A Tale Of Two Debacles

Footnotes

A:  The same stunt was pulled with “socialism”, which both Neoliberals in the West AND Stalinists in Russia—as well as Maoists in China—were more than happy to associate with Soviet-style “communism”…depending on whether the aim was to frighten people away from GENUINE “socialism” or to garner support for what was, in actuality, a fascist regime.

B:  This is a frank diagnosis, not an aspersion.  It is simply stating an incontrovertible fact: Solid moral principles married with a thorough understanding of policy would preclude someone from supporting such a horrific political figure.  To make such a bad choice, there needs to be either a case of severe moral depravity, or—if not—colossal ignorance of the implications of Trump’s policy positions.  (Most Americans don’t even understand that the economy is stimulated from the demand side.)  This Appendix attempts to show how those with the latter problem might be understood; as most of those who pulled the lever for Trump arguably meant well, yet were extremely misguided.  Such people are, in theory, open to persuasion.  As for those who are morally depraved (that is: motivated by greed and/or bigotry), the problem goes far beyond the purview of sociology and political theory.  More often than not, trying to get through to such people is a fool’s errand.  Those driven by avarice don’t care who is harmed, so long as obstacles are removed to further concentrate wealth / power in their hands.  And those who are driven by racism / sexism are not going to be swayed by sound argumentation.  In any case, so far as the politicians they support are concerned, such people are useful idiots.  Corrupt politicians simply ingratiate themselves with this target audience to get elected; but once in office, their primary mission is to serve the power elite.  (Starting in 1970’s, Republican politicians made a Faustian bargain with Christian nationalists that was roughly as follows: “I have something you want: political power.  And you have something I want: voters who can help give me that power.”  For more on this, see Chris Hedges’ American Fascists.)  Consequently, my recommendation: It is only those who are NOT morally depraved with which Progressives should be concerned; as, given the right messaging, they are reach-able.  How?  By a compelling narrative—namely one that helps voters see which policies will ACTUALLY benefit them (see Footnote B).  While it is tempting to dismiss all of this group as a mob of blundering idiots, doing so would be a mistake.  Granted, idiocy may explain some of their political choices (they are, after all, dupes); but a lack of understanding does not necessarily correlate with a lack of intelligence.  (In any case, plenty of registered Democrats are idiots as well.  That said: If a person is highly intelligent and has a solid moral compass, it is unfathomable that he/she would succumb to right-wing thinking.)  To understand how and why this sort of thing occurs, it is worth considering how many (otherwise) intelligent people have been duped in other contexts.

C:  Soon after the election, analytics revealed that the less-informed voters were, the more likely they were to throw in their lot with MAGA.  Level of education (along with frustration with economic issues) was the most salient factor for those in the working class who were persuaded to support Trump.  This is a reminder that deliberative democracy cannot abide in the midst of extreme nescience.  How serious is this problem in the U.S.?  There are three countries in the world wherein the vast majority of the population is completely brainwashed: North Korea, China, and Israel.  I submit that, though not nearly as extreme, the U.S. would be next on that list (though it has some stiff competition from the likes of Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, and Mauritania).  The only way to remedy this is by persistent, effective messaging—messaging that conveys the merits of (genuinely) Progressive policies; and dependably shows who, exactly, promotes said policies (see Footnote C).

D:  Harris needed to do two things.  ONE: Disassociate herself from the dreaded establishment (which entailed distancing herself from the incumbent administration).  TWO: Explain how Progressive economic policy would help the working class (which entailed explaining how Trump’s agenda would not).  Not only did Harris do NEITHER of these things; it was difficult for her to do either with sincerity.  For she was part of the dreaded establishment; and she routinely flouted Progressive policy—both economic and foreign.  That was her downfall (see Footnote E).

E:  In 2020, inflation began due to drastically-limited supply, which was caused by pandemic-induced global supply-chain disruptions.  In the wake of this, corporations gamed the system to no end.  Once the supply chains were mostly restored, the fix was already in.  Subsequent inflation was not driven by an increase in purchasing power (no by an increase in demand); it was largely induced by corporate malfeasance (read: greed).  Purchasing power actually DE-creased.  Per the conventional supply-demand dynamic, prices increase when people have the ability to pay higher prices (that is: because they have more money in their pockets)…even as the supply of goods does not increase to meet the augmented demand.  The theory here is simple: If you put more money into circulation while holding supply constant, then prices will increase.  Businesses charge as much as they can get away with.  So an increase in purchasing power is ONE reason prices would go up in the event that supply remains the same…or even decreases.  But in THIS instance (2021, 2022, and 2023), prices increased even though most people were struggling to pay.  In other words: There was an over-riding factor.  That factor was unbridled corporate power.  It turns out that the supply-demand curve does not take into account massive power / information asymmetries, whereby pricing can go up due to things other than an augmented purchasing power of (most) consumers.  Corporations found that they could exploit latent exigencies, and get away with bilking consumers; so that’s exactly what they did.  (Proof that most corporations weren’t “forced” by dire circumstances to boost prices: virtually all of them posted record profits for these same years.)  Even as many parties gamed the system (due to sloppy implementation and poor oversight), the contention that overall inflation could be attributed to TOO MUCH STIMULUS is not only false; it is exactly backwards.

F:  In Michigan, had she gotten the entire Muslim vote, Kamala would have handily won the state.  In Pennsylvania, had she gotten the Green Party vote tally, and 43,000 people who’d swung for Trump had remained steadfast in their support for the Democratic candidate, Kamala would have prevailed there.  And in Wisconsin, just 15,000 people voting differently would have done it. (!)  Never mind the tens of thousands of un-inspired voters in those three crucial swing-states who decided to just stay home.  (Nationwide, 6.3 million fewer people pulled the lever for the Democratic candidate than in the previous election.)  Even as Trump received about 3 million more votes than he did in the last cycle, the majority of those gains were not in swing-states.  The increase was predominantly flocks of disenchanted, working-class voters in solid Blue and solid Red states…plus a smattering of Muslim voters who were so disgusted by the Democrats’ support for the genocidal regime in Israel that they pulled the lever for Trump sheerly out of spite (or, rather, out of desperation).  For them, a vote for Trump was like a Hail Mary, thrown in a fit of vexation.

G:  Helpful tip to Democratic party leaders: Try listening to Briahna Joy Gray instead of Joy Reid.  Want guidance from Progressive Black scholars?  Rather than seeking counsel from (corporatist) consultation firms, heed the wisdom of Cornell West, Adolph Reed Jr., Waleed Shahid, and Butch Ware.  And—most importantly—support Progressive firebrands like Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna, Nina Turner, Cori Bush, and Greg Casar rather than establishment apparatchiks like Chuck Schumer, James Clyburn, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Josh Gottheimer, and Nancy Pelosi.  In the long run, the party must divorce itself from all big-money donors.  Every last one.  If, on the other hand, the party wants to ensure more losses in the future, it should appoint a corporate goon like Rahm Emanuel as chair of the DNC.