A Tale Of Two Debacles

CONCLUSION:

In 2024, Progressives were once again reminded that they must never underestimate the degree to which much of the American electorate is abysmally ill-informed; and—as a consequence—apt to (unwittingly) vote against their own best interests.  From the Atlantic to the Pacific, political Stockholm Syndrome is now rampant…just as it is in so many other countries (which have themselves fallen victim to the trappings of faux populism).

In a nutshell, the modus operandi of those who join faux populist movements is: “We’re fed up with those serving the ‘elites’; and who care nothing about the common man; so we will vote for someone who serves corporate interests more than anyone else…and couldn’t care less about the general welfare.”  Of course, this is not how THEY think of it.  They simply want someone who promises to SHAKE THINGS UP; who is brazen and strident and willing to join them in saying “FUCK YOU” to the despised “Establishment”.

The solution to this is not hemming and hawing; it is generating awareness.  For it is crucial to recognize the degree to which many Americans were so utterly confused when it came to policy.  Note, for example, those who toggled between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump over the course of the past decade.  It should not be entirely shocking, then, that—in 2024—many checked the box for pro-choice initiatives and for Trump on the same ballot.  Take away the plutocrats, bigots, and Christian Dominionists, and we find that many of those who joined MAGA in 2024 had been partial to Bernie Sanders in the previous two presidential elections. (!)

That a person who is NOT suffering from multiple personality disorder could go from supporting Sanders for almost a decade to supporting Trump attests to the staggering degree of confusion involved.  (One imagines flipping a coin between the ACLU and the Klan.)  Clearly, such a bizarre shift could not possibly have been due to a firm grasp of policy implications; as the policies of the two figures were diametrically opposed. We can only conclude that other factors determine voter choices.  Frustration.  Resentment.  Nescience.  Desperation.

Even more heartbreaking than all the cognitive dissonance: Countless voters of color were adamantly against the Democrats’ support for the genocide in Palestine, so opted instead for Trump…who, it turns out, supports the Israeli government EVEN MORE.  (Consequently, there were many disillusioned voters who voted for, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez down-ballot, yet Trump at the top!)  Yes, most people want law and order.  YET, they will then pull the lever for a known fraudster with 6 bankruptcies and 34 felony convictions.  (It’s like encountering a habitual arsonist and pretending he’s the fire marshal.)  While this represents a kind of political schizophrenia that boggles the mind, it reveals how many swing voters actually operate.  People are dazed and confused; disoriented and irate.

It bears worth repeating: The impulses of such voters are not governed by a meticulous critical analysis of all available evidence. Instead, they base their decisions on vibes. Rather than participants in deliberative democracy, many Americans are like impulse buyers—easily snookered into making rash decisions.  (For more on this point, see Thomas Frank’s What’s The Matter With Kansas.)  America’s Political Stockholm Syndrome serves as a reminder that cultic thinking is like Novocaine for cognitive dissonance.

Frustration short-circuits our rational facilities; and hampers our ability to engage in critical deliberation.  Bogus as it is, Trump’s anti-establishment schtick was astoundingly effective amongst those who were fed up with the usual rigamarole (read: the annoyingly “woke” Neoliberalism of the Democratic party).  For many, a vote for Trump was a giant middle finger to what they see as “the Establishment”: a cabal of feckless political operatives who are—day in and day out—so obviously completely full of shit.

When ill-informed Americans hear Donald Trump, they feel as though he speaks for them.  When those same people hear Democratic establishmentarians (most infamously, Hillary Clinton), they are confident of one thing: “He/she does not speak for me.”  In the absence of REAL populism, the country’s rank and file will opt for a cheap knock-off if it is hawked to them with enough pizzaz.  Ergo Trump.

My contention is this: Faux populism can only be defeated by genuine populism.  Since Bill Clinton, though, the Democratic party has offered only anti-populism.  The Harris campaign had all the money in the world, yet had no bold positions.  As if to make matters worse, it turns out that all its celebrity endorsements were paid for.  The grand vizier of narcissism herself, Oprah Winfrey, insisted that the campaign PAY HER a million dollars to make a couple appearances.  This one fact is quite revealing.  (The Black woman who welcomes me at the local Walmart—likely for minimum wage—gave more money to the Harris campaign than this self-absorbed billionaire.)

Again, there was no answer when it came to standing up to corporate interests; or to ensuring affordable healthcare; or to curbing the price of gas, groceries, medical care, and housing.  While serving America’s most affluent (and hewing to corporate interests at every turn), it SHOULD be apparent that Trump and his cronies do not care about the well-being of the everyman; but it is NOT apparent to millions of low-information voters.  Why not?  Well, because Trump and co. ACT like they care.  So many Americans feel seen by them.  When people are frustrated, they are looking for clear-cut answers…even if those answers are largely baloney.

So the question is not why so many Americans are unable to see through the sham that is MAGA; the question, rather, is why the Democratic party is unable to see THEM.

It is not the working class’ job to support the Democratic candidate; it’s the Democratic candidate’s job to support the working class.  Instead, corporatists located at key positions within the Democratic party do little more than serve the powerful lobbies that write them hefty checks.  As they dance to the beat of their big-money donors, they pay lip service to lofty ideals like “freedom” and “family values”.  They then turn around and castigate anyone who has the gall to request that they serve the common-man rather than the power elite.  The Democrats’ message to the electorate is effectively: “We engage in tons of corruption, but just not quite as much as the other party.  Therefore you should go with us.”

This is not a good sales pitch.  

We mustn’t let a cadre of loud, cantankerous pseudo-activists ruin things for the rest of us.  The Regressive “Left” makes the REAL Left look ridiculous; and provides right-wing polemicists with bountiful ammunition to paint genuine Progressives as nutty ideologues.  (The Democrats’ rampant corporatism didn’t help.)  To most of those in Middle America, the Democratic party simply reeks of the status quo.

On all the corporate networks, those of us who care very deeply for the Progressive cause are painted with the same brush as those who offer only specious claims, frivolous indictments, and harebrained ideas.  For those who are bamboozled by right-wing propaganda, the thinking is effectively: Why go with Republican lite when you can get the real thing?

Trump disguised himself as a man of the people.  For low-information voters, this worked like a charm.  The reality is, of course, strikingly different from such (mis)impressions.  All Trump ACTUALLY does is eliminate funds to vital social services and to important infrastructure projects…while dolling out a slew of enormous corporate tax-breaks.  He happily pushes draconian austerity measures of the sort that have wreaked havoc in countries around the world (whenever those countries have become overtaken by right-wing economic policy).  It makes sense, then, that right-wing libertarians have been appointed to bogus positions of “government efficiency”.

Entirely lost on his fawning audiences was the fact that—during his first term—almost none of the much-touted tax cuts went to the working class (the cuts predominantly benefited the ultra-wealthy); childhood poverty skyrocketed; over 200,000 jobs were outsourced; millions of people lost healthcare; and—to add insult to injury—the G.O.P. blocked overtime pay for about 8 million workers. (Stiffing workers is, after all, Trump’s stock in trade.) Alas, these devastating facts were irrelevant; because Trump managed to brand himself as the outsider who was audacious enough to take a stand against “the Establishment”.  Meanwhile, virtually every Democratic figure had become a MASCOT FOR said “Establishment”.

The thesis here is worth re-stating: Given America’s party duopoly, the only alternative to turbo-charged Reaganomics was a more collegial version of corporatism.  It didn’t always used to be this way.  Until the turn of the millennium, the Democrats’ Neoliberalism left room for some paeans to civil rights…even as it has been doing the bidding of its corporate paymasters.  But by the opening years of the 21st century, Democrats offered artificially-flavored hogwash as the only alternative to the Republicans’ bald-faced corruption.  And for the past generation, the preponderance of ersatz Progressivism on the so-called “Left” have only made the Democratic brand look worse.

Considering its refusal to be genuinely populist, it’s no wonder that—ever since the waning years of the Obama administration—the Democratic party has lost support from almost every demographic. {H}

Recall an ironclad law of politics: When not challenged by genuine populism, faux populism (a.k.a. fascism) wins every time.  This has been demonstrated over and over and over again, in country after country after country—in virtually every instance that a demagogue has risen to power.  Fascists succeed when their message finds purchase in the minds of an exasperated population that feels that it’s been left with no other good options.  Therein lies the rub: This occurs whenever the alternative party fails to deliver.

When people are fed up with the status quo, they go elsewhere…anywhere…looking for solutions.  In both 2016 and 2024, we saw that faux populism was oddly effective insofar as there is a vacuum left by an absence of genuine populism.  The DLC would much prefer to see the G.O.P. prevail than give Progressives any birth (ref. Obama’s panicked call to James Clyburn in the spring of 2020).  As it turns out, corporatists associated with the Democratic party would prefer to see proto-fascists win than stand up to Wall Street, Big Pharma, AHIP, private military contractors, and AIPAC.  Election cycle after election cycle, they have dependably chosen to cozy up to Blackrock, Goldman Sachs, and Raytheon…instead of fighting for social democracy.

And—most reprehensibly of all—the Democratic leadership would rather lose an election than defy their beloved AIPAC.  (Wondering if racism / fascism has also infected the Democratic party?  There’s your answer.)  As it turns out, for mainline Democrats, ethno-nationalism is fine overseas…as long as we quash it here in the U.S.  So even as they stridently denounce racial prejudice in corporate boardrooms, Democratic party operatives are content to look the other way when geo-political allies perpetrate atrocities in faraway lands (see Israel; Saudi Arabia).  Many Democrats fail to recognize that it is extremely difficult to take a credible stand against ethno-nationalism at home when one is supporting it abroad.

Kamala Harris was completely on board when the Biden administration insisted that yet more public funds be diverted to support not one, but TWO genocides: one perpetrated by the Saudi regime in Yemen (fascism based on Wahhabism), one perpetrated by the Israeli regime in Palestine (fascism based on Revisionist Zionism).  Salafi fascism or Judeo-fascism: pick your poison.  Along with the G.O.P., the Democratic party picked both.

The Washington Beltway has always been a Bacchanal of influence-peddling and horse-trading.  With Trump back at the helm, it is now open season for favors-swapping of the most insidious kind.  Trump has already been bought off so as to ensure his AUGMENTED support for a pair of heinous regimes: two billion dollars to Jared Kushner from the House of Saud; and hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump from the Adelsons.  (This is not to mention the Kochs and Mercers; as well as Tim Mellon, Paul Singer, and all the other usual suspects.)  Considering all this, it is an earth-shattering irony that many of those who were persuaded to back Trump did so because they were fed up with all of the DEMOCRATS’ corruption.

Nobody in the history of American politics has ever been so eager as Donald Trump to sell policy to the highest bidder.  This is his own “art of the deal”.  As crazy as it sounds to those of us who know better, the fact that Trump is more engorged with corruption than virtually anyone else in American history does not matter to many of America’s woefully un-informed voters…who only see him as the guy brave enough to buck “the Establishment.”  (To repeat: The only alternative seems to be corporatist Democrats who seem to always be engaged in cloying theatrics.)

In terms of presentation, the contrast between Trump and Harris couldn’t have been more stark.  Like any demagogue, Trump continued to be the consummate crowd-pleaser…playing to his audience like a savvy performer on a Vegas stage.  For those who pay no attention to policy, this seemed to be a breath of fresh air.  Meanwhile…during her tub-thumping, whenever Kamala managed to NOT sound overly-scripted, she devolved into a kind of sanctimonious blather.  At almost every turn, she only succeeded in reminding swing voters (i.e. the people who decide elections) that she was beholden to her donors; not to the everyman.  Amidst all the mawkish fanfare and overwrought choreography, she failed to sound like anyone other than an emissary of Washington’s political machine—recycling pre-packaged talking-points and spouting market-tested bromides in between nervous laughs.  (That her riffing on the stump often turned into word-salad didn’t help either.)  Rather than take bold stands (e.g. speaking out against the effort to privatize everything under the sun), she opted instead for sloganeering…which elicited more eye-rolls than inspiration.

I ask the reader to consider the following message to America’s White working class:

While you are struggling to pay extortionate medical bills and scrambling to meet next month’s increasingly-high rent (with the meager wages you receive from a stressful job), we insist that inflation isn’t all that bad; and that crime isn’t still a problem.  And we will scold you for “implicit racial bias”…while begrudging you for not being a person of color.  You’re overworked and underpaid, yet shall be chastised for some sort of “privilege” you have never noticed you had…which, so far as you can see, has yielded diddly squat since the day you were born.

One may as well presage such an ornery pronouncement with, “I do declare…” in a cut-glass British accent.  (All the better if said when sipping cognac whilst lounging on ornately-upholstered divans. Eye monocle is optional.)  Or consider this:

Inflation is a bit of a problem, but White-splaining / man-splaining is even worse!  And sure, legalized graft may be undermining the democratic process, but make sure you specify your pronouns in your bio.

This is the message that much of the rank and file hears from the Regressive “Left”; and it explains why tens of millions of Progressively-inclined Americans THRICE cast a ballot for Trump. Begrudging people for their ethnicity is never a good idea.  Shunning them for imagined transgressions instead of hearing about their very real problems is a surefire way to not get their vote.

Instead of being recognized as a movement that’s looking out for the common-man, Progressivism is stigmatized as a brigade of ornery school-marms—sanctimonious and persnickety—who tacitly endorse genocide in Palestine while insisting that children should have access to on-demand puberty-blockers.  This is a recipe for abject electoral failure.  While some of Kamala’s lack of support amongst the far-right can be attributed to gender and/or racial biases, such prejudice does nothing to explain, well, EVERYONE ELSE who opted not to support her on election day. {H}

Looking back: A successful campaign against the MAGA movement would have conveyed the following sentiment: “I understand why some of you might be tempted to join the MAGA bandwagon.  You’re frustrated; and you want to tear down the system, which REALLY IS rigged against you.  Trump seems to be the only one who is brazen enough to do it.”  Translation: I hear you. And I understand your concerns.” {I}

Want to get the working class vote?  Don’t scold them; understand them.  Only then can one help THEM understand which policies will best serve the common good.  Put another way: Don’t tell people what they are supposed to believe; instead, give them the unvarnished facts (providing evidence, as needed), then articulate the basic principles on which the proposed position is based.

Don’t make it about joining the right team; make it about alleviating their travails.  This can be done without compromising Progressive principles.  It would be a misreading of this essay to suppose it is—in any way—calling for a movement rightward; or for making “strategic” concessions to the right wing.  Getting through to people and capitulating to them are two entirely different things.  (Extending an olive branch to voters is not bending the knee to politicians.)  The proposed course is a matter of edification, not of “compromise”.  Reaching out to those who are sympathetic to MAGA is in no way conceding that the opprobrious movement ITSELF has credence; it is merely recognizing that some of the concerns that some Trump voters have actually makes sense.

It is possible that such a revolutionary endeavor might spur major transformation within the Democratic party.  Perhaps it will even give birth to a new political party.  This depends on how entrenched corporate interests are in the party’s infrastructure.  I like to believe that the Democratic party is not irredeemably corrupt.  After the old guard passes away, we’ll find out.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

MAGA cannot be defeated by a campaign; it can only be defeated by a sustained movement—a movement that actually addresses all the things the Trump PRETENDS to address.  The Democratic party—in its current incarnation—is ill-equipped to mobilize such a movement.  How so?  Because only genuine populism can defeat faux populism.   This is why—had he been permitted to be the Democratic nominee—Bernie Sanders would have clobbered Trump in 2016, as well as in the two subsequent elections.  (Note: Had they been run on the level, Sanders would have prevailed in BOTH Democratic primaries in which he ran.)  So what is to be done about Trump’s proto-fascist (cult) movement?  An actual Progressive would offer a compelling and meaningful counter-vision.  This would entail offering a stark alternative ON POLICY; which would itself entail bucking the demands of virtually all big-money donors.  Identity politics would not play a role in this vision.  Nor would corporate lobbies.

The panoply of distractions decried here includes gripes about “cultural appropriation”, which sows needless discord.  While it is important to tout lofty ideals, specific policy proposals are where the rubber meets the road.  So it is on policy that we must focus.  A worthwhile Progressive movement requires both integrity and tenacity—two things notably lacking in the current Democratic party.  (While the G.O.P. has none of the former, it’s got the latter in spades.)

As the American Republic verges on self-immolation, we must stay firm in our commitment to civil society.  Deliberative democracy takes work; and quickly disintegrates when neglected.

Never mind that Kamala refused to take a stand against the ethnic cleansing in Palestine (undertaken with her own administration’s support)…while actively marginalizing Muslim Americans (or anyone speaking up for Palestinian rights, for that matter) during the course of her campaign.  Never mind that she remained a lapdog for the military-industrial complex (including a rube for the boondoggle in Ukraine, which proved to be a bonanza for private military contractors…with almost nothing else to show for the massive infusion of tax-payer money).  Never mind that she failed to explain the reasons for inflation.  And never mind she stubbornly refused to fight for universal public healthcare.  According to identitarians on the Regressive “Left”, Kamala’s failure to win over hearts and minds in the Rust Belt was largely due to the fact that she has brown skin and a vagina.  They are wrong.  Ask Ruwa Romman of Georgia.

Working-class Americans want good policy.  The “catch” is that they need its merits explained in a cogent way—preferably via a simple, compelling narrative—by someone who really means it (see Ilhan Omar).  Given the right policies and savvy messaging, a green-skinned hermaphrodite would prevail in every election…even in a country where racism and misogyny are still a problem.

Few genuine Progressives have the courage to tell the denizens of the Regressive “Left” (or the Democratic party’s astonishingly feckless leadership) that THEY are part of the problem.  Put bluntly: Corporatism in both major political parties helped to get Trump elected.  Twice.  So did ersatz Progressivism, which has sabotaged the Democratic party for decades.  In recognizing this, it is worth recalling a statement made by Abraham Lincoln in his Lyceum speech of 1838: “If destruction be our lot, we ourselves will be the authors.”