Following the obligatory national anthem (althernatively, the Pledge of Allegiance), Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders squared off last night in Flint, Michigan before CNN's Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon.
The first nine questions, six from Cooper and/or Lemon and three from locals, were about the water crisis in Flint (excerpt below). The two candidates suggested all manner of measures to fix the problem, including rebuilding infrastructure, hiring residents to deliver water to other residents while the lead pipes are replaced, committing to economic development, having the CDC examine each child, an investigation to assess responsibility. And of course, that the governor should resign
.
If the suggestions were a little unimaginative, they nevertheless were sound and necessary. After hearing the candidates' plans, which would require a huge financial investment, Anderson Cooper asked how the proposals would be financed. No, of course, he didn't, instead opting for "This crisis in flint as you know, as everybody in the room knows was created by the government. Your policies are about expanding government. Why should people from flint trust that more government is the answer?"
This question, ignorant though it was, presented the respondents with a hanging curve. Nonetheless, Clinton didn't volunteer a response, which was unsurprising, given that she would have ahd to defend government. However, Sanders the Socialist responded
That’s a good point, Anderson. Listen, I suppose they can trust the corporations who have destroyed Flint by a disastrous trade policy which have allowed them to shut down plants in flint and move to China or Mexico. We could trust them I’m sure Or maybe — you know, maybe, Anderson, tell you what — we should — maybe we should let Wall Street come in and run the city of Flint...
That was a fairly good reply, given that it coincided neatly with one of Sanders' two major themes, runaway corporate America- his only theme insofar as it is linked to campaign financing. But it could have been better. Sanders might have mentioned that the wheels were set in motion when the first of four emergency managers was hired to run the city government. His successor ended the city's contract with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in order to join another water authority, which had not completed construction. The emergency manager then decided the city would get its water from the Flint River, When it became clear that the water was grossly substandard, the Detroit authority gave to the city an opportunity to switch back to its water, an offer the then-emergency manager (photot from Jessica J. Trevino/DFP) refused.
It's more complicated than that, as this timeline from the Detroit Free Press indicates. But there is nothing Sanders does any better than taking a complicated matter, such as corporate control of the economy, and simplifying it so the average voter can understand. But he stood through nine questions- albeit not all of them addressed to him- without once uttering the word "private."
"Privatization" is what Democrats helpfully call it, especially if the issue is Social Security. To many voters- especially independents and Republicans- it's "crony capitalism." In the Flint water catastrophe, the state's Department of Environmental Quality discouraged the city from taking the necessary steps to undo its mistake and the Emergency Manager, concerned only with short-term costs, acted in complete disregard of the interests of residents and businesses.
It's not surprising that Mrs. Clinton did not correct the impression that government was solely at fault. It is, however, disappointing that Clinton, who has worked hard (and successfully) to maintain impressive support from the black community would not emphasize the tragic consequences of wresting control of city government from its residents to give it to a higher authority. It is, moreover, disappointing that a self-described "socialist" would not mention any form of the word "private" during this discussion- or at any point during the debate.
Former US Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) says Marco Rubio should get out for his own good.
Noting Rubio finished no better than third in any of the four primary contests held Saturday, the MSNBC host says the Senator has been
left humiliated again, cornered into betting their candidate’s political future on a first place finish in Florida. That outcome was made more difficult by tonight’s collapse. If there is anyone around Rubio who understands that this campaign is over, they should tell him to go home, announce his run for reelection as a senator, get the voting card out of the glove compartment, and start rebuilding his political reputation right away. The senator still has time to salvage a political career damaged by his lackluster presidential campaign. But that won’t still be the case if Rubio hangs around this race long enough to be embarrassed by Donald Trump in his home state of Florida.
In a spectacular case of false bravado or self-deception, Donald Trump says of Senator Ted Cruz "bring it on." Once the Saturday results became clear, Trump faced his supporters and claimed "I would love to take on Ted one-on-one. That would be so much fun."
It's not likely to happen any time soon, given it is dependent on both Rubio and Ohio governor John Kasich dropping out. Rubio is unlikely to withdraw before he's humiliated by (at least) Trump in Florida on March 15, and Kasich surely won't concede after he wins in his own home state that same day.
Trump, though he performed less well than expected Saturday, should consider himself fortunate. When the Republican field was crowded, his was the only voice heard (figurativel) and he prospered. At debate, he stood- literally- tall and his rivals, competing for attention, were unable to lay afirm glove on him. When the field winnowed to four in the face-off in Detroit, Marco Rubio attacked Trump and drew blood, though he practically destroyed himself in the process. Cruz joined in the fun at strategic points and Kasich self-righteously set himself apart as the adult in the room.
If he is at all self-aware, Donald Trump is bluffing when he suggests that he would like to campaign against, and debate, Ted Cruz mano-a-mano. The Texas senator would be able to draw a contrast between his realtively consistent, hard-right ideology and Trump's shifting perspective on issues.
Moreover, Senator Cruz was once a law clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist and twice argued before the United States Surpreme Court. In one instance, he successfully- and probably unethically- submitted a legal brief citing himself without acknowledging he was the author. Mr. Trump would do well to understand what George Peppard, playing the role of Banacek in the 1970s televison program of the same name, once falsely identified as a Polish proverb: "the truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn."
The Donald Trump phenomenon has dominated this campaign season and the search for an explanation rages on. There probably are multiple reasons for the rise of America's most famous authoritarian and understandably few that have been substantiated by research. One exception comes from the work of Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel, who
find that the relationship between racial resentment and economic peril is particularly acute among white liberals and Democratic partisans. The graph below shows that conservatives and Republicans have higher levels of racial resentment compared to liberals and Democrats. Possibly because of this, increased perception of economic peril has no significant effect on racial resentment for Republicans and conservatives. However, the results show that increased sense of economic peril substantially increases racial resentment among both liberals and Democrats. At above-average levels of economic peril, the resentment attitudes of white Democratic partisans become almost indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Additionally, the attitudes of white liberals become indistinguishable from those of ideological conservatives. This may help explain one of the most confusing parts of the Trump phenomenon: his success with moderates, independents and even some liberals.
That's worth exploring by others, some other time. But let's go back to the beginning, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy while proclaiming
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
It was game on from there, with the shape of the Republican presidential race shaped in large measure by the response of voters to Trump's anti-immigration, and later anti-refugee, message.
The less charitable of Trump critics believe his appeal has been considerably compelled by racism and/or xenophobia. The more charitable have been perplexed by the support he has received in primaries and caucuses. Much of that has to do with the candidate's swagger, boastfulness, sense of certainty, and rudeness: style.
However, the origin of Trump's supported motivated by immigration may be reflected in the video posted July 11, 2015 entitled "Illegal Aliens Protest Donald Trump in Los Angeles, Luxe Hotel, July 10, 2015." The narrator says We are here in West Los Angeles outside the Luxe Hotel,where Donald Trump is inside. Illegal immigrant protestors who are against Donald Trump are here protesting Donald Trump's being in this hotel. So what you have, is you have people who are illegally here who are telling an American that he has to go and of corse we also have pro-Donald Trump protestors.
The first two commentors note "just because they are Mexicans protesting doesn't mean they're illegals" and "how do you know they're illegal?"
Point well taken. Nonetheless, perception- while not reality- often takes on the importance of reality. And alas, it turns out that the video maker's unsubstantiated leap to the conclusion that the protestors are illegal immigrants has some basis in reality, in general terms. Fox News reported on July 28, 2014
llegal immigrant demonstrators were protesting outside the White House on Monday – but don’t expect America’s immigration officers to intervene. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official indicated that even if the protesters end up getting arrested by D.C. police, they’d have to be serious criminals for ICE to get involved. “Unless the individuals meet ICE’s enforcement priorities, it’s unlikely that the agency would get involved in the case,” the official told FoxNews.com.
Lack of resources very likely entered into the order (characterized as a regulatory decision) to detain only criminal offenders. However, Trump fans likely see as the sole factor the Administration's perspective, which is empathetic and conciliatory toward individuals whose flight to the USA threatens the nation's sovereignty and, many of them believe, drain resources. The story continues
Under a policy that’s been in effect for several years, ICE focuses deportation mostly on serious criminals and – in some cases -- those caught in the act of crossing the border. The agency prioritizes deportation for felons, repeat offenders, gang members and others with a serious criminal record. But the agency largely gives a pass to other undocumented residents. This is why illegal immigrant activists can protest outside the White House without worrying too much about ICE.
Through at least the last three presidential terms (Bush for one, Obama for three), legal demonstrations including advocates for immigrants, legal immigrants, and a lesser number of illegal immigrants have been held in major cities throughout the USA. Notwithstanding the numerous American flags strategically flown by protestors, the message comes through loud and clear: individuals who are in the country illegally are openly demonstrating and even flaunting their presence. If you smoke marijuana openly outside of your downtown pharmacy, convenience store, hardware store, or barber shop, the reaction of law enforcement might not be as benign.
While Democrats have been openly supportive of the cause promoted in the demonstrations, Republicans have been unable or unwilling to prevent not only the protests, but also Executive Orders President Obama has signed offering an opportunity for children and other individuals in the country illegally to remain.
It shouldn't be surprising that once the issue of immigration/illegal immigration was brought to the fore, millions of Americans would have flocked to the candidacy of a candidate who, not having been a politician, cannot be held responsible. Donald Trump may have employed more illegal immigrants than every member of Congress and the President combined. And sure, he's in favor of granting more H-1B visas, in which highly educated Americans are shunned for jobs in favor of non-citizens who will work for less. And if Ted Cruz is right, he has funded five of the members of the "Gang of Eight."
He's a fraud, of course, but thus far that hasn't mattered, and one of the many reasons is that someone is giving voice- however insincerely- to anger over immigration. Fueling the outrage are politicians who deny that net immigration is down as well as images of Mexicans (or Mexican-Americans) advocating for illegal immigrants. President Obama is empathetic and conciliatory toward immigrants, legal and otherwise, and Republicans have been unable or unwilling to reverse national policy. Then along comes Donald Trump, pretending that he- and he alone- is willing and able to go to battle with what some people believe is an alien force threatening the nation.
At Friday night's presidential debate, Fox News, anxious to dispense with the elephant in the room, asked of Marco Rubio a question nearly unavoidable at an event taking place in Detroit, Michigan. However, Baier asked it in the most comfortable, GOP-friendly way he could. "Without getting into the political blame game here," Baier remarked, "where are the national Republicans’ plans on infrastructure and solving problems like this? If you talk to people in this state, they are really concerned about Flint on both sides of the aisle. So why haven’t GOP candidates done more or talked more about this?"
Rubio in part responded
And by the way, the politicizing of it I think is unfair, because I don’t think that someone woke up one morning and said, “Let’s figure out how to poison the water system to hurt someone"... But accountability is important. I will say, I give the governor credit. He took responsibility for what happened. And he’s talked about people being held accountable... ... and the need for change, with Governor Snyder. But here’s the point. This should not be a partisan issue. The way the Democrats have tried to turn this into a partisan issue, that somehow Republicans woke up in the morning and decided, “Oh, it’s a good idea to poison some kids with lead.” It’s absurd. It’s outrageous. It isn’t true.
That was a good use of the straw man tactic, inferring that critics of the governor had claimed he wanted to poison children. Snyder, of course, did not set out to destroy the bodies and minds of people, especially children. It was, however, merely collateral damage.
It is an unfortunate title, referring to the decisions made as a mere "tragedy," not unlike a tornado, blizzard, or drought. But it was only a semantic oversight, for Moore more than redeemed himself by inviting readers to sign a petition demanding Attorney General Lynch prosecute the Governor.
Among the ten things Moore described:
A few months after Governor Snyder removed Flint from the clean fresh water we had been drinking for decades, the brass from General Motors went to him and complained that the Flint River water was causing their car parts to corrode when being washed on the assembly line. The Governor was appalled to hear that GM property was being damaged, so he jumped through a number of hoops and quietly spent $440,000 to hook GM back up to the Lake Huron water, while keeping the rest of Flint on the Flint River water. Which means that while the children in Flint were drinking lead-filled water, there was one — and only one — address in Flint that got clean water: the GM factory.
The reference to General Motors bears significance given that, in response to a reporter's request in February 2015 to a request for comment about possibly returning Flint's water supply to Lake Huron, state treasury spokesman Terry Stanton had replied
“The city’s [emergency managers] have been unequivocal that doing so would cost at least $1m per month … per the [Detroit water system’s] ‘offer’ … and the city simply can’t afford that.” Nearly an hour later, (then-Snyder chief of staff Dennis) Muchmore wrote that switching Flint back to Detroit would “probably be a good use of money as opposed to people refusing to use city water”. “After all, if [General Motors] refuses to use the water in their plant and our own agencies are warning people not to drink it … we look pretty stupid hiding behind some financial statement,” he wrote.
But state officials did decide to hide some financial statement because
Flint would not return to Detroit’s system until October 2015, when Snyder conceded publicly that the water crisis was far worse than he initially realized, and several studies revealed the city’s lead levels had increased. But even in the weeks leading up to Snyder’s announcement, high-ranking state officials appeared to be opposed to the $12m plan to switch Flint back to Lake Huron water. In a 3 September 2015 email, the state deputy treasurer, Thomas Saxton, sent an outline of the cost to return Flint to Detroit’s water system in an email to Muchmore and two other state officials. “I assume/hope no one is still seriously considering that option,” he wrote, “but if you need anything more give us a call.”
Thomas Saxton still is the state deputy treasurer, six months after his warning about that returning water to be filtered and treated at the Detroit Water Plant, which would have cost approximately $1 milion a month. Now the state has appropriated approximately $70 million to begin to correct the problem it welcomed.
Aside from the extraordinary human cost, the fiscal decision was disastrous, although a lesson in modern Republican economics. Moore explained
When Governor Snyder took office in 2011, one of the first things he did was to get a multi-billion dollar tax break passed by the Republican legislature for the wealthy and for corporations. But with less tax revenues, that meant he had to start cutting costs. So, many things – schools, pensions, welfare, safe drinking water – were slashed. Then he invoked an executive privilege to take over cities (all of them majority black) by firing the mayors and city councils whom the local people had elected, and installing his cronies to act as “dictators” over these cities. Their mission? Cut services to save money so he could give the rich even more breaks. That’s where the idea of switching Flint to river water came from. To save $15 million! It was easy. Suspend democracy. Cut taxes for the rich. Make the poor drink toxic river water. And everybody’s happy.
Marco Rubio, however, declares "give the governor credit." And "this should not be a partisan issue," maintains the man (or boy, as it were) who implies that Hillary Clinton, rather than Islamic terrorists, is responsible for the killing of four Americans at a diplomatic compound in Libya. Say not much for Donald Trump, but say this much: because of him, after Marco Rubio's Senate term expires in January, he (assuming he's not elected President) can go anywhere he wants to talk (video from The Young Turks) freely, gleefully every day about the size of men's genitals.
In the midst of a heated campaign, there are bound to be intemperate voices. That is the case even in a campaign the Democratic presidential candidates are having, in which one candidate is determined to win and the other trying to win without destroying the general election chances of the other.
And so it was that the wife of the latter politician was interviewed Tuesday evening by MSNBC's Chris Hayes and was, in the words of blogger Melissa McEwan, "super shitty." Here is the exchange, as posted by Ms. McEwan:
Hayes: —Clinton's lead, which is now nearly two hundred allocated delegates more than Sanders, will become more difficult for Sanders to overcome, because of that proportional allocation. That's a lesson Clinton learned in her two thousand eight race against Barack Obama. Joining me now, spouse of two thousand sixteen presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Jane Sanders. Ms. Sanders, it's wonderful to have you. Um, what is your feeling about— Sanders: It's nice to be here, Chris. Hayes: —the mathematical path forward for the Sanders campaign, facing now this banked deficit of 200 allocated delegates, and the fact that it's proportional all the way through? Sanders: Well, we knew the early maps would be harder for us, uh, for several reasons. First that the people across the country might not be as familiar with Bernie as they are, uh, with the woman that has been in three presidential campaigns—two of her husband's and her own already. Um, so she's quite well-known throughout the world, and we needed to introduce Bernie. Um, however, uh, the early states have turned out to be at least as good as what we had hoped. Um, as you say, it's proportional, so, in Massachusetts, we had forty-nine percent of the vote. The delegate—the delegate count is going to be just about equal. In Vermont, where they know him the best, he got a shutout. Uh, he will get a hundred percent of the delegates, because, uh, Secretary Clinton didn't meet the—the fifteen percent threshold to get any delegates from our state. Um, in terms of the states that we just had, with, um, Super Tuesday, it seems—I think there are two important things to point out: Most of the states that, uh, Secretary Clinton won had low voter turnouts. Most of the states that Bernie won had high voter turnouts. We know, when we have a high voter turnout, Bernie does better, because the more people that participate in the process, they more they, uh— His ideas are carried out. Uh, the second is that most of the states—just, you know, not all of them—but most of the states are historically red states and are not likely to carry the day in the general election. Most of the states that Bernie has won are mostly blue states or battleground states. And he's won them handily. I think it was, um, ten percent in Oklahoma, nineteen percent in Minnesota, twenty some odd percent, ah, in Oklahoma, so— Hayes: Well, let me stop you right there. Sanders: —I think we're looking good. Hayes: Let me stop you right there. There's two things, talking about this from a red state, blue state— I mean, that does seem to me a little, um, a little bit of misdirection, insofar as general election electorates are different, right? And also, it also seems a little dismissive of, say, the good folks in Alabama, right? I mean, it's not Alabaman Democrats'— Sanders: Oh no, yeah. Hayes: It's not Alabaman Democrats' fault that they don't have a majority of voters in Alabama! [chuckles] They can't do anything about that, except, you know, make more Democrats. Um, and, and that—that links up to a deeper issue here, right? Which is there is a stark demographic divide happening in the states that Clinton is winning and the states Sanders is winning. Exit polling showing Bernie Sanders losing black voters by eighty-five to fourteen; losing in those states with very high percentages of black voters across the South. I mean, it just seems impossible to me for someone to win the Democratic nomination in the age of the Obama coalition who is losing by those margins among black voters. Sanders: Well, the age of the Obama coalition was two thousand eight. This is two thousand sixteen. And we'll see either the Sanders coalition, or the Clinton coalition. Uh, I think that it's— You're absolutely right; we need to reach the, uh, the African American voter better. As I said, they're not that familiar with them—with Bernie. What we've done is, um, try to reach the working class voter, uh, the middle class voter, and not go, uh, not divide and, and, and reach out to individual sectors of the community. The Latino community, the African American community, the women, the men, the—the young. Um, but we have to do a better job on that. Um, and we know that, and we are going forward. I think if you look at the, uh, election results of yesterday, you'll see that we were—we had increased, uh, significantly with the Latino vote. Um, and in terms of the wide discrepancy, the same discrepancy holds true with Bernie against Clinton in terms of anybody under 30, no matter what race, what ethnicity— Hayes: Yeah, there's a huge disparity. Sanders: —they are. Yes. Hayes: All right. Jane Sanders, from Burlington, Vermont. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
"So," McEwen continues, "a couple of quick thoughts," which are
1. I find it really gross when Sanders won't even say Hillary Clinton's name, but instead refers to her, for the first time in the interview, as "the woman that has been in three presidential campaigns—two of her husband's and her own already." What the fuck. 2. Black voters just haven't heard of Bernie Sanders. That old canard. This line of bullshit is problematic for a whole lot of reasons, not least of which is the implicit circular racist shitshow that is: Black voters aren't informed and, if they were, they would definitely vote for Bernie Sanders, so the fact that they aren't voting for Bernie Sanders proves they're uninformed. For fuck's sake. 3. "The age of the Obama coalition was 2008." Uh, nope. That was the beginning of the age of the Obama coalition. And that coalition is the future of not only the Democratic Party, but of the country. The fact that the Sanders campaign has failed to realize or accept this fact is exactly why they're losing. 4. The Sanders campaign is trying to reach out to working class and middle class voters irrespective of race, because they don't want to be "divisive." Hoo boy. 5. It is flatly not true that Sanders wins with "anybody under 30, no matter what race." Sanders wins with white voters under 30, and, in some contests, only white men under 30.
That is hardly a comprehensive accounting of everything wrong with this interview. Again I say: What the fuck is the Sanders campaign even doing?
Credit McEwan for pointing out that Bernie Sanders has not been scoring as well with minorities under 30 as he has with whites under 30. Other than that, she is inaccurate or a bit strange.
Jane Sanders never stated "black voters just haven't heard of Bernie Sanders," but rather "people across the country might not be as familiar with Bernie as they are with" his opponent. That is not only demonstrably accurate- and understandable- but is critical to understanding how far off-base Ms. McEwan is. Sanders did not refer to "black people" but to "people," inasmuch as the former First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State is far better known than her rival. Moreover, she did not say that people "haven't heard" of her husband; merely that they aren't as familiar with him as with Mrs. Clinton.
One reason Mrs. Sanders remarked "the age of the Obama coalition was 2008" is because it was 2008. A major portion of that coalition was youth, now voting in numbers more heavily for Senator Sanders than for Mrs. Clinton. Additionally, Mrs. Sanders was responding to a (sort of) question, "it just seems impossible to me for someone to win the Democratic nomination in the age of the Obama coalition who is losing by those margins among black voters." She might have, as McEwan would have preferred, responded with "white voters count too, you know" or "yes, we are getting our rear ends kicked among blacks." That probably would not have been wise.
Jane Sanders referred twice to Clinton (albeit once to the "Clinton coalition") and probably would have more often if her purpose was to run Clinton down rather than to promote her own candidate. Admittedly, McEwan is exorcised that Sanders' first reference to her husband's competitor is "first that the people across the country might not be as familiar with Bernie as they are, uh, with the woman that has been in three presidential campaigns—two of her husband's and her own already."
It's unlikely that Sanders referred to "the woman" to denigrade Mrs. Clinton. Rather, it's likely it was an effort by a highly-educated woman to emphasize that any indvidual who has been in three presidential campaigns, two of them of her spouse, would be better known than a member of Congress from the tiny state of Vermont, generally inconsequential in both presidential primary contests and general elections.
McEwan complains "The Sanders campaign is trying to reach out to working class and middle class voters irrespective of race, because they don't want to be 'divisive.' Hoo boy. "
Merriam-Webster has no definition of "hoo boy" but the Urban Dictionary defines it as a phrase which may "express stress, frustration, distress, or any other negative emotion that comes to mind." So it is unclear whether the deeply thoughtful McEwen used "hoo boy" to suggest that she doesn't believe the Sanders campaign is avoiding race or that it is doing so in order to be divisive.
In either case, her frustration with Mrs. Sanders' statement reflects a deep divide between the two campaigns. Clearly, many Clinton supporters- and the candidate herself- are uncomfortable with the emphasis the Sanders' campaign has placed on economic concerns while not disregarding racial inequities. Perhaps there would be less annoyance if Senator Sanders were fairly conservative and/or dismissive of Black Lives Matter concerns.
But he is not, and it may be unbearable to see someone who recognizes both the nation's lingering problems with race and Mrs. Clinton's coziness with Goldman-Sachs. Though denied by some Clinton supporters,it is critical to establish a balance between identification with the aspirations of racial minorities and those of the non-wealthy, no matter where their ancestors may have come from. of whatever ethnic group.
Bernie Sanders has sought that balance from his earliest days actively involved in civil rights causes through his campaign for the presidency. And he has spoken out in favor of progressive causes not only to his own supporters or to the masses of Democratic voters, but also to others, such as in his speech to an assemblage at the evangelical Liberty University last autumn.
A truly progressive coalition cannot exclude non-minorities as more people undersand that they are falling behind in the global economy. It is not "class envy" or "racist" and need not be divisive. It's a strategy the corporate masters fear and must prevail, lest the nation suffer.
Did you hear the one about the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party?
In light of Donald Trump's response to the support given him by former Grand Wizard David Duke, Rush Limbaugh on Monday claimed
David Duke is a hard-core leftist. He's an anti-Semite. The Ku Klux Klan is a function of the left. It was the military arm of the Democratic Party. Hello. ... People at CNN think the Klan is far right, uber-right. They're not. The Klan, Jeffrey's right, they were the military of the Democrat Party back in those days. They were the armed forces of the Democrat Party, the segregationist South. For crying out loud, do I need to give you the names? J. William Fulbright, Lester Maddox, George Wallace. Who are all these people? They're all Democrats!
J. William Fulbright, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace, all deceased (making it much easier to slander them), never were members of the Ku Klux Klan. But never mind; this thing about the KKK having been the "military arm" of the Democratic Party is making the rounds, including at CNN.
One of the network's contributors, Jeffrrey Lord, on Monday claimed on air "Donald Trump isn't playing the game, although he certainly denounced him. I mean, David Duke is a hardcore leftist. He's an anti-Semite." He added "Yes, Margaret, the Ku Klux Klan is a function of the left. It was the military arm of the Democratic Party."
The following night, during an argument (video below) with Van Jones about Trump and the KKK, Lord contended ."Don't hide and say that's not part of the base of the Democratic party. They were the military arm, the terrorist arm of the Democratic party according to historians."
Who are these historians? No one knows. When in 2013 a Virginia state senator (before he retracted his statement) said "The fact is that both the KKK and Planned Parenthood are creations of the Democratic Party," Politifact-Virginia found
"To say that the Ku Klux Klan was started by the Democratic Party -- it’s not the Democratic party of today," Martinez said. "(From the) 1930s until today, you think of the Democratic Party being considered the party of the disenfranchised." Other historians had similar takes. Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, wrote in an email that various "Klans" that sprung up around the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest -- believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon -- even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, said Emberton, author of "Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence and the American South after the Civil War." But Emberton added a major caveat: "The party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today," she wrote to us. "Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century." Elaine Frantz Parsons, an associate professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh said that most post-Civil War southern whites were Democrats who were unhappy with Republican policies on Reconstruction while large numbers of newly-freed slaves were Republicans. "So it is not surprising that the Reconstruction era Klan would have been very largely Democrats attacking Republicans," Parsons said in an e-mail. "But this simply does not map well at all onto the party structure we know today. Among other things, the Republicans (during Reconstruction) were condemned as the party of big government and as wanting to centralize authority on the federal level."
In 2013, Sarah Jones at Politics USA reminded us of the southern strategy initiated by Richard Nixon and perfected by Reagan adviser Lee Atwater, who
explained in an infamous interview that took place as he was serving under Reagan, “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract now; you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
During the Civil Rights era, when there still were Democratic members of Congress in the south, there was a clear split between the northern and southern wings of the Party. The northern wing was dominant, especially after South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, responding to a speech (static in the original) by Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey supporting civil rights, led delegates out of the convention to form the Dixiecrat Party
.
On Wednesday, Limbaugh returned to deceiving his listeners, maintaining "It's a foreign language to them that the KKK was a bunch of Democrats. Even though you can them the names: Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Robert Byrd, all of that doesn't matter." LImbaugh can't help but know that in those days, the vast majority of southerners, of good will and otherwise, liberal and conservative, were Democrats: it was a part of the era of the "solid South."
In the 1940s Byrd, who grew up in a house with no electricity, running water, or bathroom, led a small-town, relatively inactive Klan chapter in rural West Virginia. Later, he would emphasize "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times, and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
At least Senator Byrd would have erased his errors if it were possible. The likes of Jeffrey Lord and Rush Limbaugh takea different approach. They never will regret highlighting events following the Civil War and ignoring those following World War II, Humphrey to furious state-level attempts by the GOP to suppress voting rights. Their efforts to rewrite history are deceitful and venomous, and thus bound to continue.
In his eulogy of Bernard Sanders' presidential run, TA Frank credits the Senator with a "big accomplishment" because he began "as a message candidate and then to what was surely his own surprise, became a serious candidate who posed a genuine threat to his rival." Likely dropping out of the race in the near future, "Sanders will firmly endorse Hillary Clinton, and the party will eventually come together. There will be some hard feelings, but they are mild in comparison to those in past years, including 2008."
Unlike Clinton, Frank implies, Sanders "has a fundamental decency that keeps him from going nuclear on his rivals. " .He "wanted to win, but he never wished to do so at the price of damaging Clinton for the general election. He gave her a pass on her use of a private email server, and he never ginned up a chorus asking her to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs."
Moreover, Frank notes, people who believe if Sanders "had done things a little differently" he would have gained the nomination are kidding themselves because he "obviously had a powerful message that could have been even more powerful if he’d attacked his rival properly. But that’s a bit like saying that a golden retriever would be a great fighter if it just acted more like a pit bull. Sanders is Sanders. He doesn’t go for the throat. "
Frank should have stopped there; better yet, stuck to his argument in the statement above. To the contrary, he writes
Decorum can also manifest itself in weakness. It pains me to echo the Trump line on this point, but when Sanders allowed himself to have his microphone taken away and his own event shut down by two young women in the Black Lives Matter movement last summer in Seattle, he did look ineffectual. It is hard to imagine anyone who was ever elected president—even the relatively peaceful Jimmy Carter—allowing that to happen on the campaign trail. Perhaps Sanders was squeamish about the possibility of alienating black voters, but, if so, that was a poor calculation. Black voters, too, want a president who can stand his or her ground.
Before being elected, the individual has to be nominated, a concept foreign to John Ellis Bush, also. We don't have the pre-1970 Democratic Party or the party of Jim Webb's imagination. This is the Democratic Party circa 2016.
When Frank points out "black voters, too, want a president who can stand his or her ground," it doesn't appy to some old white guy telling defenseless (as they would have been portrayed) "children of color" (ditto) to sit down and wait their turn. Sanders would have been more diplomatic but he would, helpfully, be asking them to wait a few minutes to offer their argument until he was finished speaking. Distorted, it would have been represented as demanding blacks wait their turn, as their sisters and brothers have been for a long time.
Progressives and the media- left, mainstream, and conservative- would have attacked the Senator, and he would have had to wait till the next ice age or the Detroit Lions to win a Super Bowl before any conservative would have defended him. If a species known as moderate Democrats remained, it might have defended Sanders, but moderate Democrats have almost gone the way of the dinosaur. And the powerful core of centrist Democrats, whose raison d'etre is to defend the power and prerogatives of corporations, would be no more likely to defend Sanders against identity politics than would the others.
Bernie Sanders is not being shellacked because of how he handled the Black Lives Matter movement. We have a Democrat who maintains the interests and concerns of non-wealthy people of all ethnic groups are being ignored. He is up against a Democrat who brazenly aligns herself with a) the ethnic groups dominating the Party electorate and b) heavy hitters. The latter includes donors, politicians, and- in the words of Matt Taibbi describing an ongoing phenomenon- "national labor bosses in favor of some party lifer with his signature on a half-dozen job-exporting free-trade agreements."
One candidate emphasizes the danger to everyone (except the extraordinarily privileged) of income inequality and an electoral system dominated by the rich and powerful. He is losing. Imagine my shock.
