that we have "dealt" with the sin, only that we've "tried" to deal with it. However, no one else has noticed this, so we'll assume mine is a distinction without a difference.)

At 1:17 here, The Atlantic staff writer Vann Newkirk remarks

The thing that really gets me is the comment about President Obama, the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to believe that Obama was reparations. That's a tough one for me. I think it was a big thing for African-Americans, uh, 40 acres and a Barack Obama (last phrase barely distinguishable, perhaps "that's not how it works.")

He's right: McConnell does seem to believe that the election of Obama was reparation; it was a big thing for African-Americans; 40 acres and a Barack Obama is not reparation.

But the statement by the second most powerful Republican in the land reflected what a lot of Republicans (and many Independents) believe. Now that Barack Obama was elected, the thinking goes, African-Americans have been paid back. And as a plus, we have proven that America is not racist.

Oh, you protest, most of those people did not actually vote for Obama, but I am not a social psychologist, though sometimes I play one here. But many individuals unsympathetic to demands of minorities for equality believe- nay, feel- that it is done and accomplished.

Of course, the election of Barack Obama to the presidency did no such thing The "original sin" was not wiped out because white America had allowed (as is the perception) a black President. However, it was nearly inevitable that many whites would believe it was.

It is thoroughly understandable especially given  Newkirk's comment "I think it was a big thing for African-Americans." If blacks believe the election of a black President was of tremendous significance, it should not be surprising that whites- who live in the same country- would labor under the misconception.

The attribution of awesome, historic importance to that election is misplaced.  It's misplaced by blacks, by whites who voted against Obama, even by some whites who voted for Barack Obama.

Events of recent years make that clear. Moreover, Joe Biden, currently way out ahead of his rivals in South Carolina (in which approximately half of Democratic primary voters are African-American), says "thank you very much." Although a little harsh about Biden's record and rhetoric about race, Emma Vigeland nevertheless beginning at 1:33 of the video below recognizes the danger posed by the Biden-Obama connection as she remarks

The Democratic front-runner now, someone who's polling well with black Americans, especially older black Americans, is someone who was supportive of segregation at the outset of his career as a legislator. And so we have to have a reckoning, we have to have a conversation about why that is and why maybe name recognition and association with Barack Obama is winning out over his very disastrous rhetoric at the current moment.

If Biden had not been Vice-President to Barack Obama (for whom he professes undying love and loyalty), he would have been rudely escorted from the race by now. That would have occurred even before he bragged about having palled around with white segregationists in the good 'ol days. And his relationship with those rascals was not as congenial as that he has had with the creditcard industry and other powerful financial interests.

The election of Barack Obama did not significantly alter the power structure in government or even in society. But it has had a powerful impact on the attitude of both black and white Americans, a dirty little secret which few very few in the political set are willing to acknowledge. 

Share |

It's About Woman

At a campaign rally Monday in Hampton, New Hampshire

Shirley Sylvester, a retired project manager from Hampton, said she believed that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss demonstrated that the country “wasn’t ready for a woman.” And while she said she likes South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), she fears that the country isn’t ready for a gay man, either.

“Joe’s the only one that can give Trump a run for his money,” she said. “After having Donald Trump in office, a lot of even the Republicans will want to go back to just where we were before we became this country that we are now.”

Mindy Musumeci, a construction contractor who, along with her husband Jim, drove up from Bentley, Massachusetts, to see Biden in Hampton, offered a similar assessment.

“I feel like the country is broken right now. And we need somebody who can win and then heal it,” she said.

Asked for her opinion of her home-state Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Musumeci responded, “I like Elizabeth Warren and this is really hard for me to say as a woman, but I just don’t think the U.S. is ready for a woman president.”

Maybe it is Mindy Musumeci and Shirley Sylvester, rather than the country, who aren't ready for a female president.

Or maybe it's another contingent, as we learned yesterday from Politico:

Kamala Harris used humor to swat aside the chatter about her becoming Joe Biden’s running mate: Maybe it should be the other way around, she said Wednesday, given Biden’s experience in the No. 2 job.

But inside her campaign and among allies, such talk is not a laughing matter. They're rankled by the suggestion, privately venting that it’s demeaning to a woman of color and perpetuates an unfair critique that she’s somehow not prepared for the job she’s actually seeking.

"It's infuriating," a Harris confidant fumed several days before the idea began taking hold in the media.

Since then, the chorus of Democrats sizing up her run and concluding she’d be perfect as Biden’s running mate has rapidly gone from whisper campaign to national narrative. They include some fans of the California senator: Last week, members of the influential Congressional Black Caucus floated Biden and Harris as a “dream ticket.” That put her in the uncomfortable spot of trying to delicately push back on it without offending the group, of which she’s a member.

Talk of a Biden-Harris ticket more than half a year before the first vote is cast is foolish. A candidate who is ultimately unsuccessful but racked up a lot of popular support on the way to Charlotte 2020 may be the obvious choice for the second spot. And it is probably 22-24 months before it becomes clear who that individual is.  It may be Harris, Pete Buttigieg or anyone- even Joe Biden.

But it also is condescending and offensive, as the Harris camp recognizes. And as it realizes, it need be careful about fingering the culprit.

Three days before observing reaction of the Harris camp, Politico had reported

Some black lawmakers are agonizing over whether to back Biden or two members of the close-knit caucus — Sens. Harris and Cory Booker — who also are vying for the White House, according to interviews with a dozen CBC members.

But with the former vice president jumping out to a huge, if early, lead in the polls, several CBC members are warming to the idea of a Biden-Harris ticket to take on President Donald Trump.

“That would be a dream ticket for me, a dream ticket!” said Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.). “If she is not the nominee, that would be a dream ticket for this country.”

Wet dreams of installing Harris as #2 are interesting, given that not she but Bernie Sanders currently is second to Biden in national polls of Democrats. (Harris, Warren, and Buttigieg seem to be neck-and-neck for #3 nationally.)

It's curious also given that at this stage- May of 2012- twelve years ago, Hillary Clinton was the favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Of the eight polls taken during the first two weeks of that month, Hillary Clinton led Barack Obama by two points in one- and by a substantial amount in the other seven.

Yet, there was no talk then of "Clinton-Obama." There is, however, talk now of "Biden-Harris," at least by the Congressional Black Caucus. (Below: Harris is right; also, not ready for the question.)

The reason is obvious. Such speculation is patronizing toward the trailing candidate- and undermines her effort to be considered for the top job. It helps shape perception of voters to a desired outcome. (Think Donald Trump's early and frequent complaints of a Mueller "witch hunt.")

This is being done to Kamala Harris, member of an ethnic minority and a woman.  It was not done to Barack Obama, member of an ethnic minority but a man. (Some prefer colored person/"person of color," which finally became unacceptable 40-50 years ago but has returned.)

The difference obviously is gender. One was (well, still is) a man and the other is a woman.  The Congressional Black Caucus, as well as others which might follow its lead, should check its values at the door.

Share |

Negative Reinforcement

Alan Minsky, the Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America, asks

why does the DNC (and, by extension, the establishment wing of the Democratic Party) refuse not only to address poverty but really even to acknowledge its existence...

This is not a new question. By Bill Clinton’s presidency the shift away from supporting programs designed to address poverty became official party policy, echoing the Republicans mantra of self-help. Of course, poverty rates remained more or less constant. During Obama’s presidency, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West launched their poverty tour because of the president and the party’s refusal to even say the word, let alone do anything about poverty. Similarly the on-going Poor People’s Campaign explicitly operates outside of a party that refuses to seriously address an endemic social problem that conservatively has many tens of millions of Americans in its grips.

He answers- in part- his own question by noting

The prevailing ideology of the past four decades, call it neoliberalism or market fundamentalism, embraced by the mainstream of both parties, offers no solution to American poverty. Rather, it tacitly accepts it as part of the landscape. So an alternative poverty policy will, by definition, fly in the face of Democratic establishment orthodoxy. In other words, we’re going to meet resistance.

There are additional reasons, of course, including a lesson of Democratic primary history. In 2008, John Edwards based his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee on recognition of "two Americas."  Although recognizing that race played a part, it was a message centered on acknowledging that the poor of any race have been left behind while the wealthy had become wealthier and even more powerful.

Even before the scandal of having had an extra-marital affair resulting in a child, Edwards had fallen behind both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and facing a seriously uphill battle.

The race came down to one candidate promising to make history as the first female president and one determined to become the first black president. The latter prevailed, winning both the nomination and the office itself, with millions of independents (and a few Republicans) inspired by a message of good feelings and intentions. Democrats felt a real hunger for change and placed their faith in Obama's rhetoric of "hope" and"change." 

Nonetheless, as Smiley and West realized, that hope was never realized as President Obama presided over an Administration that did little to address either economic or racial inequality. Strategically, he didn't have to. As Aaron Coleman recently pointed out, "whenever Barack needed to shore up his black base, he could summon a sermon or a Jay-Z appearance quicker than you could say 'Kwanzaa.'” (The latter also played well with his young white liberal base, the former with his middle-aged white liberal base.)

And so Barack Obama remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats (which a former speechwriter of his actually believes is a good thing).  For eight years, President Obama sat on his popularity and did nothing to close the gap between the two Americas. The gathering interest among Democratic officials, including presidential candidates, in addressing the racial wealth gap could not have emerged without a failure to pay any attention to it in the previous ten (and more) years.

President Obama, largely unmoved by the plight of poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans relative to the wealthy, is the one recent successful Democratic presidential aspirant. And he is beloved with the Party's voters. It is a lesson that- unfortunately- the Democratic Party, and its national committee, has learned well.

Share |

God's Will?

It was not strategically unwise, nor necessarily inaccuratewhen

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said she believes God wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election, the Christian Broadcasting Network reported on Wednesday.

"I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there," Sanders told CBN's David Brody and Jennifer Wishon, according to a transcript of the interview provided by CBN.

"I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about," Sanders added.

Shoring up support among white evangelicals is critical to Donald Trump's re-election effort, assuming there is one.  Nor can we mere mortals assume that God did not particularly want Donald Trump to become president. David Corn logically asks

Sarah Sanders on CBN: "[God] wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that’s why he’'s there."

So did God want @BarackObama to be president? Or did he take off those eight years?

Did he want the House Dems and @RepAOC to win in November? Or was he napping then?

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 30, 2019 

Most people are familiar with Newton's Third Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It emerged to apply to physics, but also may address American national politics. 

Barack Obama was elected partly in response to the eight years of George W. Bush, who waged the deadly and futile Iraq War opposed by Illinois state senator Barack Obama. Eight years later, "no drama" Obama was replaced by Donald Trump, whose racial views, personality, character, and corrupt business background were roughly 180 degrees from his successor.

So perhaps God did will the election of Barack Obama, followed by the election of Donald Trump and subsequent return of control of the House of Representatives to Democratic control. If rejection of Trump and of his right-wing policies continues, a Democrat will be elected President in 2020 and the Senate probably turn Democratic in 2022, when 12 Democratic, and 22 GOP, seats are expected to be up for grabs. Additionally, it might explain the investigations of the President, his family member(s) and associates threatening Trump's presidency.

With a Democratic Senate, House, and presidency, there likely would be passage of the bill now known as HR 1, which would curb corruption in all three branches of government, extend voting rights, and help take money out of politics.

Or maybe, as is generally believed, God has a sense of humor while sitting in heaven. King David probably had it right when he wrote (Psalm2:4-6, ESV)

4 He who sits in the heavens laughs;

    the Lord holds them in derision.

5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath,

    and terrify them in his fury, saying,

6 “As for me, I have set my King

    on Zion, my holy hill.”

Alternatively, when Sanders claimed "he wanted Donald Trump to become President," she was merely substituting "he" for Vladimir Putin, James Comey, and an intimidated media effectively in the tank for candidate Donald Trump.

Share |

Historically Literate

The Day of Jubilee has arrived- or so it must have, because racial bias and misogyny have disappeared from American life and politics.

We have it on no less an authority than National Review's senior political correspondent, Jim Geraghty. Last month TIME's Molly Ball and Alana Abramson reported

But when it comes to the party’s presidential nominee in 2020, Avenatti thinks in different terms. “I think it better be a white male,” he says. He hastens to add that he wishes it weren’t so, but it’s undeniable that people listen to white men more than they do others; it’s why he’s been successful representing Daniels and immigrant mothers, he says. “When you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight,” he says. “Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes.”

Shamelessly (the GOP way), Geraghty responded

Besides shameless and self-serving — par for the course for Avenatti — his argument is historically illiterate. We just had a two-term African-American president! Women have been elected to statewide offices in 49 out of the 50 states. The holdout is that notorious bastion of right-wing misogyny . . . er, Vermont. Forty states have elected minorities to statewide office. The electorate didn’t have a problem with a woman president. The electorate had a problem with that particular woman as president.

Well, of course it's self-serving.  But it is not historically illiterate.

In late October, 2012 Geraghty predicted Mitt Romney would win the popular vote for president and stated it’s also relatively rare for a candidate to win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. Although I'm unable to confirm it, he appears to have voted twice against presidential nominee Obama. It's fascinating how many individuals who believe Barack Obama's election proved the USA has banished racism chose not to vote for that individual.

I'm less impressed than is Geraghty that after roughly 240 years of a representative democracy, we now have elected women and minorities to statewide office nearly everywhere. Moreover, the exclusion of any female president requires Geraghty to demonstrate that the defeat of Hillary Clinton was completely unrelated to her gender, especially given her emphasis on "breaking the glass ceiling."

Still, the most loathsome portion of Geraghty's claim is that the argument that electing a black as president is a tough slog is "historically illiterate."

Yes, Barack Obama was elected President ten years ago. However, more recently came the nomination by the Republican Party, and election to President, of a guy who built his political career on birtherism, denying that the black President, whose election is claimed to have unshackled us from the curse of racism, had not been born in the USA, hence an illegitimate President. As President, he has continued attacks prompted by animosity toward minorities.

When he launched his presidential campaign, Donald Trump notably referred to Mexican immigrants as "rapists." Time after time candidate Trump made remarks which were ethnically biased, which included one which the usually sycophantic Paul Ryan referred to as "the textbook definition of a racist comment."

And then there was

“Whoa,” another voice said.

“I did try and f--- her. She was married,” Trump says.

Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.

“Your girl’s hot as s---, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.

“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”

“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

So let's review. After nearly eight years of GOP rule, dring a period of great economic crisis following a disastrous war, a black Democrat is elected President.  Eight years later, propelled by distrust of immigrants and of racial minorities, an unabashed bigot and proud perpetrator of sexual assault who had denounced the black man is elected President.

This invalidates, in the mind of a prominent National Review journalist, Michael Avenatti's claim that a nominee who is white and male has the best chance of being elected President in 2020. This argument does not make Jim Geraghty himself racist, misogynistic, or sexist. It makes him despicably dishonest.

Share |

Civility Politics

Let us now praise the ever-hopeful and idealistic Michelle Obama.

While campaigning for a Virginia state House candidate, former Attorney General Eric Holder said

They have used the power that they have gotten for all the wrong things. They want to keep themselves in power. They want to cater to the special interests. It is time for us as Democrats to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are.

Michelle always says- Michelle Obama, I love her, you know she and my wife, like really tight, which really scares me and Barack but Michelle says "when they go low, we go high." No, no.

When they go low, we kick them. That's what, that's what this new Democratic Party is about. We're proud of hell to be Democrats. We're willing to fight for the ideals of the Democratic Party. We;re proud our our history, we're proud of our present and we're proud of the future that we can create for this country and we're not in this just to make a statement. We're in this to win, alright?

To her credit, Michelle Obama responded. To her discredit, she was wrong when she stated

Fear is not — it's not a proper motivator. Hope wins out. And if you think about how you want your kids to be raised, how you want them to think about life & their opportunities, do you want them afraid of their neighbors?”

Hope worked for Senator Obama in the fall of 2008. By the fall of 2012, the bloom was off the rose, Obama's margin over the GOP opponent declined, and only Chief Justice John Roberts' vote to uphold the the President's Affordable Care Act saved the nation from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In July of 2016, 62%-70% of Americans were "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time."

Still, President Obama- as is his style- went high and, running for a third Obama term, Hillary Clinton did, also, Unfortunately, her (ultimately winning) opponent did not:

“One of the candidates, as you recall, was predicting that the election was going to be ‘rigged’ in some way,” said Jeh Johnson, the former secretary, referring to President Trump’s unsubstantiated accusation before Election Day. “We were concerned that by making the statement we might, in and of itself, be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.”

Mr. Johnson’s testimony, before the House Intelligence Committee, provided a fresh insight into how the Obama administration tried to balance politically explosive information with the public’s need to know.

Ian Bremmer recalls

The U.S. government under Obama knew what the Russians were doing. Obama was warned repeatedly by Eastern European governments that Russia was meddling in their own elections. And while Latvian elections don’t exactly rank high on the list of an American president’s priorities, the White House could have guessed what the Russians were gearing up to do — and should have sent them a forceful message to knock it off. Obama apparently issued a direct warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin when they met in person in September 2016, but it came too late and had little effect.

So give Michelle Obama some credit. It's not all of us who can convince themselves that the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny exist, and that the American people are yearning for happy talk from politicians.  With any luck, however, she will convince few other Democrats and Eric Holder's clear notion of reality will prevail.

Share |

A Wise Decision

Much to his credit, John McCain avoided one final humiliation. According to Raw Story

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has reportedly not been invited to attend the memorial for her one-time running mate, the late John McCain.

MSNBC booking director Jesse Rodriguez tweeted Wednesday that NBC White House correspondent Kelly O’Donnell learned that Palin was not invited to McCain’s memorial.

Senator McCain, who had spent twenty-one years in the Armed Forces, selected Governor Palin as his running mate because of her reputation as a "maverick." On the second day of the convention, four days after she was tapped, we read in The New York Times 

“She is an aggressive reformer who isn’t afraid to break glass, to bring change to Wasilla and later to the state of Alaska,” said Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, who declined to address specific aspects of Ms. Palin’s tenure as mayor. “Washington needs some of that.”

Palin was not only a maverick, but one who sympathized with the Alaskan secession movement. On the last day of the convention, a skeptical Rosa Brooks wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in which she maintained "It's untrue that Palin has no foreign policy experience, anyway. In fact, she appears to have seriously flirted with the idea of trying to turn Alaska into a foreign country. How many vice presidential candidates can put that on their resumes?"

Not only can no other vice presidential candidate put that on his or her resume, very few can be said to have been instrumental, inadvertently or otherwise, in redirecting the theme of a presidential campaign.  She changed the direction and thus perception of the McCain campaign. If you're like most people, you don't remember

You will notice the "McCain" signs held aloft, the message "paid for by John McCain 2008," and most obviously, the tagline "John McCain, The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For."

The commercial was shown prior to the Senator's actual nomination and selection of a running mate. At that approximate time, the commercial disappeared, and Senator Obama probably breathed a sigh of relief.

Palin was from outside the continental United States, as was at birth the presidential candidate of the opposing party, which contributed to the perception that the latter was not born in the USA. John McCain, who had spent five+ years in captivity- a portion of it after he was given the opportunity to be released- decided to downplay his military service. To do so otherwise might have struck a discordant note in a McCain-Palin ticket.

Early last year, The Washington Post's Philip Bump reported

According to a 2010 study from researchers at Stanford University, noted by Brendan Nyhan, Palin's presence on the 2008 Republican presidential ticket cost John McCain 1.6 percentage points. In an election in which 131 million people voted, that's 2.1 million votes that McCain should have gotten but didn't.

There is no way to determine whether the Republican candidate would have been elected President if he had bypassed Palin, for, say, Joe Lieberman (his personal favorite) or former Pennsylvania governor and Vietnam veteran Tom Ridge.  The Stanford study argued "Since Obama actually won 53% of the popular vote, it suggests that Palin’s campaign performance did not necessarily change the election outcome, but was certainly large enough to be substantively meaningful."

However, that analysis is strikingly imperfect, given that a presidential election is determined not by popular vote but by electoral vote, as we learned in 2000- and were disturbingly reminded in 2016. We don't know where Palin cost McCain the votes but it's likely it was predominantly among "wavering Republicans, independents, and moderate Republicans," according to a Newsweek column cited by Bump.

Although it's very unlikely that Palin herself cost the GOP the presidential election, it's not at all unlikely that McCain would have won had he gone a different direction, which he probably would have with a different running mate. Instead of campaigning as a maverick trying to block the route to the  Oval Office of the first black nominee of a major political party, he might have run as "the American President Americans have been waiting for." 

Eight years later,  who unlike John McCain had no claim on patriotism, military service or service to the nation, the driving force behind the birther movement was elected President of the USA. 

It''s vitally important for one's health to pick parents well. And it's critical in politics to pick your opponents well. For Barack Obama- who wisely changed his image by having Joe Biden run with him- it was McCain and Palin. 

John McCain was not prone to making excuses, but choosing not to invite his 2008 running mate to his future funeral may have been subtle acknowledgement that she played a major role in depriving him of the biggest prize of them all.

Share |