Blog Entries [0 - 9]Thursday, November 28, 2024
Music Week
November archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43229 [43200] rated (+29), 21 [28] unrated (-7).
Having delayed posting of last week's Music Week until Friday
(Nov. 22), I was uncertain whether to try to rush this week's
post back to its normal Monday/Tuesday time frame, or hold back
until the end of November (Saturday, Nov. 30), or even just skip
the week and resync next Monday. I figured it would depend on
what I had to say when about the
2024 Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll.
My goals for the week there were to whip the website into
shape, both as the eventual home of the ballots and totals,
and as a useful resource for voters. For the latter, I've
mostly focused on a long and detailed
Voters Notes file. My other big project was to come up with
a second round of invites to vote. The first round went out on
Nov. 20 to 228 critics, most of whom have voted in recent polls.
I'm looking to add another 40-60 names to the list, or possibly
more. (Some early research uncovered over 150 new names, but
they still need to be vetted and contacted, and that's slow
work.)
To date, I'm fairly happy with the website work -- the Voter
Notes file still doesn't have everything I wanted, but it's
getting there, while the hypothetical FAQ has been nixxed, at
least for now. But I've made damn little progress on the second
round voter list -- so little that I've decided to run this
without waiting for better news.
I've had to hack on the software to handle the expansion of
the Vocal/Latin/Debut categories, but that wasn't too difficult,
so I'm generating good ballot and totals pages. I've tabulated
19 ballots, which reference 130 New Albums, 38 Rara Avis, 25
Vocal Albums, 22 Latin Albums, and 15 Debut albums. Lists of
albums so far receiving votes are available
here
(alphabetized by artist, so as not to reveal much about the
standings). Still, these lists are good for prospecting. I
haven't run numbers this year yet, but in the past I've found
that a third or more of the albums receiving votes were not
previously in my
tracking file. Much of the
new jazz this week was suggested by ballots.
Counting the ballots is the fun part of the job. The bane
of my existence is the aggravation and especially the uncertainty
of email. I sent a message to 202 people on my "jazzpoll" email
list, but how many actually received it? I don't know, and don't
know how to find out. I sent 228 ballot invites out from my own
email address, using a very laborious process that I believe
works better than the mass mailing list, but how much better I
still don't know. (I do know that 8 of those messages bounced.)
This uncertainty haunts me, with visions of imminent failure.
On the other hand, the people who do respond are doing great
work, and their data input is extremely valuable. In the end,
they will make this worthwhile, but the meantime is rough.
We have zero plans for Thanksgiving tomorrow, so maybe I'll
get some work done. Perhaps even more urgent than the Poll is
wrapping up the wrecked bedroom project. A few months ago, a
chunk of ceiling fell in. I got a contractor to come in and
patch it, recover the whole ceiling with new drywall, and
steam the ugly wallpaper that has covered the walls since we
moved in in 1999. The closet had even uglier wallpaper, and
even worse surfaces. (This is a 1920 house, so lath/plaster
everywhere.) I had bought paneling some years ago for the
closet, but never got into it, so that became my piece of
the project. It's taken many weeks, during which all the
stuff from the room got moved into other rooms, creating
endless hassles for both of us. (I just posted a picture on
Facebook.) Tomorrow I'll work on the closet, and we'll start
to move back into the room. Most of the weight is in books, which
will fill three bookcases. Also the futon, a desk, and a piece I
made to fit under the east window, with a couple drawers and a
surface Laura keeps plants on.
When I made my initial cut on Wednesday, I was thinking that,
like, last week, I would post an early draft of this, then update
it later in the week. So, expecting to add later reviews, in my
last November Music Week, I didn't set up a December Streamnotes
file. Unclear right now how I intend to handle this.
I might also note here that while I have no desire to open
another Speaking of Which can of worms, I have added a couple
more items to my
final (post-election) column, pushing the word count up to
37102. The latest add was an
Alfred Soto piece, which he promised to be his last word on
the subject.
As I didn't get this posted on Wednesday, when I made my initial
cut, it will go up on Thursday, a Thanksgiving I have no social plans
for, and otherwise am pretty indifferent about. Maybe I'll cook a
little something for just the two of us? (I just pulled a pound of
beef liver out of the freeezer. I have onions, and for sides some
cabbage and pasta. That shouldn't take too much time away from
working on house, poll, and blog. And if it does, it's a holiday,
right? One more day won't make much difference.)
By the way, here's a Thanksgiving meme for you, courtesy of
Richard D. Wolff, where the text (reduced from all caps) reads:
"Happy Thanksgiving/Celebrating the day Americans fed undocumented
immigrants from Europe."
That's a good note to end on, and get this out of the way.
Today's new records, including a low A- from Joe Fonda and
a Reut Regev album that needs another spin, should wait for
next week, when hopefully I'll have more to report.
New records reviewed this week:
Holman Álvarez: Hidden Objects (2023 [2024],
Sunnyside): Pianist, from Colombia, based in New York, nothing
much in Discogs but claims five albums (2011-22) from his days
in Bogotá. Quartet here with Adam O'Farrill (a standout on
trumpet), Drew Gress (bass), and Satoshi Takeishi (drums).
B+(**) [cd]
Awon x Phoniks: Golden Era 2 (2024, Don't Sleep):
Rapper Antwan Wiggins, goes back to 2013 with the producer "known
for his vintage-90's boom bap production style and melodic jazz
and soul samples." Flow reminds me of Digable Planets.
A- [sp]
Peter Bernstein: Better Angels (2024, Smoke Sessions):
Jazz guitarist, several dozen albums and tons of sidework since 1998,
I figure he's part of the Wes Montgomery tradition but looking through
his discography, the tributes I see are to Tal Farlow and Attila Zoller.
Quartet here with piano (Brad Mehldau), bass (Vicente Archer), and
drums (Al Foster).
B+(*) [sp]
Betty Bryant: Lotta Livin' (2023 [2024], Bry-Mar
Music): Jazz singer, 94, website claims 14 albums but Discogs only
lists 3, plays piano, wrote 4 songs to go with 5 standards. Opens
with a swinging "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea," shifts
into songs that are talkier (including a delightful take on "The
Very Thought of You." Band swings, and the sax is lovely (Robert
Kyle).
A- [sp]
Scott Colley/Edward Simon/Brian Blade: Three Visitors
(2024, GroundUP Music): Bass-piano-drums trio, all long- and
well-established, impressive enough on their own, plus a few
guest spots: another strong sax spot for Christ Potter, but
the rest is less interesting: several vocals, some strings,
and percussion (Rogério Boccato).
B+(**) [sp]
Steve Davis: We See (2024, Smoke Sessions):
Trombonist, started with Art Blakey in the late 1980s, 20+
albums since 1995. Live set at Smoke Jazz Club in New York
with a sextet of peers: Eddie Henderson (trumpet), Ralph Moore
(tenor sax), Renee Rosnes (piano), Essiet Essiet (bass), and
Lewis Nash (drums), jumping right into "Milestones."
B+(**) [sp]
Elucid: Revelator (2024, Fat Possum): Rapper,
from Queens, mixtapes back to 2002, half-dozen albums but better
known as half of Armand Hammer. Too dense to decipher easily,
but worth the effort.
A- [sp]
Everliven Sound & Slimline Mutha: Echo Chamber
(2024, self-released): Duo of Cymar Simmons (Cymarshall Law) and
Jaron Simmons (Skit Slam), have an album from 2008, a single back
to 2000, working with a "jazzy hip-hop beatmaker" from UK. Has a
nice bounce to it.
B+(***) [sp]
Ruth Goller: Skyllumina (2024, International
Anthem): Bassist-vocalist, born in Italy, based in UK, had a
previous album called Skylla in 2021. This strikes me
as slow and ponderous, which may be unfair, but that's all I
have for now.
B [sp]
Paul Heaton: The Mighty Several (2024, EMI):
English singer-songwriter, best remembered from the Housemartins
(1986-87) and the Beautiful South (1989-2006), followed by often
catchy but less compelling solo and duo albums. After several
duos with Jacqui Abbott, this one is nominally solo, but guest
singers pop up here and there (Rianne Downey, Danny Muldoon).
B+(**) [sp]
John Hollenbeck & NDR Bigband: Colouring Hockets
(2023 [2024], Plexatonic): Drummer, founded Claudia Quintet in 2001,
later expanded to working with big bands, like this group, conducted
by JC Sanford. Once again, mallet instruments are featured, with
Patricia Brennan joining Claudia's Matt Moran.
B+(***) [cd]
Snorre Kirk: What a Day! (2024, Stunt): Danish
drummer, sixth album since 2012, composed eight tunes here, band
members listed below the title: Giacomo Smith (alto/soprano sax),
Joe Webb (piano), Anders Fjeldsted (bass), with a guest guitarist
(Alexander Honey Boulton) credited with three tracks on the back
cover. Easy going, quite enjoyably mainstream.
B+(***) [sp]
Lemadi Trio: Canonical Discourse (2024, A New Wave
of Jazz Axis): José Lencastre (alto sax), Dirk Serries (guitar),
and Martina Verhoeven (crumar piano), runs a bit slower than the
other albums in this series.
B+(**) [cd]
Peter Lenz: Breathe: Music for Large Ensembles
(2023 [2024], GambsART): Austrian drummer, studied in Graz,
Amsterdam, and New York, where he is now based. Has a couple
previous albums, back to 2012. Two big band pieces (one called
"Eleanor," as in Rigby), two with added strings, one stripped
down to "chamber orchestra," with some vocals.
B [cd]
David Maranha/Rodrigo Amado: Wrecks (2023 [2024],
Nariz Entupido): Electric organ and saxophones duo -- credit uses
plural, but tenor is Amado's standard. The organ is dense and ugly,
so it takes a while for the saxophone, initially aligned, to rise
out of and distinguish itself from the murk.
B+(***) [cd]
Claire Martin: Almost in Your Arms (2024, Stunt):
English jazz singer, 20+ albums since 1992, well-regarded in
Penguin Guide, but I've only lightly sampled her work, with
nothing since her 2001 Very Best Of (which now is most
of her career).
B+(*) [sp]
Nuse Tyrant: Juxtaposed Echoes (2024, M25):
Rapper, from San Diego, working with producers Trust One and
Clypto.
B+(**) [sp]
Adonis Rose Trio + One: For All We Know (2022
[2024], Storyville): Drummer, from New Orleans, director of
New Orleans Jazz Orchestra, has several albums, both with them
and smaller groups. Trio here with Ryan Hanseler (piano) and
Lex Warshawsky (drums), but also featuring singer Gabrielle
Cavassa.
[Note: Two album cover variations: One with "+ One" and four
names; one without the singer. Label Bandcamp page makes no
mention of singer, nor does the cover pic at Spotify, but it
does have the vocal tracks. So it seems probable that both
variants are actually the same album.]
B+(**) [sp]
Sophie: Sophie (2024, Transgressive): English
electronica producer, released a compilation of early tracks in
2015, a full album in 2018, and was close to finishing a second
album when she fell to her death in 2021. This is that second
album, with finishing touches by brother Benny Long. Runs long,
but gets better toward the end.
B+(**) [sp]
Spinifex: Undrilling the Hole (2024, TryTone):
Amsterdam-based avant-fusion group, ninth album since 2011, all
compositions by Tobias Klein (alto sax), with Bart Maris (trumpet),
John Dikeman (tenor sax), Jasper Stadthouders (guitar), Gonçalo
Almeida (bass guitar), and Philipp Moser (drums).
B+(***) [cd]
Tonus: Analog Deviation (2023 [2024], A New Wave
of Jazz Axis): Trio of Dirk Serries (guitar), Benedict Taylor
(violin/broken fiddle), and Martina Verhoeven (piano), tends to
scattered abstractions.
B+(*) [cd]
Transition Unit: Fade Value (2023 [2024], A New
Wave of Jazz Axis): Trio of Amsterdam-based Portuguese alto/tenor
saxophonist José Lencastre, pianist Rodrigo Pinheiro, and guitarist
Dirk Serries. Free jazz, close to the edge.
B+(***) [cd]
Twin Talk: Live (2023 [2024], Shifting Paradigm):
Trio of Dustin Laurenzi (tenor sax), Katie Ernst (bass/voice),
and Andrew Green (drums), third album since 2015.
B+(**) [sp]
Tyler, the Creator: Chromakopia (2024, Columbia):
Rapper Tyler Okonma, from Los Angeles, the biggest success out of
the Odd Future collective, eighth studio album since 2009, all
gold except for his self-released debut. I didn't care for his
early albums, but he's gotten more solid.
B+(***) [sp]
Martina Verhoeven Quintet: Indicator Light (Live at Paradox
2023) (2023 [2024], A New Wave of Jazz Axis): Belgian pianist,
Discogs credits her with 14 albums, most multi-artist collabs, most
of those with her husband, guitarist Dirk Serries -- present here,
along with Gonçalo Almeida (bass), Onno Govaert (drums), and Colin
Webster (alto sax), who dominates with fire and fury, which the rest
fill out remarkably.
A- [cd]
Cole Williams: How We Care for Humanity (2024,
Four Corner): Soul-jazz singer-songwriter, plays bass guitar and
percussion, born in Brooklyn (mother Jamaican) but based in New
Orleans, EP in 2007, fifth album since 2011. Title song is
practically a manifesto.
B+(**) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Emily Remler: Cookin' at the Queens: Live in Las Vegas 1984
& 1988 (1984-88 [2024], Resonance, 2CD): Jazz guitarist
(1957-90), recorded six albums for Concord (including a duo led by
Larry Coryell, plus one more) in her brief career, which in 1991 were
reduced to two Retrospective volumes. This is the first new
music that has appeared since her death, and is certain to rekindle
interest in her post-Montgomery synthesis.
A- [cd] [11-29]
McCoy Tyner/Joe Henderson: Forces of Nature: Live
at Slugs' (1966 [2024]. Blue Note): Crackling live set,
with Henry Grimes (bass) and Jack DeJohnette (drums), the pianist
just out of John Coltrane's quartet, with the tenor saxophonist
in the middle of a legendary series of Blue Note albums -- Tyner's
first (and best) Blue Note, The Real McCoy, was still a
year away.
B+(***) [sp]
Old music:
Elucid: I Told Bessie (2022, Backwoodz Studioz):
Rapper Chaz Hall, works with Billy Woods in Armand Hammer and
other more obscure groups, Discogs credits him with 12 of his
own albums since 2007. Even denser and more inscrutable than
the new one.
B+(***) [sp]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Miles Davis Quintet: Miles in France 1963 & 1964 [The Bootleg Series, Vol. 8] (Columbia/Legacy, 6CD) [11-08]
- Ginetta's Vendetta: Fun Size (Kickin' Wiccan Music) [11-24]
- Roberto Magris: Freedom Is Peace (JMood) [12-01]
- Rick Mitchell: Jazz in the New Millennium (Dharma Moon Press): book
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Friday, November 22, 2024
Music Week
November archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43200 [43153] rated (+47), 28 [26] unrated (+2).
Back on the 18th, I posted this much:
This week's Music Week is being held hostage until I get my
initial round of Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll ballot invites
sent out (aiming for Tuesday, but probably Wednesday). Meanwhile,
you can probably find some new records in the
November Streamnotes
archive. Not a particularly big week so far, but I'm working on
it.
My main reason for posting anything at all today is that I
have some links to share:
The 19th Annual Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll Begins: I posted
this on Saturday, after sending out initial mail to my GNU Mailman
list on Thursday. I don't have much more news yet, but wanted to make
sure this much got some distribution. More in a couple days, but
meanwhile, check out the Poll
website. Focus right
now is to provide information for voters. As we're currently updating
the invite list, please feel free to suggest someone (even yourself).
I also have set up the poll admin/discussion group, so if you're
interested in following our deliberations (even if you're not a
voter), let me know.
Q and A: Two recent questions answered (well, sort of).
Speaking of Which: No new one (now or most likely ever), but I
keep finding things that seem like they belong here (and I feel like
saving), so this swan song has grown to 317 links, 33193 words.
The Best Non-Jazz Albums of 2024: Way back in July, in conjunction
with my
Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll, I compiled
The Best Jazz Albums of 2024, and I've been trying to update it
as we go, but I put off doing the Non-Jazz complement until now.
So, 47 A-list new releases (+ 3 from 2023) and 7 reissues/historic
music, which rather pales in comparison to 85 A-list new jazz (+3
from 2023) and 18 reissues/historic (+1 from 2023). Most years I
have a large jazz/non-jazz ratio when I initially compile the lists,
but that narrows as I catch up with the EOY lists. But I don't think
I've ever had this much imbalance before.
Metacritic Aggregate: I started working on this mid-year, but
haven't done a very good job of keeping it up to date. But this week
I added the first EOY lists from Uncut, Mojo, and Bleep. This is not
a huge priority for me, but it does help guide me to things to check
out. There is also one for
new compilations of old/various music, but it is very short
(44 albums, vs. 1210 for new releases).
I ran the ratings counter and so far I'm +30 on the week, but
only one A- so far. Unrated is -1, but I still have some unpacking
to do.
Back to work now.
Those links are still useful. I've added some things to the
Jazz Poll website, and will update it again before long. I must
have added something to that Speaking of Which, as it's now up
to 35354 words, but I've definitely slowed down. (My latest add
was a
long comment on Robert Christgau's latest
XgauSez.)
Since then, I revised the Poll
invitation -- mostly to clarify changes to the category voting,
but also to point out information online -- and ran the template
through MailMerge to generate 230 email, which I then mailed
out one at a time. While it should be possible to automate the
mailing, my ISP threw up many roadblocks, so it wound up taking
about five hours to get them all out. Then I was embarrassed to
find that I had made an error in the Subject line, not deleting
"Mid-Year" from the previous template, or adding "Francis Davis."
Only one recipient has noted the problem so far.
More worrisome, I got seven bounce messages (Greg Bryant,
Marcela Breton, Matt Marshall, Mike Greenblatt, Richard Brody,
Simon Rentner, Stephen Graham), so I need to track them down.
I have many more names in various files. I need to go through
them, see who I can qualify, and send out another batch of
invites. I welcome any suggestions you may have (including
self-interests). Please include email address and whatever
credentials seem appropriate.
I've set up an advisory discussion list (jpadmin), and have
about ten people signed up for it. I've done very little with
it so far, but expect to be sending out updates every 2-3 days,
discussing a wide range of issues, like future promotion. Right
now, the most important things are making sure the website has
enough correct information to help voters, and to qualify any
additional voter invitations. I've been totall jammed the last
week with these isues.
I've also had to do some more programming, due to changes
in the handling of category votes. This is tricky work, and
has slowed down processing of ballots. I currently have 8
ballots counted, and at least 2 more in my inbox. Agenda for
today is:
- Write and post Music Week.
- Update the website (mostly with an expanded but still unfinished
Voter Notes file); although totals and individual ballots are
locked down, the website does offer some public information:
critics
(who have voted so far), and
albums
(that have received votes, in each category).
- Write email to the jazzpoll mailing list, confirming that the
initial ballots have been sent, with any additional news.
- Write email to the jpadmin mailing list, catching up on
everything.
- There's a new
And It Don't Stop piece, under Christgau's name but actually
by RJ Smith, I need to write a notice for.
The odds that I'll get all this done before bedtime aren't good.
Just a couple notes on this week's albums. For the Attias album,
I received a 2-CD set, and mostly played both discs back-to-back,
so that made it hard to distinguish between them. However, once I
gave the combined set an A-, I couldn't find a cover scan that
matched my promo, but I did find that the album had been released
in two separate chunks on Bandcamp, so I took artwork from there.
(The 2-CD package puts the Vol. II artwork on the back cover, and
adds the volume designations to the individual disc titles.) I
wound up grading the separate pieces down a notch for various
rather peculiar reasons, but for purposes here, I'm including
both cover scans.
The old blues comp was one of Clifford Ocheltree's "on the
balcony" specials (or maybe his was Vol. 1, and I just
lightly favored Vol. 2). The other pictured album is
Elucid's Revelator. More about it next week.
Assuming there is a next week. I'm too frazzled right now
to even think about schedule. Could be I'll kick out something
very short on Monday or Tuesday, or perhaps I'll wait until
the end of the month, then try to resync in December. It may
depend on how useful this forum is for disseminating info on
the Poll.
New records reviewed this week:
Eric Alexander: Timing Is Everything (2023 [2024],
Cellar Music): Mainstream tenor saxophonist, many albums since 1995,
this a quartet with Rick Germanson (piano), Alexander Claffy (bass),
and Jasson Tiemann (drums), plus occasional guests.
B+(**) [sp]
Eric Alexander/Mike LeDonne: Together (2023 [2024],
Cellar Music): Tenor sax and piano duets -- they've worked together
before, and to my surprise more often with LeDonne on piano than on
organ. Still, nothing this far out of their comfort zones, which is
what makes this interesting.
B+(**) [sp]
Michaël Attias: Quartet Music: Vol. I + II: LuMiSong +
Kardamom Fall (2021-22 [2024], Out of Your Head, 2CD):
Alto saxophonist, born in Israel, grew up in Paris and Minneapolis,
returned to Paris, then to New York in 1994. I'm surprised he has
no Wikipedia page, as he's recorded extensively since 1989 (Discogs
lists 95 albums). This 2-CD combines two quartet sessions that are
separately released as digital, so I've broken them out below. I'm
not normally someone who rates a compilation above its component
parts, but while I may be too short and/or II may
meander a bit long, both are chock full of delights that build on
the rest.
A- [cd]
Michaël Attias: Quartet Music: Vol. I: LuMiSong
(2021 [2024], Out of Your Head): With Santiago Leibson (piano),
Matt Pavolka (bass), and Mark Ferber (drums): 4 tracks, 29:36.
B+(***) [cd]
Michaël Attias: Quartet Music: Vol. II: Kardamom Fall
(2022 [2024], Out of Your Head): With Santiago Leibson (piano),
Sean Conly (bass), and Tom Railey (drums): 8 tracks, 62:05.
B+(***) [cd]
George Cables: I Hear Echoes (2024, HighNote):
Pianist, now 80, first album 1975, his early albums with Art
Pepper are personal favorites, this one a trio with Essiet Essiet
(bass) and Jerome Jennings (drums).
B+(***) [sp]
Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds: Wild God (2024,
Bad Seed/Play It Again Sam): Australian singer-songwriter, started
in the Birthday Party (1973-83), formed this band in 1984, his
main vehicle ever since. This is their 18th studio album,
co-produced by Warren Ellis. His popularity and/or critical
following has long baffled me, but this seems exceptionally
dull. Barbara Ehrenreich used "wild god" in her memoir, but
whatever this is about, it isn't that.
C+ [sp]
Confidence Man: 3AM (La La La) (2024, Chaos/Polydor):
Australian electropop group, their 2018 debut Confident Music for
Confident People was fun, back for their third album here, another
snappy one.
B+(***) [sp]
Day Dream: Duke & Strays Live: Works by Duke Ellington
& Billy Strayhorn (2023 [2024], Corner Store Jazz, 2CD):
Ellington tribute trio, with Steve Rudolph (piano), Drew Gress
(bass), and Phil Haynes (drums). Same trio did an album under
their names (Rudolph) called Day Dream, released in 2023
but recorded back in 2009. Ten songs, 77:09, so could have been
squeezed onto a single CD. Slips by if you're not paying close
attention.
B+(**) [cd]
Hania Derej Quintet: Evacuation (2023 [2024],
ZenneZ): Polish pianist, several albums since 2016, this group
with tenor sax, trombone, bass, and drums.
B+(***) [sp]
Elin Forkelid: Songs to Keep You Company on a Dark Night
(2024, Sail Cabin): Swedish saxophonist, tenor mostly, née Larsson,
has a previous Plays Trane, several group efforts, quartet
here with Tobias Wiklund (cornet/trumpet), David Stackenäs (guitar),
and Mats Dimming (bass).
B+(**) [sp]
The Fugs: Dancing in the Universe (2023, Fuga):
Tuli Kupferberg died in 2016, but he left four demo vocals from
2006 that survivor Ed Sanders and some friends -- they go back
to a 1984 revival, and were on The Fugs Final CD (both of
them, one from 2003, the other 2010 -- fashioned into a new album,
58 years after their The Fugs' First Album. They're older,
well old, resigned never making the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame,
remembering Johnny Cash, Frank O'Hara, and Emma Goldman. I take
some comfort in "Where Have All the Commies Gone?" (after noting
such destinations as academia, drugs, and Hillary, "when will they
ever learn, when will we ever learn"). But not so much from "We
Are Living in End Times."
B+(**) [bc]
Halsey: The Great Impersonator (2024, Columbia):
Pop star, fifth album since 2016, all charted US 1-2, still not
much glitz here, mostly mid-tempo introspection, some muscled up,
with more than a few lyrics breaking through, like "I think I'm
special because I cut myself wide open," "I'm not old but I am
tired," "I still believe in heaven, if they'll never let me in,"
and "is it love or a panic attack?"
A- [sp]
The Hard Quartet: The Hard Quartet (2024, Matador):
Billed as a supergroup, but any group that lets Stephen Malkmus
sing should be counted as his. Besides, who the hell are these
guys? Matt Sweeney (guitarist for Skunk, Chavez, and Zwan), Jim
White (drummer from Dirty Three), and Emmett Kelly (guitarist from
Cairo Gang; he's the only one other than Malkmus with an album under
his own name)? Not my idea of hard, perhaps even a bit thin for
Malkmusian, but that much is identifiable.
B+(*) [sp]
Alex Heitlinger Jazz Orchestra: Slush Pump Truck Stop
(2019 [2024], SteepleChase): Trombonist, several albums since
his 2004 debut, composed (7 of 8 pieces) and arranged this for
conventional big band.
B [sp]
Cassandra Jenkins: My Light, My Destroyer (2024,
Dead Oceans): Singer-songwriter from New York, third album since
2017, has a nice flow that slips by pleasantly enough without
much traction.
B+(*) [sp]
The Jesus and Mary Chain: Glasgow Eyes (2024,
Fuzz Club): Scottish group, principally brothers Jim and William
Reid, debut album 1986, developed a distinctive sound between
new wave and shoegaze, disbanded 1998, regrouped c. 2007 but
didn't release a new album until 2017, followed up here. Sound
remains distinct, but perhaps more as a medium for songwriting
than as an end in itself.
B+(**) [sp]
Samara Joy: Portrait (2024, Verve): Jazz singer,
from New York, dropped last name McLendon, writes her own songs,
got a lot of notice for her 2021 debut, back for third album here.
Regina King described her as "a young woman who seems like Sarah
Vaughn and Ella Fitzgerald are both living in her body." I don't
get much Ella from her, but her voice evokes Sarah without quite
sealing the deal. (I've listened to enough Vaughan to understand
why critics are so in awe of her, but I've never much liked her
albums.) No doubt this album will be received as a big deal --
easy to see this topping the vocal category in our critics poll --
but I have little desire to hear it again. I will say that the
"touring band" (no names I recognize) is terrific -- far better
than the orchestras Vaughan was often saddled with. And she's
conducting a master class in phrasing, poise, and precision,
even when soaring and/or scatting.
B+(*) [sp]
The Linda Lindas: No Obligation (2024, Epitaph):
Punk girl band, from Los Angeles, had a viral breakout single in
2021, "Racist, Sexist Boy," followed that up with a debut album,
and now this second album.
B+(**) [sp]
Moby: Always Centered at Night (2024, Mute):
Some album I've heard recently and already forgotten about
reminded me that I hadn't heard this one, his 22nd since 1992,
so I figured why not? Released in June, already available in
two remixes, but I went to the original. Some nice stuff here,
in line with his previous gospel sampling.
B+(*) [sp]
Monolake: Studio (2024, Imbalance Computer Music):
German electronic music group, first album 1997 as a duo of
Robert Henke and Gerhard Behles (later Torsten Pröfrock), now
just Henke. Sharp beats with Krautrock airs and extra klang.
B+(***) [sp]
Thurston Moore: Flow Critical Lucidity (2024,
Daydream Library Series): Sonic Youth guitarist-vocalist, did
a solo album in 1995, plus a number of collaborations with jazz
and avant/experimental figures, more after the band broke up.
Curve fits the milder-with-age trajectory, maintaining his
distinct sound post-group, even while attenuated.
B+(**) [sp]
Meshell Ndegeocello: No More Water: The Gospel of James
Baldwin (2024, Blue Note): Singer-songwriter, plays bass
guitar, originally Michelle Johnson, had some success on the r&b
charts 1993-2014, since then has landed on a jazz label, but the
arc from Plantation Lullabies to Baldwin themes isn't really
all that far. Possibly more here than what I can immediately
grasp, but I'm not sure how hard I want to work for it.
B+(**) [sp]
The Necks: Bleed (2024, Northern Spy): Australian
jazz trio, with Chris Abrahama (piano), Lloyd Swanton (bass), and
Tony Buck (drums), close to 30 albums since 1989. This is a single
piece, 41:10, more ambient than anything else.
B+(*) [sp]
The New Mastersounds: Old School (2024, One Note):
British funk-fusion band, from Leeds, 20+ albums since 2001,
quartet with organ/keyboards (Joe Tatton), guitar (Eddie Roberts),
bass (Peter Shand), and drums (Simon Allen).
B+(*) [sp]
Peter Perrett: The Cleansing (2024, Domino):
English singer-songwriter, a memorable voice from the punk-era
band the Only Ones (1978-80), released one more album (1996)
as the One, then in 2017 released a solo album, with this his
third.
B+(**) [sp]
Arun Ramamurthy Trio: New Moon (2023 [2024],
Greenleaf Music): Violinist, based in Brooklyn, improvises
on a legacy of Carnatic classical music, was a founder of
Brooklyn Raga Massive, first album under his own name, a
trio with Damon Banks (bass) and Sameer Gupta (drums).
B+(***) [sp]
Remedy [Thomas Heberer/Joe Fonda/Joe Hertenstein]: Live
at Jazzkammer (2024, 420 CPW): German trumpet player, based
in New York, with bass and drums, group named for their 2022 album
title, followed by a Remedy II.
B+(**) [bc]
Soccer Mommy: Evergreen (2024, Loma Vista):
Singer-songwriter Sophie Allison, fourth studio album since
2016, settling in for the long haul.
B+(*) [sp]
Tyshawn Sorey/Adam Rudolph: Archaisms II (2023
[2024], Meta): Two percussionists, Rudolph listed first on the
previous volume, Sorey's credit for piano/drumset, with three
more names in a second tier on the cover: Sae Hashimoto, Russell
Greenberg, Levy Lorenzo, each credit "multiple percussion," with
Lorenzo's adding "electronic percussion."
B+(**) [sp]
Squarepusher: Dostrotime (2024, Warp): English
electronics producer Tom Jenkinson, debut (Feed Me Weird
Things 1996), I've only heard one previous album, but this
popped up as Bleep's best record pick this year. It
does have its moments.
B+(***) [sp]
Peter Van Huffel/Meinrad Kneer/Yorgos Dimitriadis:
Synomilies (2022 [2024], Evil Rabbit): Free jazz trio
of alto/baritone sax, bass, and drums.
B+(**) [bc]
Friso van Wijck: Friso van Wijck's Candy Container
(2024, TryTone): Dutch drummer, has side credits going back to 1992,
but unclear whether this is his first as leader. Two saxophonists,
two guitarists, one bassist, geared for conflict, and sometimes
resolution,
B+(***) [cd]
Andy Wheelock/Whee 3 Trio: In the Wheelhouse (2024,
OA2): Drummer, seems to be his first album (Discogs shows one side
credit), trio includes Walter Gorra (piano) and Gonzalo Teppa (bass),
but the record is really dominated by the guitar of "special guest"
Gilad Hekselman.
B+(**) [cd]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Roy Hargrove's Crisol: Grande-Terre (1998 [2024],
Verve): Trumpet player (1969-2018), one of the leading lights of
the big 1990's hard bop revival, took a shot at Latin jazz in
1997 with his Grammy-winning Habana, takes his concept on
the road here, to Guadeloupe, where he found saxophonist André
Schwarz-Bart (only Hargrove, trombonist Frank Lacy, and the two
percussionists continue from the album).
B+(***) [sp]
Andrew Hill Sextet Plus Ten: A Beautiful Day Revisited
(2002 [2024], Palmetto, 2CD): Pianist (1931-2007), recorded a series
of now-classic Blue Note albums starting with 1963's Black Fire
up through 1970, after which, like so many, his discography wanders
around Europe -- Shades, on Soul Note in 1986, is a fine example --
but he got more attention on the rare occasions when he resurfaced on
American labels: Blue Note in 1989 and 2006, and Palmetto in 2000
(Dusk) and 2002 (A Beautiful Day). I liked the Blue
Notes (especially Awakening), but at the time was less happy
with the Palmettos, especially the live big band album reissued
here, resequenced and expanded (82 minutes), and somewhat better
for it. Note credit for Ron Horton: "arranged by, conductor, music
director, liner notes," with Matt Balitsaris as producer and engineer.
B+(**) [cd]
Charlie Parker: Bird in Kansas City (1941-51 [2024],
Verve): They scraped the bottom of Parker's barrel so long ago that
at this point that one no longer knows whether to laugh or cry at
the news of previously unheard Bird. These 13 tracks are united by
being recorded on Parker's home turf, and by sounding just like you
expect Parker to sound. First half was recorded at the home of Phil
Baxter in 1951, with bass and drums (no names). The second half has
a 1944 studio session with guitar (Efferge Ware) and drums (Edward
Phillips), and two songs from 1941 with Jay McShann's Orchestra
(with vocal). The informality of the first half is most appealing,
but far from momentous. Sound is so-so, but I've heard far worse
on records that have been praised ridiculously (like Bird at
St. Nick's).
B+(**) [sp]
Bernie Senensky: Moment to Moment (2001-20 [2024],
Cellar Music): Canadian pianist, has a couple albums from 1976
and 1981, picking up the pace in the 1990s, skipping a decade,
adding a few more since 2011. Cover gives "featuring" credit to
Eric Alexander (tenor sax), Kieran Overs (bass), and Joe
Farnsworth (drums) for the 2001 set (six tracks), slipping in
two more tracks from 2020 with different bass-drums.
B+(***) [sp]
Old music:
Eric Alexander: Man With a Horn (1997, Milestone):
Mainstream tenor saxophonist, recorded his first albums in 1992,
so this one, which Penguin Guide rates his best, counts as
his eighth. Mostly quartet with Cedar Walton (piano), Dwayne Burno
(bass), and Joe Farnsworth (drums), with added brass on three tracks
(Jim Rotondi trumpet, Steve Davis trombone).
B+(***) [yt]
Blue Muse ([2019], Blues Maker Foundation):
Various artists sampler, no recording dates but presumably
recent, as the Foundation/label has been cultivating local
talent, but it's salted with a few names most recognize.
B+(***) [bc]
Andrew Hill: But Not Farewell (1990 [1991],
Blue Note): The pianist's much-heralded return to Blue Note in
1989 (Eternal Spirit) was short-lived, with this set of
scraps released only in Japan, so it was "farewell," at least
until 2006's Time Lines. Four quintet tracks, with Greg
Osby (alto/soprano sax), Robin Eubanks (trombone), bass, and
drums. The fifth track is a duo with Osby, and the last two
are solo. The quintet pieces are typical of his avant-postbop,
and the solos are nice and thoughtful.
B+(**) [sp]
Ruckus Juice & Chittlins: The Great Jug Bands Vol. 1
(1927-35 [1998], Yazoo): Nice sampler of vintage jug bands, easily
identified by "Jug" in the group name (most famously, Memphis Jug
Band, Cannon's Jug Stompers).
B+(***) [sp]
Ruckus Juice & Chittlins: The Great Jug Bands Vol. 2
(1927-35 [1998], Yazoo): A second helping. I haven't checked many
of the dates, but the cover says "1920's and 30's," and I found
this same range quickly enough. No drop-off here: I recognize
more songs, and most of the ones I don't have an extra step to
them.
A- [sp]
Trout Fishing in America: Safe House (2022, Trout):
Duo from Houston, Keith Gromwood and Ezra Idlet, two dozen albums
since 1979.
B+(*) [sp]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Holman Álvarez: Hidden Objects (Sunnyside) [11-08]
- Duck Baker: Breakdown Lane: Free Jazz Guitar 1976-1998 (ESP-Disk) [11-01]
- Joe Fahey: Andrea's Exile (Rough Fish): LP+CD
- Ben Goldberg/Todd Sickafoose/Scott Amendola: Here to There (Secret Hatch) [10-25]
- John Hollenbeck & NDR Bigband: Colouring Hockets (Plexatonic) [11-15]
- Cliff Korman Trio: Urban Tracks (SS) [12-06]
- David Maranha/Rodrigo Amado: Wrecks (Nariz Entupido) [10-25]
- Margaret Slovak & Chris Maresh: A Star's Light Does Fall (Slovak Music) [11-01]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Saturday, November 16, 2024
The 19th Annual Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll Begins
Back in 2006, Francis Davis decided to supplement his annual
end-of-year top-ten at the Village Voice by running a poll of a
circle
of critics "currently living in New York and/or writing for
New York-based publications." I qualified, not as a resident
(although I had lived there in the late 1970s), but because I
was writing the Voice's
jazz consumer guide -- which, in
an effort to fill Gary Giddins' shoes, added breadth of coverage
to Davis's depth.
Davis always insisted on printing every individual ballot,
but in 2009 the Voice's IT department balked, so music editor
Rob Harvilla asked me to post them on one of my websites. When
Davis left the Voice, he decided to continue the poll, and went
looking for a new host. By then, Harvilla had left the Voice,
and landed at the music streaming service Rhapsody, where he
could sponsor the poll. Davis asked me to help, so I did, as
I continued to do, as the poll later moved to NPR and ArtsFuse.
(In 2022, I wrote a
history of the poll, at least in terms of my involvement.)
Early on, Davis did everything, and just dumped whatever he
had on me at the end. Which turned out, as the poll grew over
100 and up towards 150 critics -- now nationwide, plus a small
contingent of international critics -- I felt the need to get
organized and mechanized, eventually writing some software to
count the ballots and format the web pages. By then I had made
myself indispensable, and as Davis in recent years has been
beset by declining health, he wound up trusting me to take his
baby over. I think 2022 was the tipping point from which I took
over (with him lurking).
While we're still in touch, this year it's pretty much just
me, so I've started to change things a bit. My first big change
was back in June, when I decided to run a
Mid-Year Poll.
Expecting a light turnout, I changed the point-weights for ranked
ballots, compressing the range from 10-to-1 down to 3-to-1. I've
never done a systematic study of it, but I've always suspected
his scheme of distorting the results. This also gave me a chance
to get rid of the 5.5 points for unranked ballots. Unfortunately,
that didn't get rid of fractional point values, but they seem
like less of an anomaly now. All of that required some hacking,
but it's done now, and I'm generally happy with the new scheme
(and got literally zero blowback, probably a combination of
don't care and didn't notice), so I'm carrying it forward.
I also increased the Rara Avis -- Davis's preferred term,
which I've never understood but am slowly getting used to --
ballot choices from 3 to 5 (with the option, as always, of
fewer, even zero), which turned out to be widely welcomed. I
also dispensed with the special categories (Vocal, Latin, Debut),
which often seemed to me like more trouble than they were worth.
Davis urged me to reconsider, so I have, but I've rethought how
they work. I intend to write this up more precisely and include
it in the supplementary documentation on the
poll website,
but the gist of it is that I want to encourage people who care
most about those categories to offer more picks, so that we
wind up with a better picture of the category. Davis's rules --
one pick per category, which if in your top-ten has to be the
top eligible pick there -- resulted in short lists that were
often totally swept by one breakout artist (e.g., Cécile
McLorin Savant in Vocal, Miguel Zenón in Latin, and whoever
Blue Note's rookie of the year was in Debut; those people
will still win under the new system, but at least they'll
have some competition).
I have several underlying considerations in making these
changes. I bring two basic skills to this poll: I'm a critic
(which is to say, someone who observes and deconstructs to
figure out how things work), and I'm an engineer (which is
someone who builds things to work better). So one big thing
I try to do is to make it easier for more people to vote,
while also making it easier for me to manage the process.
One thing I've noticed in previous years is that we create
a lot of churn when trying to enforce arbitrary rules, so
I've tried to reduce this by allowing more flexibility.
Some time ago, we decided that "Latin" and "Vocal" are
whatever the voter thinks they are. This year, I'm further
relaxing the rules on New vs. Old music, and on Debut --
I'm still providing guidelines, and I may note what appear
to be anomalous choices, but I'm not into forcing things,
especially when I can get good data easier.
I started calling this the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll
a couple years back, after several voters had coined the term.
It seemed like a good idea, not just to honor him but to help
keep his vision for the poll front and center. He always saw
the voters as colleagues, and the poll as part of the process
by which we individuals come to think of ourselves as a
community. In continuing this poll, I hope to serve our
community, and perhaps to extend it. Jazz is good for us,
and good for the world.
One constant struggle I have in running the poll is figuring
out who should vote, inviting them, and getting them to respond.
Davis did most of that work, even recently, and always struck
me as much better connected than I am. I've inherited his lists,
and added a few names along the way, and will continue to do
so. You might look at last year's
voter list, and see if there is anyone else you think
we should extend invitations to. (We have sent invitations
to several dozen more people. Turnout is usually about 75%
of those invited, with the Mid-Year about half that, but
the previous voter list is the only one I can share here.)
I have a mail list based on my server with most of these
names on it, and I can send notices to them pretty easily, but
due to the "poor reputation" of my server it seems that only
about half of those messages actually reach their destination.
(In many cases, the mail is flagged as "spam" and diverted to
the recipient's spam folder, so it's a good practice to check
yours, and do whatever you can to allow delivery of this mail.)
I sent a notice out yesterday, to kick off this year's poll.
For anyone who should have received it but didn't, here is
the letter:
Just a brief note to get things going. Yes, we are running another
(our 19th annual) Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll. I missed my
self-imposed deadline of sending ballot invitations out by November
15, but you should receive yours sometime in the next week. Meanwhile,
if you're on this mailing list, consider yourself invited. You can
find a rough draft of the invitation
here.
If you want to get this over with now (in which case, bless you),
just grab the file, follow the instructions, and email it to me. I'm
making a couple tweaks to what we've done in the past. As in the
Mid-Year Poll, your Rara Avis ballot can list up to 5 (instead of 3)
albums (anything recorded in 2014 or before belong there; anything
later in New Releases, but I'm trying to do less bickering as I get
older). I'm also reusing the points scheme from the Mid-Year Poll,
which allows extra points for higher-ranked records, but no so many as
to produce the distortions we got under the 10-to-1 point
scheme. Those changes are easy for me, because I've already done the
programming.
The other tweak will be in the Vocal/Latin/Debut categories, and
this I'm going to have to do some programming for. I'll explain it in
more detail when I do, but I figured the idea here was to generate
more album lists, so I didn't like capping the list at one album each
(I'm allowing 3 now, and if anyone seriously want to argue for 5, I
might allow that). Moreover, I'm dispensing with the requirement that
if you vote for an album in your top-ten list, you have to vote for it
in the category list. I'm going to come up with some way to count
eligible albums from top-ten lists in their categories, so what you
list under the category is always extra. You can, if that's your
thing, pick 10 Latin albums under New Releases, and add 3 more under
Latin. It would help me if you designate which New Releases picks you
think belong to which categories. We've given voters a lot of leeway
on Latin and Vocal in the past. I don't want to impose my definitions
on you, so it helps if you help me here.
I don't have a precise definition of Debut yet, but will work on
it. We've been very strict about that in the past, and I think we
should be less strict. One thing I do think is that this should be an
individual, and not a group (maybe if everyone in the groups is
strictly a debut, but that rarely happens). So this, too, will be more
your choice, with less pushback from me (although I will reject any
vote that strikes me as a prank).
The website will
be updated as I have more information. I will try to answer most
questions there, and you can help by asking me questions. I have a way
to print out a list of albums that have votes, and possibly to break
them down by category, which could generate a debut list. I know of
one album that was released in two physical pieces but is really
intended as a single album (I hear the artist blames the label), so
I'll rule on and note things like that there.
I use this mail list for announcements, so respond to me, not to
the list (which won't work, but leaves me stuff to clean up). While
this list is pretty comprehensive, we've been plagued in the past by
spam filters that, for no reason I can fathom, just don't like me. I
can get around that by mailing individual invites out, but that takes
me many hours, so I only want to go through that once. I'm going to
sign up for a commercial email list service, and move everyone onto
it. Hopefully that will work better, which will allow me to offer
updates and nagging. Don't expect (or fear) a lot of mail, but be
aware that something different will be coming. I'd advise you to check
you spam directories, but if you're reading this, you don't need that
advice, and if you're not, it wouldn't help.
I've had a couple people offer to help with various tasks. It's
enough that I should probably set up an admin discussion list. If you
want to get in on that, either to help or just to lurk, let me
know.
One perennial question is who else should be invited? Let me know
if you have any suggestions. That, plus nitpicking on the website, are
likely to be high -priority discussion items.
I don't really have any news I can share about Francis Davis's
health, other than that his participation in this his Poll is greatly
diminished. I've been involved in it since its inception, and have
done most of the work for several years now. I appreciate the
continued trust you've shown in me in taking this over. Thanks.
I should probably clarify one thing. Although everyone on the
mail list this was sent to is eligible and invited to vote, not
everyone who we mean to invite is on the list. Moreover, history
shows that only about half of the people on the list actually see
the emails (mostly due to spam filtering). I have a more robust
method of sending invitations, which is to run a form letter
through Thunderbird's MailMerge extension, which turns it into
a separate, customized letter for each recipient. Those drafts
are them stuck in an outbox queue, from which I can send them
one-by-one. (My SMTP server chokes if I try to automate sending.)
This process takes 3-4 hours, beyond writing the letter, so I
don't like to do it. I am going to do this when I get the lists
sorted out better, hopefully in 3-5 days, but rather than wait
that long, I used the mail list, and now this post, to get the
ball rolling. Nice that I already have four ballots waiting to
be counted.
We're looking for critics with credentials: mostly writers,
although we also have a pretty substantial sampling of radio
journalists (Davis was much more tuned into that world than I am,
but like writers they are cultivated by publicists, so they are
exposed to a wider range of new music than normal consumers, and
have some practice at picking out what they prefer). Nowadays,
credentials can even extend down to personal blogs -- you don't
have to make a living as a professional critic (which, in any
case, is nearly impossible these days), but to qualify you have
to pursue this public service seriously.
We've generally avoided inviting two especially knowledgeable
groups of people, who seemingly have conflicts of interest:
musicians, and publicists. This isn't a hard prohibition, but
I have retained Davis's rule about not voting for any record
you have personal involvement in (which for critics often means
writing liner notes; many critics also play music, but that seems
to cause few problems). I'm open to considering exceptions, but
need to see some open-mindedness.
This is not a "readers poll" or "fan poll," although in my
experience there are many fans who are knowledgeable and discerning
enough to rank as critics. During the Mid-Year Poll, I toyed with
the idea of tabulating ballots from non-critics, but in the end
I got virtually none. One thing I concluded from this is that
readers polls are a measure of how many readers you have. As I
have very few, it's hard to get a decent sample. So even if I
wanted to run a fan poll, I would be very hard pressed to do
so. Still, I would be curious if anyone wants to submit an
unsolicited ballot. If you do have credentials, please point
them out, which may get you qualified. Even if you don't, I
might just factor your list into my
EOY Aggregate
(which includes most publications, at least as collated by
Album of the Year -- which I find most useful among its
various competitors -- but also lots of personal lists,
mostly from my own social media hangouts).
As noted in the letter, I still have a lot of work to do on
the website, as well as ambitions to rework the whole thing to
make it more complete and coherent. If you are interested in
helping on this,
contact me (or use the
question form, and I'll consider
adding you to a more technical mailing list. (I'm still shopping
for mail list software. Depending on what I find, I may break
out several lists.)
Since I'm posting, a couple more personal notices. As I explained
last week, I've given up on writing weekly
Speaking of
Which posts. However, I have, added a few more items to
last week's post, especially as I've found open tabs with
articles I meant to mention, or marginally later "post-mortem"
arguments (starting, as these things often do, in the "chatter"
section). But I haven't added new news items, such as anything
on Trump's post-election appointments (horrifying as they are).
Part of this is cost-benefit analysis, but part of it is also
post-traumatic stress desensitization. I'm already way too
conscious of what's happening to feel the need to research
it further.
I've gotten some very nice comments on the last post, which
I appreciate. Some were included in questions, which I will in
due course attempt to answer. I'm making more regular entries
in my notebook, which is available but not something I publicize. I
tweeted one
article recommendation, and may do more as I see fit.
We'll see what else it makes sense to write and post.
Music Week
will continue on its usual schedule, at least through the
end of the year. I'll probably offer updates on the Poll
both here and on X. (I was going to do one on X today, then
decided it would be better to post this first, then link to
it.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Tuesday, November 12, 2024
Music Week
November archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43153 [43118] rated (+35), 26 [36] unrated (-10).
After last Tuesday's election, I took a couple days out, basically
hiding from the news, as anyone would do when faced with traumatic
stress. I had written a full-throated
endorsement of Harris, which was driven far less by what I saw
as her virtues than with my understanding of the full horror that
four more years of Trump as president would bring. Perhaps now I
should edit that to say "will," as Trump won, Harris lost, and
ultimately we'll be the ones paying for this very bad decision.
By the time I was ready to look at the news, I had decided that
the week's
Speaking of Which would be my last. My reasoning is in the
wrap-up section, so no need to reiterate it here. But the
decision helped free me to navigate the morass of punditry (and
sometimes news). The result is the longest such column ever,
weighing in at 265 links, 26798 words, even before I added a
few scattered items today.
I can't swear that I'll never write political commentary again.
I'm likely to respond to
questions. In general, I tend to
be better at responding to requests than at making my own plans.
(Indeed, my entire career as a rock and jazz critic only happened
because Robert Christgau asked me to write something for him. And
when I decided, with my wife's blessing, to try to return to
writing around 2001, I had little interest in focusing on music,
but Christgau again came through with the requests I wound up
spending so much time on. If someone asks me, especially if they
have a reputable outlet with the promise of an audience, competent
editing, and possible collaboration, I'd give any such offer some
consideration. But I've concluded that spending so much time and
effort self-publishing huge pieces that get virtually no feedback
is no way to live.
This also means that I'm unlikely to renew the domain for the
underutilized
Notes on Everyday Life. I published the Harris endorsement
there in hopes of getting a few comments. All I got was one
disagreement (from my wife), and a couple pieces of spam.
More importantly, the long considered, often mentioned big
political book is now officially dead. I briefly had the idea
of rummaging through the campaign
Speaking of Which posts and trying to compile a What I
Learned from the 2024 Election book, but that's pretty
dead, too. It's not so much that I've lost interest in the
key issues of political philosophy, but my idea that we need
to find a modus vivendi to work within the Democratic Party
has been pretty severely shaken. It's not so much that I've
changed my mind there, but I'd rather write about ideas that
could actually make a difference, as opposed to pandering to
people who seem unserious about either winning or solving any
problems.
I'm unlikely to sort out my future writing focus until end
of year/early 2025. That's because my immediate shift will be
to the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll. We usually send out
ballot invites mid-November, which is this week. Although I
was thinking about this a couple months ago, I've had very
little time to do anything through today (or maybe tomorrow,
when the contractor returns to fix up some problems in our
bedroom/closet project). I need to set up the website, and
kick off a letter -- at least a notice that formal invites
will be sent in another week or so. That means dealing with
the usual email problems, not that they're really solvable
(i.e., workarounds rather than fixes).
I'm thinking about setting up a discussion list for people
who want to help out with the poll. If you want to help, let
me know, and we'll see what's possible. One thing that always
needs help is vetting possible new voters. Again, any ideas,
let me know.
The Arts Fuse will publish
the results, again. I'm thinking I'll go with a mid-December
deadline, publishing on or shortly after January 1.
I may write more on music in the coming period, or maybe not.
One thing I will do is work on the end-of-year files for
jazz (which I've
been maintaining since the mid-year poll) and non-jazz (doesn't
exist yet, but will before long). Also, the
tracking file (currently
1919 records listed, 952 that I have heard or at least have
in my queue), and the two
files for tracking metacritic grades and EOY list mentions:
(new music and
(old/reissued music.
EOY lists start appearing about now -- UK pubs tend to get the
jump here, we already have lists from
Uncut,
Mojo, and
Decibel. The latter have only rarely been updated since mid-year,
so need a lot of work.
I'll let this week's music speak for themselves. Good new albums
by Steve Coleman and Rebecca Kilgore led me to look up some of their
old albums. Two Kilgore albums I wanted to check out but couldn't
find were the eponymous 1998 one on Jump (a Penguin Guide 4-star),
and a Marilyn Monroe tribute from 2012.
My two recent books read on Israel are good and short. Ta-Nehisi
Coates (The Message) took a while to get interesting, but
paid off in the end. Ilan Pappe's A Very Short History of the
Israel-Palestine Conflict seemed like stuff I already knew, but
I did pick up some finer points, and appreciate the organization.
I had Gideon Levy's The Killing of Gaza: Reports on a Catastrophe
on deck, but picked up Marshall Berman's All That Is Solid Melts
Into Air for some emergency reading material, and was immediately
struck by several things. I wanted to drop a big quote (also one from
Coates) into Speaking of Which, but didn't manage. I stopped reading
critical theory in the mid-1970s (when I got a job, left college, and
got into rock criticism), but I did pick up a copy of Berman's 1983
book (my cover is different from the one pictured left, but this is
the best I could do). I'm not sure if I'll stick with it, but it
seems like an important book.
Note that at least three important musicians died in recent days:
Roy Haynes, Lou Donaldson, and Ella Jenkins. See
Speaking of Which for obituary notices.
I've mostly ignored new stories on likely Trump appointments, but
most since I wrote the
second intro -- where I raised the possibility that Trump might
pull some of his campaign punches to maintain popularity -- have been
truly abhorent, especially
Marco Rubio for Secretary of State,
Kristi Noem for Secretary of DHS (meaning immigration) and
(seems to be more of a rumor)
Ken Paxton for Attorney General. The odds that the Trump
administration will be even worse than expected seem to be growing.
New records reviewed this week:
Ashtyn Barbaree: Sent Through the Ceiling (2024,
Artists 3 60): Country singer-songwriter, from Arkansas, has a
2018 EP and and a 2022 debut album which I checked a couple months
ago, when I got this promo, and found "nice enough." This second
album is nicer still, with some solid songwriting, good voice,
and serious fiddle.
B+(***) [cd]
Big Bambi: Compositions for Bass Guitar & Bassoon,
Vol. I (2022 [2024], Greene Avenue Music): Duo of Maribel
Alonso (bassoon) and Jochem van Dijk (bass guitar/electronics),
as advertised, interesting as far as it goes.
B+(**) [cd]
Steve Coleman and Five Elements: PolyTropos/Of Many
Turns (2024, Pi, 2CD): Alto saxophonist, started back
in the mid-1980s developing a strain of funk-fusion, especially
in his M-Base Collective. I should probably revisit those albums,
which I wasn't much into (excepting 1993's The Tao of Mad
Phat/Fringe Zones). But his later postbop, from 2013's
Functional Arrhythmias on, has been very engaging,
especially this live double, with sets from Paris and Voiron.
The group is a quartet, with Jonathan Finlayson interweaving
on trumpet, backed by Rich Brown on bass, and Sean Rickman on
drums.
A- [cd]
Caleb Wheeler Curtis: The True Story of Bears and the
Invention of the Battery (2024, Imani, 2CD): Leader
is mostly a saxophonist (tenor, sopranino, stritch), but also
plays trumpet. Title is from the first disc, with the second
titled Raise Four: Monk the Minimalist. Both are trios
with bass and drums -- Sean Conly and Michael Sarin up front,
Eric Revis and Justin Faulkner on the bonus. Both impress.
A- [cd]
Andy Haas: For the Time, Being (2023 [2024],
Resonant Music): Saxophonist, originally from Toronto, where
he started in the new wave Martha and the Muffins, based in
New York, also worked in groups God Is My Co-Pilot and Radio
I-Ching. Mixed bag of experimental releases under his own name,
but I much liked 2023's Accidentals (lead credit Don
Fiorino). This one is solo, his credits: "saxophone, strap-on
tremolo, mm w/hazaral, vinyl LP manipulation" -- so mostly
sounds like electronics, or scattered sound effects.
B+(*) [cd]
Laird Jackson: Life (2024, self-released):
Jazz singer-songwriter, has previous albums from 1994 and
2002, most songs here originals co-written by Jeff Haynes
(percussion, bass on one track, vocals on two). This is an
ambitious work, a bit slow and ponderous for my attention
span, but the "Wild Is the Wind" cover is striking, and
there may well be more to it.
B+(*) [cd]
Ariel Kalma/Jeremiah Chiu/Marta Sofia Honer: The Closest
Thing to Silence (2022-23 [2024], International Anthem):
French ambient composer, many albums since 1975, collaborators
here did a 2022 album I liked, Recordings From the Åland
Islands. Notes on wrapper: "Ephemeral, eylsian electro-acoustic
collusion birthing a realized humanized multi-generational
poly-technological expression." Another of those Hassel-like
"fourth world" vibes.
B+(**) [sp]
Pandelis Karayorgis/George Kokkinaris: Out From Athens
(2023 [2024], Driff): Piano and bass duets (one solo each), the
former born in Athens but long-based in Boston, with many albums
since 1989.
B+(**) [bc]
Rebecca Kilgore: A Little Taste: A Tribute to Dave
Frishberg (2023 [2024], Cherry Pie Music): Standards
singer, b. 1949, one of her first albums (1994) had her only
backed by Frishberg on piano, a formula they repeated several
times since. Discogs says she "retired from performing in
2024 after being diagnosed with dementia with Lewy Bodies,"
so this looks like it could be her last. In between, she
mostly recorded with retro swing and trad jazz artists,
especially for Arbors, where she always seemed right at home.
I should check out what I've missed. She gets more backing
here, including some strings, and limits herself to 11 songs
(38:22), but she sounds fine, and the late pianist's songs
are as witty as ever, even without his sly drawl.
B+(***) [cd]
Lady Gaga: Harlequin (2024, Interscope): Tie-in
to the Todd Phillips movie, Joker: Folie à Deux, which she
co-stars in (as Harleen "Lee" Quinzel) and wrote the soundtrack
for. I don't know how much of this features in the film: one of
two originals is "The Joker," but the rest are standards (some
with added Stefani Germanotta credits), which suggests continuity
from her Tony Bennett duet albums. They are splashy, but not
especially interesting.
B+(*) [sp]
Brian Lynch: 7X7BY7 (2021 [2024], Holistic MusicWorks):
Trumpet player, started mainstream but moved quickly into Latin jazz,
especially once he joined Eddie Palmieri. Septet here is a good
example of that, with Craig Handy (tenor sax), Alex Wintz (guitar),
Luis Perdomo (piano), bass, drums, and percussion.
B+(***) [cd]
Lyrics Born: Goodbye, Sticky Rice (2024, Mobile
Home): Rapper Tom Shimura, originally from Tokyo but grew up in
Salt Lake City and Berkeley, started as half of Latyrx, has a
superb string of albums going, with an exuberant beat and extra
vocals that appeal to me the same way Parliament did in the 1970s.
He's billed this as his "final album." At 52, he may feel he's
"cooked," but even if this feels offhanded, he's still got a lot
going on.
A- [sp]
JD McPherson: Nite Owls (2024, New West):
Singer-songwriter, guitarist from Oklahoma, country roots, favors
rockabilly, fifth album since 2012, includes a Duane Eddy nod.
B+(**) [sp]
Willie Nelson: Last Leaf on the Tree (2024, Legacy):
Ninety now, second album this year, 76th "solo studio album" (per
Wikipedia), son Micah Nelson produced and co-wrote the one new
original (a cover of an older Nelson song is a hidden track).
Title from one of two Tom Waits covers. Production is spare and
laid back, which suits him fine (not that all the songs hold up).
B+(**) [sp]
Outer Spaceways Incorporated: Kronos Quartet & Friends
Meet Sun Ra (2024, Red Hot +): Discogs files under Kronos
Quartet, but they don't seem to play on all of the tracks, while
numerous "friends" come and go. The label has been producing
various artists specials going back to their initial 1990 AIDS
benefit (Red Hot + Blue), including a couple tied to the
music of Sun Ra. Some interesting stuff here, including Laurie
Anderson and Jlin, but it can get pretty scattered.
B+(**) [sp]
Cene Resnik/Samo Salamon/Samuel Ber: The Thinkers
(2023 [2024], Samo): Tenor sax/guitar/drums trio, the
former from the group Siddharta (1999-2007), like Salomon from
Slovenia.
B+(***) [bc]
Kevin Sun: Quartets (2022-23 [2024], Endectomorph
Music, 2CD): Tenor saxophonist, debut a Trio in 2018, has
chops plus a deep understanding of sax lore. Two sets here, both
with bassist Walter Stinson, one with Dana Saul (piano) and Matt
Honor (drums), the other with Christian Li (piano) and Kayvon
Gordon (drums). He's impressive here, but stretched a bit thin.
B+(***) [cd]
Western Jazz Collective: The Music of Andrew Rathbun
(2021 [2024], Origin): Rathbun is a tenor/soprano saxophonist who's
been kicking around since his 2000 debut, and he's part of this septet
(plus guest), the "Western" hailing from Western Michigan University
(Kalamazoo, MI).
B+(**) [cd]
Tucker Zimmerman: Dance of Love (2024, 4AD):
Singer-songwriter, b. 1941 in Sonoma County, California, debut
album Ten Songs in 1969, more through 1983, with a couple
revivals since. I'd never heard of him, but evidently David Bowie
was a fan, as is Adrienne Lenker, whose Big Thief backs him here,
with perfectly unobtrusive music he can talk or sing over, with
Lenker and Marie Claire backing.
A- [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Black Artist Group: For Peace and Liberty: In Paris,
Dec 1972 (1972 [2024], WeWantSounds): Avant-jazz group
from St. Louis, 1968-72, aka BAG, just one live album before
this tape surfaced. Quintet with three members who later became
well-known: Oliver Lake (alto sax), Baikida Carroll (trumpet),
Joseph Bowie (trombone), Ron LeFlore (trumpet), Charles Shaw
(percussion).
B+(***) [sp]
Old music:
Steve Coleman Group: Motherland Pulse (1985, JMT):
Alto saxophonist, originally from Chicago, moved to New York in
1978, worked in big bands (Thad Jones/Mel Lewis, Sam Rivers) and
joined Dave Holland's Quintet, with this his first album as leader,
an adventurous slab of postbop maneuvers. With Geri Allen (piano),
Lonnie Plaxico (bass), and Marvin Smith (drums), plus Graham Haynes
(trumpet) on two tracks, and a Cassandra Wilson vocal (possibly the
album's high point).
B+(***) [yt]
Steve Coleman and Five Elements: The Sonic Language of
Myth: Believing, Learning, Knowing (1999, RCA Victor):
"Five Elements" has been Coleman's most common group name since
1986, with 23 albums to date, but the lineups have varied -- it
would be nice to have one of those Wikipedia-style timelines to
plot it all out. Aside from the alto sax, the core group here is
Anthony Tidd (electric bass), Sean Rickman (drums), and Miguel
"Anga" Diaz (percussion), although only Coleman plays on all
tracks, and many others join in on various tracks, including
tenor sax (Ravi Coltrane and Craig Handy), trumpet (Ralph
Alessi and Shane Endsley), piano (Vijay Iyer and Jason Moran),
strings, and vocals.
B+(***) [yt]
Steve Coleman and Five Elements: Drop Kick (1992,
RCA/Novus): Mostly riffing over funk beats, mostly from Reggie
Washington (electric bass) and Marvin "Smitty" Smith (drums),
some with James Weidman (piano/keyboards) and/or Michael Wimberly
(percussion), and an alternate bass/drums combo on three. Guest
spots include Lance Bryant (tenor sax), Grgeg Osby (alto sax),
Don Byron (clarinet/bass clarinet), and Cassandra Wilson (vocals).
B+(*) [sp]
Steve Coleman and the Mystic Rhythm Society: Myths, Modes
and Means (1995, Groovetown/RCA/BMG France): The first of
three CDs with the same cover logo:
"Recorded Live at the Hot Brass, 24-29 March, 1995." With Ralph
Alessi (trumpet) for a second horn, two name keyboard players
(Vijay Iyer and Andy Milne), funk rhythm and a few exotic
instruments (like Miya Masaoka's koto) and dancers.
B+(**) [sp]
Steve Coleman and Metrics: The Way of the Cipher
(1995, Groovetown/RCA/BMG France): Same cover sticker: "Recorded
Live at the Hot Brass, 24-29 March, 1995." Band is pretty much
the same (just Andy Milne on keyboards), but this time features
rappers (Black Indian, Kokayi, Sub Zero).
B+(**) [sp]
Steve Coleman: Invisible Paths: First Scattering
(2007, Tzadik): Alto saxophonist, solo album, pretty long at 71
minutes (16 pieces).
B+(*) [sp]
Rebecca Kilgore and Dave Frishberg: Not a Care in the
World (1995, Arbors): Standards singer, her second album
with the pianist backing, this one adding Dan Faehnle on guitar
for 10 (of 17) tracks (none by Frishberg, but you get "South
American Way" and a Jobim), ending with a delightful version of
"The Glow-Worm."
B+(**) [sp]
Rebecca Kilgore & Dave Frishberg: The Starlit Hour
(1997 [2001], Arbors): Just voice and piano, some applause, I'm not
seeing song credits but they're pretty standard.
B+(***) [r]
Rebecca Kilgore: Moments Like This (1998-99 [2001],
HeavyWood Music): Standards singer, backed by Randy Porter (piano),
Scott Steed (bass), and Neil Masson (drums).
B+(**) [sp]
Rebecca Kilgore and the Bobby Gordon Trio: Make Someone
Happy: A Further Remembrance of Maxine Sullivan, Volume Two
(2004 [2005], Audiophile): Follows her 2001 album, Harlem
Butterfly: A Remembrance of Maxine Sullivan, also recorded
with Gordon (clarinet), Chris Dawson (piano), and Hal Smith
(drums). Sullivan (1911-87) was a delightful singer, but I've
only sampled her lightly, and have no sense of her repertoire,
and tend to focus on the standards everybody's done. Kilgore
does a superb job with them, and I really enjoy the clarinet.
A- [sp]
Rebecca Kilgore: Rebecca Kilgore's Lovefest at the
Pizzarelli Party (2010, Arbors): With guitarist Bucky
Pizzarelli, his sone John (guitar) and Martin (bass), and some
others: Larry Fuller (piano), Aaron Weinstein (violin), Harry
Allen (tenor sax), and Tony Tedesco (drums).
B+(**) [r]
Rebecca Kilgore: With Hal Smith's Rhythmakers
(2015, Audiophile): Smith is a trad jazz drummer, from Arkansas,
side credits from 1972 with many notable bands, leader of his
own since 1984, with at least two previous albums featuring
singer Kilgore.
B+(*) [r]
Rebecca Kilgore With Hal Smith's Rhythmakers: Sings the
Music of Fats Waller (2016, Audiophile): The drummer's
group is well suited for a Waller program, with Chris Dawson
(piano) and Clint Baker (banjo) for rhythm, and all the right
horns: clarinet (Bobby Gordon), cornet (Marc Caparone), trombone
(Alan Adams), and alto sax (John Otto).
B+(***) [sp]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Michaël Attias: Quartet Music Vol. I: LuMiSong (Out of Your Head) [03-01]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Monday, November 11, 2024
Speaking of Which
Draft file opened 2024-11-06 2:00 PM.
Finally posted 2024-11-11 10:00 PM.
Added a couple small bits on 2024-11-12.
Also added a few more bits, all the way up to 2024-11-18,
but I swear, that's the end of it.These later bits have green change bars,
as opposed to red for the earlier adds.
Sections:
Trump won.
I don't know why. I cannot fathom why anyone, much less
an outright majority of voting Americans, could stand him, or could
in any way identify with him, let alone entrust him with great power.
It is not inconceivable to me that this result was rigged, with every
voting machine in the country shaving several points in his favor --
and that all the election denial hoopla of 2020 was just misdirection,
while they worked on perfecting the software.
Or, I suppose, it's possible that a thin majority of the American
people have become so soul-deadened, demented, and/or deranged that they
wish nothing more than to inflict this guy on the rest of us. In which
case, the obvious answer is "to dissolve the people and elect another."
The phrase comes from a
Bertolt Brecht poem, a bit of Communist Party humor, not really
applicable here, but it does convey the disconnect when you realize
that the people you got are not the ones you imagined or hoped for.
We need better politicians, but we also need to become better people,
not least to stop them from the temptation to gaslight us.
Personally, I was delighted when Kamala Harris ran away with the
Democratic nomination. I didn't think of her in terms of categories
or attributes, and was always annoyed when people brought up "first
woman," etc., like some kind of milestone. She just seemed like a
generic American -- at least in the America I know, which includes
many years of living in Kansas, as well as some in New York, New
Jersey, and Massachusetts. I knew that she wasn't a leftist, that
she was a shrewd and calculating politician, and that she circulated
easily among friends in high places. But she seemed personable and
relatable, flexible, nimble, like someone who could recognize problems
and try to do things to fix them. She seemed much better to me than
her predecessors (going back at least to 1992).
Besides, I'm old enough that I'm no longer enamored of utopia, nor
patient for the long struggle, so I wasn't inclined to criticize.
Surely, I figured, she must know what she's doing? And if not, if
she blew it, we could unload on her then. But why give Trump any
comfort from division. He was such a clear and present evil -- a
word I normally abjure, but why beat around the bush here? -- that
nothing could budge my vote from Harris. And now, like Hillary
Clinton, and unlike -- no matter how little regard you have for
him, Joe Biden -- she has committed the unpardonable sin of losing
to Trump.
Still, as I'm writing this intro, I don't feel like tearing into
her campaign or other shortcomings. As I collect links, I'm sure I
will nitpick here and there. But it's still hard for me to see why
she lost, or what else she could have done about it. That wasn't the
case with Hillary Clinton: her faults, both personal and political,
were obvious from the start, and the sanctimonious scapegoating for
her loss only heightened her flaws. I could reconcile myself with
the theory that Americans had candidates they disliked, but could
only vote one of them off the island, and they chose her, because
they knew her better. Surely, this year those same voters would
dispatch Trump? Even as his polls held up, I expected a last gasp
break toward sanity.
That it didn't happen suggests a much deeper problem, which
brings us back to the voters. Or should, if I could figure it
out. The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that America has been
in some kind of moral decline since approximately when I was
born -- in 1950, the week before Chinese volunteers entered
the Korean War and reversed the American advance, forcing a
stalemate, which American sore losers still refuse to accept.
Sure, Americans committed many sins before I was born, but
we could aim for better, and teach our children to make a
better world. The Hays Office made sure that the good guys
wore white hats, and triumphed in the end. I certainly grew
up believing in all that, seriously enough that when events
proved otherwise, I protected my ideals by turning against
the actual America. But what I never lost was the notion
that in the end, it will all turn out well.
We may not be at the end yet, but Trump sure seems like a
serious turn for the worse. He's four years older than I am,
but came from a completely different class and culture, and
at each step along the way he had different reactions and made
different choices, always breaking bad, which sometimes meant
embracing deteriorating social morality, and often accelerating
it. Oddly enough, he's the one who poses as a pious patriot.
Stranger still, lots of people believe him, perhaps because he
allows them to indulge their own vile impulses.
As far as I can tell, there are two types of Trump voter. On
the one hand, there are people who actually like him, who get
off on his arrogance and nastiness, and who like to see other
people hurt. (I've previously noted two types of Christians:
those who hope to help their fellows, and those who are more
focused on consigning those they disapprove of to hell. Trump
is practically a messiah for the latter group.) The second type
are party-liners, who will always vote Republican, no matter
how much they may disapprove of the candidate. The two groups
overlap, but each group extends the other, nudging a minority
up toward 50%.
Elite Republicans may not love Trump, but they'll do anything
to win -- their whole graft depends on it -- so they go along,
figuring they can control the damage (as well as profit from it).
This is much like the conservatives in Weimar Germany figuring
they can control Hitler -- meanwhile, Trump resembles Hitler at
least in his political pitch (his ability to rouse the passions
of people for whom economic conservatism has little appeal). Such
fascism analogies resonate for some people, especially on the left,
who know the history, but are meaningless to those who don't --
most Trump voters, although he seems to have some staff who revel
in it, as they keep sending dog whistles, not least to provoke
charges that never seem to work.
There is a certain genius to Trump/Republican politics, in how
they've manage to flip attacks into accolades: charges that would
discredit any normal candidate only seem to make Trump stronger,
and that rubs off on the rest of the Republicans. The key element
here has been the extraordinary success of partisan broadcasting,
keyed to fear, flattery, and rage: the net effect has been to sow
distrust and deny credibility to anything Democrats say or do,
while championing Republicans as defenders of true America. The
result is a tribe that has come to reject facts, reason, and/or
any hint of moral purpose: all are rejected as tools of the devil.
Trump adds very little of substance to this toxic infosystem,
but he does offer some kind of charisma or style, and disinhibition
(which passes for candor if you buy it, or cluelessness if you don't),
and serves as a lightning rod for attacks that only confirm the
bond between him and his fans. This can be very confusing for all
who are immune to or wary of his charms: his appeal makes no sense
to us, and meaningful response is nearly impossible. On the other
hand, they counter with the same logic and even more fervor, making
even less sense to us. The double standards are mind-boggling. For
example, one might try making a case that Trump has been unfairly
targeted by prosecutors, but how do you square that with his threats
to do much more of the same, and the "lock her up" chants?
But it's not just that Trump Republicans are easily deluded and
controlled by their media. That feat is built on top of much deeper
social trends that go back at least to the 1940s, with the founding
of the military-industrial complex and the extension of American
hegemony to serve global capitalism, with its attendant red scares,
both foreign and domestic. Americans had an idealized picture of
themselves coming out of WWII, which made the world Trump and I
grew up in. But the task of protecting capital turned into nasty
business, and we started to divide into one camp that relished the
fight, and another appalled by it. We started seeing films where
bad guys were recruited to do dirty work for supposedly good guys,
who turned bad themselves. Before long, American presidents were
ordering assassinations, kidnapping, and torture. Trump started
out with his Nazi-symp father, his apprenticeship under Roy Cohn,
and his mobster connections. He fit right in. He only had to wait
until America became rotten enough to embrace him. Bush's Global
War on Terror made that possible.
Well, the other part of the equation is the rise of the super
rich, made possible by the ideological attack on the notion of
public interest, and by the assertion of "greed is good," and the
general belief that "might makes right" (i.e., anything you can
get away with is fine). The richer the supers got, the more they
leveraged their wealth through lobbies, PR firms, donations, and
media to turn government to do their bidding, further increasing
their wealth. They usually rented their spokesmen, but Trump,
having personified great wealth on TV, gave them a new angle: he
could have it both ways, claiming their authority while pretending
to be free of their influence.
I'm not sure how much of the election any of this explains,
although it may help explain why Democratic attack ads don't seem
to be drawing any blood. As with Republican attack ads, they may
do nothing more than confirm one's own virtues (or vices if that's
your thing). But it does make one wonder if raising money isn't
overrated.
We could, of course, look into the many ways Democrats have
contributed to their downfall. The losers are always quick with
thoughts, so a fair number of them will show up in links below.
I may have more to say on this below, but for here I'll pass,
except to point out a couple of fundamental dynamics:
There is a deep divide and conflict within Democratic ranks,
between corporate/neoliberal and populist/democratic tendencies;
they both share a fear of the right but are deeply distrustful of
each other. That produces acrimony, as you'll see below.
Democrats are subject to higher expectations than Republicans.
Democrats are expected not just to win elections, but to address
issues successfully, and are held accountable for any failures.
Republicans only have to win, and there are few strictures on
how low they can go to win. When they do win, they can readily
screw up, but are rarely held accountable.
Democrats are also held to higher ethical and moral
standards. Republicans may even embrace their own's misbehavior,
while excoriating Democrats for the same faults. (Thus, for
instance, Hillary Clinton is horribly corrupt, but Donald Trump
is just a rogueish businessman.)
Democrats believe in public service, in representing all
people, and as such they credit Republicans with legitimacy where
Republicans deny any to Democrats, and seek to cripple them wherever
possible. Republicans see politics as a zero-sum game.
The net effect is that Democrats campaign at a severe handicap.
Republicans can lie, cheat, and steal, but Democrats can't -- and
in many cases don't even know how. Democrats want to be liked, even
by Republicans (and especially by the rich), so they are careful
not to offend. (Even so, a casual reference to "garbage" gets blown
up sky high, while Republican references to "vermin" get laughed
away.) Republicans can exaggerate for effect, while Democrats pull
their punches, and that muddies their messages. Democrats cede
critical ground in arguments, seemingly legitimizing Republican
stands, which only become more extreme. The media love loud and
brusque, so they lap it up, amplify it, spread it everywhere,
dispensing with reason and nuance, and especially reality (the
most boring subject of all).
Then there are structural factors. America is divided into
states, districts, precincts, all of which can be gerrymandered,
as Republicans were quick to turn to their advantage. The Senate
is grossly undemocratic, and the filibuster there has made it
impossible for Democrats to pass meaningful reforms, even on
the rare occasions when they seem to have majority power. The
Republicans have packed the courts, which they're increasingly
using to restrict executive power by Democrats, and to increase
it by Republicans. Many judges are protected from any oversight
by lifetime appointments. Many reforms, as well as redress by
impeachment, require supermajorities, which Republicans use to
lock themselves in power, even if they lose popular support.
(Orban's system in Hungary has made extensive use of this, and
is widely cited by Republicans as a model for America -- although
in may have originated here, much like Nazi, South African, and
Israeli race laws drew on American precedents.)
But the biggest structural problem of all is money. Republicans
worship it -- even poor ones are defined by their deference or
indifference to great wealth -- and the rich thank them for their
service. The single most certain prediction for a second Trump
term is yet another round of tax cuts for the rich. Next up is
another round of regulatory loopholes, give-aways, and subsidies
to needy (or just greedy) businesses. Lobbyists took Washington
in the 1980s, and have only grown ever since. Republicans run
"revolving door" administrations where lobbyists are as likely
to work for the government as against it. The net effect is that
government is as likely to work against the public interest as
for it.
Republicans love this, because it reinforces their message
that government is inefficient, wasteful, and useless, and should
be shrunk (and ultimately "drowned in the bathtub"), except they
never actually do that, at least as long as they can use it to
feed their political machine.[*] While this is mostly done with
money, Republicans are also looking forward to using their power
in other ways: in turning the civil service into a patronage system
for political operatives; in aligning information services with
their political messaging; and in using coercive powers to suppress
heresy and dissent, to punish their enemies, and to empower (or at
least pardon) their allies.
When Democrats talk so piously and nebulously about the "death
of democracy," this is what they are actually referring to. Only
it's not a future threat, something that might be avoided if only
enough people would vote for a Harris, a Biden, a Clinton, an
Obama. It's been happening for a long time -- I used to see 1980
(Reagan) as the turning point, but now that I see it less in policy
terms than as a mental disorder, I see much more originality and
continuity in Nixon (which has the advantage of making Johnson's
Vietnam the breaking point -- it certainly was what turned my own
life upside down -- instead of the nascently-Reaganesque Carter).
Maybe with Trump redux, Democrats will finally realize that they
have to fight back, and stop trying to pass themselves off as
some kind of prophylactic, a thin barrier to limit the contagion.
Which brings us back to money. As I said, Republicans worship
it. But so do Democrats: maybe not all of them, but virtually all
of the kind that run for higher office, because the system is
rigged so that only those with access to money can run serious
campaigns. (Bernie Sanders is the exception here, and he did
come up with a novel system of small donor support, but when
he came to be viewed as a threat, big donors dumped tons of
money -- Michael Bloomberg more than $500M; compare that to
the $28M he spent this year for Harris against Trump -- to
quash his campaign.) Harris is no exception here. She raised
more money than any Democrat -- or Republican for that matter --
ever. And she lost. So maybe money isn't the answer?
I'm not going to try to tell you what Democrats should do
instead, but maybe they should start by waking up and looking
at the real world we're living in, a world that they are at
least in some substantial part responsible for creating. And
that means they need to re-examine their worship of money.
There's much more that can be said about this, but I've droned
on long enough. I should leave it here.
[*] That machine, by the way, is a thing of wonder, which I
don't think has ever been fully dissected, although there is a
lot of literature on various aspects of it. If Machiavelli were
here, he would write a letter offering advice on how an aspiring
young Republican could rise to a position of great power and
influence. (As Gramsci noted, real princes didn't need such
guidance. The point of the book was to expose their machinations
to those with no such experiences.) This would not only lay out
the topography of institutions, but the networking, the lexicon
of coded language, the spin, and ultimately the psychology of
why anyone would want to be a Republican in the first place --
something I still find incredibly alien even though I often take
great pains to try to understand others in their own terms.
As of Saturday afternoon, I have 144 links, 15438 words.
I was planning on not posting until Monday, so I have time to
make another round or two, but I have enough feedback on the
election to offer a few bits of speculation about the future.
I put little stock in them, given how poorly my predictions
have held up. But I can hedge a bit by offering a couple of
alternatives.
On several occasions, notably 1992 for the Republicans,
and 2016 for the Democrats, incumbent parties seem to have
felt permanently entitled to the presidency, and took their
defeats bitterly, lashing out blindly. The level of vitriol
Republicans directed at Bill Clinton after 1992 was almost
unprecedented in the never-very-polite lore of American
politics, and set a pattern that they repeated after 2008
and 2020 (arguably the most over-the-top, but by then their
character was expected, and the sore loser took personal
charge of the rage).
While Democrats didn't behave that atrociously after 2016,
when pretty much everyone expected Hillary Clinton to easily
defeat Donald Trump, her followers reacted with dismay and
a massive round of accusations and scapegoating -- especially
directed at Russia, although there were many other factors at
work, including how distasteful and provocative Trump was, and
that Clinton supporters still had a chip on their shoulders
over the strong Bernie Sanders challenge to what organization
Democrats expected to be a cakewalk.
Democrats' opinion of Trump has only sunk lower with four
years in power and four years plotting his comeback. But so
far, reaction has been mild, other than the inevitable shock
and sadness. Trump's margin has been sufficient that it's
hard to doubt his win. And while Harris seemed promising at
the Convention, that may have largely been relief that Biden
was out, the assumption that his administration had a good
story that was simply poorly communicated, and the pretty
conviction belief that Trump was such damaged goods that
most Americans would be glad to be rid of him. But it was
never really love for Harris, who's proved to be an easy
(and rarely defended) target for post-mortems. This also
suggests that we misread Trump -- that our loathing of him
isn't shared by enough Americans to beat him -- so maybe
this isn't a good time to go ballistic on him (as we did
in 2016).
Trump's margin opens one new possibility that we haven't
considered, which is that if he governed competently, he
could actually consolidate his power and become regarded
as a significant American president. Admittedly, we have
no reason to expect this. His first term was a disaster of
unfathomable dimensions. He's spent most of the four years
since scrambling to stay out of jail. And his campaign theme
has been redemption and revenge. If he attempts to put into
practice even a significant share of what he campaigned on,
evaluations of his legacy should sink as far below the scale
of American presidents as Caligula and Ivan the Terrible.
But will he? I wouldn't bet against it, but it's just
possible that having won, as ugly as that whole campaign has
been, he'll change course. I don't mean to suggest that he
won't be as bad as his voters want him to be on signature
issues like immigration. But now that he's president, why
should he adopt austerity budgets and demolish services,
just to prove that government doesn't work. If he does that,
he'll be blamed, and if he doesn't, he'll reap the credit.
Plus the whole Fox machine is behind him, so who's going to
complain? Certainly not the Democrats, who are always ready
to help a Republican president do a good deed. (Remember when
they foolishly thought "No Child Left Behind" would better
fund education?) He's promised a better ACA. Why not rebrand
it like he did with NAFTA, adding a couple tweaks that most
Democrats can get behind, and magically turning it into the
Republican program it always was? He'd be a hero, whereas
had he done any of Paul Ryan's plans, he'd be a goat.
The big difference between Trump now and then isn't just
that he has some experience to learn from, but that this
time he gets to pick his own staff. In 2016, he left that
mostly to Pence and Priebus, who saddled him with a bunch
of assholes even he couldn't stand, including the so-called
"adults in the room." This could, as most of us feared, be
for the worse, but Trump was always hemmed in by regular
Republicans, ranging from the Koch-controlled Ryan to the
Blob-heads in the national security racket. One big reason
he won the 2016 primaries was that he disagreed with hardcore
economic orthodoxy. But as a neophyte Republican, he got stuck
with a bunch of crooked, deranged incompetents, and their rot
killed his whole administration. Granted, he wasn't smart
enough to figure it out in real time, and he may still not
be, but the new crew were competent enough to run a winning
campaign this time. We shouldn't exclude the possibility that
they're competent enough to manage him, or to let him manage,
some level of competency. For which he'll handle the PR, as
that's his thing, and it will probably be more hideous than
the actual administration, which above all else has to keep
business booming and profits soaring.
One area where he has a mandate and some real power to act
is foreign policy, where Biden has been utterly disastrous.
It's well past time to settle the Ukraine War, which needs a
bit more art and tact than he's shown so far, but is doable
without looking like too much of a surrender to Putin (but if
the Democrats scream treason, that'll probably make it more
popular). The obvious deal there is status quo on the ground,
and dial back sanctions as stability and security is ensured.
The US actually needs a cooperative relationship with Russia,
and that means undoing the sanctions. He needs to do that
without looking like a Russian stooge, but Putin seems to be
more sensitive to how Trump looks than Trump himself.
Israel is a different matter. He'll give Israel whatever
they want, with no complaints or pretense of humanitarian
concern. At some point, he'll broker a deal with Egypt, the
Saudis, Syria (via Putin), and maybe even Iran, to send the
rest of the Palestinians Israel hasn't killed already into
permanent exile. Maybe he'll get Israel to concede Lebanon,
and that will be the end of it. It's a horrible solution,
but in some ways it'll be a blessing. The Democrats were
just going to drag it out. [*]
I could go around the world, but in foreign policy, there
is virtually nothing he can do (other than start a war, e.g.
with China) that wouldn't be an improvement over Biden. In
general, he'll depress trade and immigration, and disengage
in the internal affairs of other countries. He could easily
negotiate peace deals with North Korea, Iran, even Cuba and
Venezuela. He doesn't care about human rights in those places.
(Biden didn't either, but the pretense was killing.) BRICS
will continue to grow, Europe will go its own way, and the
American people will be just fine. (Maybe fewer cheap goods
and less cheap labor, but nowhere near the scare levels that
liberal economists like to predict.) If Democrats complain
about this, they'll only dig themselves deeper graves. The
era of American global hegemony is ending. Protracting it
will only make a bad thing worse.
By the way, Vance is a creep, but he's much smarter, and
much savvier both on foreign and domestic policy than Pence
ever was. Plus, as the heir-apparent, he has incentives not
to turn the administration into the dumpster fire that Pence
left with. I could go on and on, but you should get the idea
by now. Having shown he can win, legitimately (as these things
go), Trump has little reason to destroy democracy. He could
even build on the majority he already has. He faces two dangers:
one is his own bad instincts; the other is the idiot nihilism
of much of the Republican Party. But he owns that party now,
and the rank-and-file are basically followers, controlled by
the propaganda machine, and the apparatchiki are just hired
hands: they do what they're told.
Again, I have very little confidence that Trump will do any
of this -- even on Israel, where he will continue to do whatever
Netanyahu wants, but Netanyahu is used to and even seems to like
it being a forever war, so he may not press that hard.
So it's really just up to him. As for the Democrats, all they
can do is react. It's hopeless for me to try to advise, as none
of them are ready to listen. They first have to figure out who
they are, who they want to represent, and what they want. But
this game of conning both the donors and the voters is wearing
awfully thin.
[*] I could add some caveats and nuance here, but the key point
is that this is what the dominant political coalition of Israel
actually wants, and that Trump, both by temperament and in light
of his donor support network, is unlikely to offer any resistance
to anything Israel demands -- even more so than Biden-Harris, who
as Democrats felt the need to express humanitarian concerns and
their commitment to democracy. Trump has no such concerns, and
may even see the mass expulsion of Palestinians as an exemplary
model for his own mass expulsion of "illegal immigrants." But
any number of things could limit this "ethnic cleansing." I'll
leave this to your imagination, assuming you have enough to see
that public opinion all around the world will increasingly shift
as Israel approaches genocide's "final solution" -- even in the
US, which should be of some concern to Trump, although his first
instinct will be to fight and suppress it. He will see it as an
opportunity to break pro-Israel donors away from the Democratic
Party, solidifying his support, but freeing Democrats from having
to toady for Israel, as Harris did and paid for. But ultimately
opinion could turn against Trump/Israel here. The tide could
even turn in Israel as the costs of war and isolation mount. And
a massive influx of Palestinian exiles will be welcome nowhere:
the US and EU go without saying, but public opinion makes this
a tough sell in the Arab autocracies, which could blow up under
the strain -- and which have their own major financial pipeline
to Trump (e.g., Kushner's billion dollar slush fund).
I think
the most likely scenario is that Gaza is totally crushed and
depopulated, but that Israel is pressured to dial back its
apartheid and ethnic cleansing measures in the occupied areas
(including parts of pre-1967 Israel, where Palestinians are
20% of the population, and have barely-nominal citizenship)
to pre-October 2023 levels. But a wide range of scenarios are
possible. While Trump's election strengthens Netanyahu, they
are fighting a perilous uphill battle (against a world which
has been inexorably decolonising ever since 1945), where they
may well wind up just retreating into their fortress-castles.
[**]
[**] MAGA is clearly such a retreat, on many fronts (e.g.,
they want to return to a world where stern fathers can spank
naughty daughters). Most of their beliefs should be resisted,
but their retreat from neoliberal/neoconservative foreign
policy is overdue. The world has changed since WWII, when
America extended its hegemony over the "free world" and set
up its quasi-holy war against the enemies of capital. Most
of the capital that American armed and propaganda forces so
fiercely defend isn't even American any more, and what is isn't
of much value to most actual Americans. (A precise accounting
of that capital may depend on how you account for Elon Musk,
who I'd argue is case proof that not all immigration is good).
Moreover, America's defense of that capital has lost much of
its effectiveness, as American soldiers have given up the fight
(why risk ruining their lives for oil moguls?), as corruption
has made the war machine prohibitively expensive, and as the
world itself has become increasingly unconquerable. (Phrase
comes from Jonathan Schell's 2003 book, The Unconquerable
World.)
Neoliberals will accuse Trump et al. of "isolationism,"
because that's the slur they deployed against a previous
generation of (mostly) Republicans, who were wary of their
schemes for one world market, dominated by American capital,
and regimented by American arms. Although the US rarely had
much of a standing army before 1939, Americans were widely
engaged in the world, mostly through trade, not insignificantly
through missionary work, but only rarely through imperialist
adventures (1898 counts, as does the subsequent "gunboat
diplomacy"). This willingness to engage the world on fairly
equitable terms, including the resistance to European imperialism
announced in the Monroe Doctrine, the pursuit of Open Door Policy
to break up imperial monopolies, and the "arsenal of democracy"
which defeated the final campaigns of Germany and Japan: all this
earned Americans considerable good will around the world, which
America's post-WWII abuse of power has only turned into a "legacy
of ashes" (to borrow the title of Tim Weiner's history of the
CIA). While the "isolationist" taunt will impress subscribers of
Foreign Policy, it's a spent term, a piece of liberal cant
that will produce more backlash than agreement.
While the "defense Democrats" have been ascendant against Trump
and for Biden, I can only hope they will be seen as bankrupt now,
and that Democrats will revert to something more like Roosevelt's
Good Neighbor Policy (a kinder, gentler redressing of Gunboat
Diplomacy, not that it changed things much), and a renewed
interest in the UN, which the neocons sought so hard to trash.
Also, I do not expect Trump to be consistent here: even if his
tendency is to withdraw, institutional support for militarism
and world dominance remains strong, at least as much in the
Republican Party as in the Democratic, and it's easy to play
on his ego as "the leader of the free world," especially when
all he has to do is to follow friendly bribes.
I woke up Monday morning with the thought that I could finally add
a third intro here, where I talk about what Democrats should do now
that they've been driven from national power. I always planned on a
final chapter to my political book where I would offer what I saw as
practical political advice to save the world. (Well, in some versions
of that book, I tacked on an extra section, which would describe the
dystopia that would ensue if Democrats fail and allow Republicans to
do all they've wanted. That much, at least, I'll spare you spoilers
for.) So I have given this subject a fair amount of thought, and if
I had the time (and were still so inclined) I could write about this
at considerable length. However, with Monday slipping away from me,
and no desire whatsoever to face this file on Tuesday, I'll try to
keep this very brief: some reflections and scattered tidbits, but no
structure, and no cheerleading. I'm not trying to sell my advice.
I'm just throwing it out there.
Monday evening, I find I haven't written this section, and no
longer have time. I think I did make many of the points I've been
thinking about under various articles, so I'll leave it to you
to ferret them out. Anything involving money, credibility, and
trust is likely to be relevant. The biggest problem Democrats
have is that lots of people don't trust them -- on lots of things,
including avoiding war. They have to figure out how to fix that.
And funny thing, beating the Republicans at fundraising and at
advertising and celebrity endorsements and "ground game" isn't
doing the trick.
Why so many of those people trust Republicans instead is way
beyond me, but there is considerable evidence that they do. There
is also ample evidence that trust in Republicans is foolish and
sometimes plain stupid, but until Democrats get their house in
order, distrust in them takes precedence. One saving grace may be that
most Americans really hate corruption, and they don't much care
for incompetence either. Republicans are up to their necks in
both. Now if you can just show them, you should be able to score
points. But it's hard to do when you're corrupt and incompetent
as well.
One thought I'm pretty sure I didn't get to yet concerns "woke."
I think of it as something like satori, a state of mind that if
you're lucky, you find yourself in through no discernible effort
of your own. It's good to be woke, but only you can know that.
What it is not is a license for an inquisition, which is how
most of the anti-woke have been trained to view it. And it's
not that they disapprove of inquisitions in general. It's just
that they prefer their own.
Top story threads:
Election notes: Some general pieces here,
then more specific ones on Trump (why he won, and how horrible that
is) and Harris (why she lost, and who cares) following, then sections
on the Senate (flipped R), House (undecided, but probably still R),
and other issues below.
Washington Post:
2024 turnout is near the 2020 record. See how each state compares.
I've seen references to a drop in voter turnout in 2024, especially
relative to 2020, but this data shows a pretty close match, with 9
states posting new highs (44 year window). Trump won those states
5-4, with all of his wins in battleground states. Of 5 states with
turnout under 55%, 4 were among Trump's biggest margin states (WV,
AR, MS, OK), while the lowest one anywhere was Hawaii.
Zack Beauchamp:
[11-06]
Donald Trump has won -- and American democracy is now in grave danger:
"Trump's second term poses an existential threat to the republic. But
there's still good reason for hope."
[11-06]
The global trend that pushed Donald Trump to victory: "Incumbents
everywhere are doing poorly. America just proved it's not exceptional."
I still have, and haven't read, his book, so I know that this is his
turf, and he likely has something interesting to say about the rest
of the world -- something I, like most people, don't know a hell of
a lot about -- but I don't see how this could possibly work: it just
seems like another correlation pretending to be a cause. No need to
deal with this now, but I will note one line: "Three different exit
polls found that at least 70 percent of Americans were dissatisfied
with the country's current direction, and they took it out on the
current ruling party." Links in that line to the following:
William Bruno: [10-23]
Why foreign policy is the biggest issue this November: "From
Gaza to Ukraine, this election will have world-spanning consequences.
Now more than ever, we need to push for an anti-war, anti-imperial
foreign policy." This came out before the election, so its tactical
advice, like "hold Harris accountable," is moot, but the core issues
are certainly important.
Thomas Frank: [11-09]
The elites had it coming. Of course, he's mostly talking about
Democrats, although fellow traveler Dick Cheney gets as many nods
as Barack Obama.
Liberals had nine years to decipher Mr. Trump's appeal -- and they
failed. The Democrats are a party of college graduates, as the whole
world understands by now, of Ph.D.s and genius-grant winners and the
best consultants money can buy. Mr. Trump is a con man straight out
of Mark Twain; he will say anything, promise anything, do nothing.
But his movement baffled the party of education and innovation.
Their most brilliant minds couldn't figure him out.
Michelle Goldberg: [11-06]
This is who we are now.
Trump's first election felt like a fluke, a sick accident enabled
by Democratic complacency. But this year, the forces of liberal
pluralism and basic civic decency poured everything they could
into the fight, and they lost not just the Electoral College but
also quite likely the popular vote. The American electorate,
knowing exactly who Trump is, chose him. This is, it turns out,
who we are.
So I expect the next few months to be a period of mourning
rather than defiance. . . . But eventually, mourning either
starts to fade or curdles into depression and despair. When and
if it does, whatever resistance emerges to the new MAGA will
differ from what came before. Gone will be the hope of vindicating
the country from Trumpism, of rendering him an aberration. What's
left is the more modest work of trying to ameliorate the suffering
his government is going to visit on us. . . .
Ultimately, Trump's one redeeming feature is his incompetence.
If history is any guide, many of those he brings into government
will come to despise him. He will not give people the economic
relief they're craving. . . . We saw, with Covid, how Trump handled
a major crisis, and there is not the slightest reason to believe he
will perform any better in handling another. I have little doubt
that many of those who voted for him will come to regret it. He
could even end up discrediting bombastic right-wing nationalism
the way George W. Bush -- whose re-election also broke my heart --
discredited neoconservatism.
The question, if and when that happens, is how much of our system
will still be standing, and whether Trump's opponents have built an
alternative that can restore to people a sense of dignity and optimism.
That will be the work of the next four years -- saving what we can
and trying to imagine a tolerable future.
One nit here is that no matter how discredited she thought
neoconservatism was when Bush-Cheney departed, it still rules
the roost, as Biden showed us with his disastrous cultivation
of wars, and Harris underscored by welcoming Dick Cheney to
her campaign. Even as some especially notorious individuals
were put to pasture, the institutions supporting them remain
unchecked and unexamined. I'm also less certain of Trump's
incompetence. Much will depend on whether he hires competent
people who can keep his trust without blundering. Sure, he
did a very bad job of that during his first term.
Tyler Austin Harper: [11-06]
What we just went through wasn't an election. It was a hostage
situation. This seems about right:
Heading into Tuesday's vote, a large majority of voters said that
the country was on the wrong track and that they were disappointed
with the candidates on offer. A plurality of voters said that
regardless of who was elected, the next president would make things
worse. Nearly 80 percent said the presidential campaigns did not
make them proud of America.
The blame for this grievous state of affairs lies with the
Democratic and Republican Parties, both of which played a game of
chicken with the electorate, relying on apocalyptic threats about
the end of democracy to convince people that they had no choice
but to vote as instructed. Both candidates offered up policies
that were unpopular even among their supporters, serving a banquet
for their donor classes while doling out junk food to their bases.
For one candidate, that contemptuous strategy succeeded. But it
fails the American people.
For all his populist posturing, Mr. Trump put forward tax breaks
that favor the wealthy, championed tariffs that would almost certainly
raise grocery prices, bad-mouthed overtime pay, praised firing striking
workers and largely stayed mum while his allies discussed destroying
the Affordable Care Act. He insisted abortion be left up to the states
even though most Americans, including many Republicans, think it should
be legal everywhere, and pledged to oppose any new gun restrictions
even though an overwhelming majority of Americans say they should be
stricter.
And what were Trump acolytes to be given in return for greenlighting
this unpopular agenda? Elon Musk promised a period of economic pain.
Tucker Carlson said Mr. Trump would bend the country over his knee and
give it a "spanking." Why would any sign on? Because it was either that,
they were told, or nuclear war under Ms. Harris. Some choice. . . .
What we just went through was not an election; it was a hostage
situation. Our major parties represent the interests of streaming
magnates, the arms industry, oil barons, Bitcoin ghouls and Big
Tobacco, often without even pretending to heed the needs of voters.
A political system like that is fundamentally broken.
I skipped over the corresponding list of indictments against
Biden and Harris, which struck me as (relatively speaking) small
potatoes, but most show that the inordinate influence of money
isn't limited to Republicans. The first paragraph cites two
pieces on the threat to "end democracy":
Doug Henwood: [11-08]
It was always about inflation: "Simply put, Donald Trump owes
his reelection to inflation and to the fact that the Biden administration
did little to address the problem in a way that helped working-class
families."
I often say that the Democrats' political problem is that they're a
party of capital that has to pretend otherwise for electoral purposes.
This time they hardly even pretended. Kamala Harris preferred
campaigning with the inexplicably famous mogul Mark Cuban and the
ghoulish Liz Cheney to Shawn Fain, who led the United Auto Workers
to the greatest strike victory in decades. Those associations
telegraphed both her policy instincts and her demographic
targeting: Silicon Valley and upscale suburbs.
Like Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, the strategy failed, only
worse. At least Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million.
Harris even lost among suburban white women, a principal target of
this twice-failed strategy.
Ed Kilgore:
[11-06]
Americans wanted change and that meant Trump. There is something
to this, but also several loads of bullshit:
The simplest explanation, though, may be the most compelling: This
was a classic "change" election in which the "out" party had an
advantage that the governing party could not overcome. Yes, the
outcome was in doubt because Democrats managed to replace a very
unpopular incumbent with an interesting if untested successor, and
also because the GOP chose a rival whose constant demonstration of
his own unpopular traits threatened to take over the whole contest.
In the end Trump normalized his crude and erratic character by
endless repetition; reduced scrutiny of his lawless misconduct by
denouncing critics and prosecutors alike as politically motivated;
and convinced an awful lot of unhappy voters that he hated the same
people and institutions they did.
Nobody for a moment doubted that Trump would bring change. And
indeed, his signature Make America Great Again slogan and message
came to have a double meaning. Yes, for some it meant (as it did
in 2016) a return to the allegedly all-American culture of the 20th
century, with its traditional hierarchies; moral certainties and
(for some) white male leadership. But for others MAGA meant very
specifically referred to the perceived peace and prosperity of the
pre-pandemic economy and society presided over, however turbulently,
Trump. When Republicans gleefully asked swing voters if they were
better off before Joe Biden became president, a veritable coalition
of voters with recent and long-standing grievances over conditions
in the country had as simple an answer as they did when Ronald
Reagan used it to depose Jimmy Carter more than a half-century ago.
The "better off" question is close to meaningless, as most
people can't really tell, but as we've seen, are inclined to
accept whatever their political orientation dictates. Unlike, say,
the pandemic of 2020, or the financial meltdown of 2008, or the
deflationary recession of 1980, or the great one of 1929-32 (is
that what MAGA means?), there is little objective reason driving
voters to change. Granted, there may be unease driven by slower,
almost tectonic forces (like climate change), but few people think
them through, and those who do tend to prefer orderly change over
the kind of disruption Trump promises.
[11-09]
Democrats lost because of their bad policies, not their bad
attitude. I beg to differ, but both could have been better.
[11-12]
Kamala Harris came much closer to winning than you think.
The argument here is that the shift to Trump was less in the highly
contested swing states than anywhere else (Harris topped Biden only
in Colorado).
David Sirota: [11-07]
Election 2024: How billionaires torpedoed democracy: "Both parties'
2024 campaigns claimed to be about 'saving democracy.' Yet both parties
ended up bought and paid for by billionaires."
Jeffrey St Clair:
[11-06]
Chronicle of a defeat foretold: "What does history repeat itself
after it does farce?" He's very harsh on Harris here. One thing I
find curious is an uncredited chart, which if I'm reading it right
says that 24% of respondents think Democracy in the US is secure,
vs. 74% threatened. Harris leads secure 59% to 39%, but trails in
the larger threatened group, 46% to 53%. But isn't securing democracy
supposed to be her issue? As an issue, it's nebulous enough that
Trump was able to deflect it by claiming that Democrats were the
real threat to democracy (after all, they're the ones rigging the
polling and the voting!). Democrats could bring up fascism, but
the response is simply, you're the real fascists, and who
else really knows any better?
This is an aside, but fits here as well as anywhere. I haven't
found an article making this point so far, but could Kelly's fascism
comments have been a plant? (Like one of Roger Stone's dirty tricks?)
If Trump's operatives know that being charged with fascism will only
solidify their support -- not because their supporters identify with
fascism, but because they see it as stereotypically leftist infantile
name-calling (unlike "libtard," which they know is just a joke). But
mainstream Democrats generally shy away from such a loaded term, so
how do you get someone like Harris to use it? You give her permission,
by allowing her to quote someone like Kelly. This whole notion of
"permission" is sick and pernicious. There's a quote somewhere about
how the Cheney endorsements of Harris give Republicans permission
to vote against Trump: it becomes something real Republicans can do
without surrendering their identify. Harris may have had some doubt
about "fascism," but she couldn't resist the Cheney honey trap, as
she saw it as a way to steal some significant slice of Republican
votes, putting her over the top. I have no reason to believe that
Kelly and the Cheneys were plants, other than that they precisely
had that effect. That they did, of course, was Harris's gaffe (and
yeah, I'm following
Kinsley rules here, otherwise I would have said "blunder").
[11-08]
The crack-up. Title from F Scott Fitzgerald. Selected bits:
This "white wave" electorate didn't reject progressive ideas;
they rejected the candidate who failed to advocate them for fear of
alienating Big Tech execs and Wall Street financiers. Voters in both
Alaska and Missouri approve increasing the minimum wage to $15.
Voters approved paid sick leave in Alaska, Missouri and Nebraska.
Voters in Oregon approved a measure protecting marijuana workers'
right to unionize. Alaska voters banned anti-union captive audience
meetings. Arizona voters rejected a measure that lowered the minimum
wage for tipped workers. Massachusetts approved the right of rideshare
workers to organize for collective bargaining. New Orleans voters
approved a Workers Bill of Rights. Voters in Arizona, Colorado,
Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and New York approved measures
granting a state constitutional right to abortion.
Harris lost the popular vote by five million votes. Jill
Stein only garnered 642,000 votes, just 25,000 more than RFK, Jr.,
who'd long since withdrawn. In no state did Stein get enough votes
to cost Harris the state. Good luck blaming the Greens (which says
much about the politically emaciated condition of the Greens). Even
in Wisconsin (where Harris lost by only 31,000 votes), Stein, who
captured only 12,666 votes, didn't fare well enough to be blamed
(or credited) for costing Harris the state. In Pennsylvania, Harris
lost by 165,000 votes. Stein collected only 33,591 votes. In Michigan,
where Stein had her best showing in a battleground state, winning
44,648 votes (0.8%), Harris lost to Trump by 82,000 votes.
Murtaza Hussain: "Suppressing the Bernie movement in 2016
effectively destroyed the Democratic Party. That was a turning
point year GOP also had an insurgency with Trump but they ultimately
worked with him to some new kind of synthesis. The Democrats never
got past their decrepit ancien regime."
Some of you may remember that it was the Obama brain trust,
irritated at Trump's role in promoting the birther conspiracy, who
worked feverishly in 2011 to make Trump the face of the post-Tea
Party GOP. Obama's former campaign manager and policy guru, David
Plouffe later explained the thinking: "Let's lean into Trump here.
That'll be good for us." That worked out about as well for the
Democratic base as the bank bailouts.
By the way, St Clair also wrote
The wolf at the door, which is a fund drive piece, but also a
history of a publication that's still bristling with anger 30 years
after inception. There's not just a lot to be angry about today,
but much more coming down the pike. Be sure of that.
Freddy Brewster: [11-05]
Leonard Leo's dark money web is sowing election day chaos.
Israel/Palestine considerations:
Raja Abdulhaq: {11-07]
Instead of looking inwards, white liberals are blaming Arab Americans
for Trump's victory. My impression is that there is less deflection
and scapegoating now than in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and her fans
felt more entitled, were less inclined to admit their own errors, or
to credit that Trump had tapped into something they had missed. But
anti-genocide voters made the point of being conspicuous, setting
themselves up for just this kind of reaction.
Sami Al-Arian: [11-08]
Trump did not win this election. Harris was defeated by a Gaza-inspired
boycott. I think the author is taking too much credit for something
that no one should be proud of. That the boycott existed at all is a
blight on Harris's campaign. She could have done a few simple things
to neutralize it, like listening to them, and explaining how much worse
a Trump win would be for Palestinians. Showing concretely how Trump
would be worse could have worked on virtually every issue, but she
very rarely did it, opting instead for generic slanders (like "fascist")
that were easily deflected.
Hamed Aleaziz: [11-06]
For many Arab Americans in Dearborn, Trump made the case for their
votes. Unofficial results for the city showed Trump 42%, Harris 36%,
Jill Stein 18%.
Michael Arria:
Samer Badawi: [11-07]
After Trump's victory, Palestinians cannot afford to wait until the
next US election: "Palestinians and their allies must build on
down-ballot wins, while recognizing the limitations of electoral
politics in the face of Israel's genocidal campaign."
Peter Beinart: [11-07]
Democrats ignored Gaza and brought down their party.
Nada Elia: [11-07]
We warned you that Gaza would define the US elections.
Axel Foley: [11-06]
Karma for Kamala: Ignoring Gaza has lost Harris the US election.
Joe Gill: [11-08]
How liberals react to Kamala Harris' defeat -- blame the voters:
"American voters tired of Biden's endless wars and backing for genocide,
but their supporters refuse to reflect on the reasons for this defeat."
Shamai Leibowitz: [11-08]
Harris lost because her party represented war mongering, q.e.d.
Jacob Magid: [11-01]
On campaign trail for Harris in Michigan, Bill Clinton defends Israel's
war in Gaza: "Recalling efforts to broker peace during his own
presidency, Clinton urges voters in crucial swing state to think
'what you would do it if was your family' killed on October 7."
So he went to one of the cloest swing states, the one with the
highest share of Arab-American voters in the nation, and this was
his pitch? The likelihood of anyone there having relation suddenly
killed was about 100 times greater by Israel since October 7 than
by Hamas on that day. But at least his speech got reported on . . .
in Israel. What can matter more than that?
Ziyad Motala: [11-06]
The US at a crossroads after Trump's return.
Mitchell Plitnick: [11-09]
The role of the Gaza genocide in Kamala Harris's loss: "The cause
of Kamala Harris' disastrous failure in the 2024 presidential election
will forever be debated, but there are good reasons to believe the
Israeli genocide in Gaza played a significant role." This misses what
I've always suspected of being the most important one, which is that
Gaza is the sort of bad news that makes people, especially ones who
don't really know much about the subject, recoil against incumbents.
Arno Rosenfeld: [11-06]
Gaza didn't cost Harris the election. But her approach pointed to a
broader problem: "Pro-Palestinian organizers say the problem was
her focus on courting moderates, including Republicans, rather than
motivating the party's left flank."
Richard Silverstein: [11-11]
Harris and Gaza: why she lost.
Harris had an opportunity to set out a more independent policy.
Instead she doubled down. In every speech which addressed these
issues, she emphasized her unshakable support for Israel. She
offered little for the Palestinians being slaughtered there,
aside from bromides about being heartbroken at the suffering.
She claimed she was "doing everything possible" to end the war
and free the Israeli hostages. While she refused to do anything
concrete.
Matt Sledge: [11-06]
In Dearborn, Rashida Tlaib did nearly twice as well as Kamala
Harris.
Alfred Soto:
[11-05]
Election Day 2024: awful but cheerful. I had this in an open tab,
discovered too late to make even the first update, but as next week's
not coming, I figured I should go ahead and file it.
More disappointing is Harris' mush-mouthed foreign policy. First, on
the genocide in Gaza. Certainly she and Bibi will never hug like he
and Joe did, but not once has she suggested the radical demolition
of State Department dogma, not merely received and Methuselan but
venomous. Next, she supports "border security" and "tighter"
immigration. If she has explained in any public address how the
forcible removal of illegal immigrants from jobs, schools, churches,
and putting them in camps, as the Trump campaign has vowed, will,
apart from its grotesque moral horror, devastate the economy that
Trump vows to heal. The depressing part is how Harris might point
to the Democratic polity's hardening position on immigration; in
times of economic doubt, blame foreigners.
[11-07]
What now?
[11-24]
Among the reasons we lost in 2024. Long quote from the Shahid
piece I've already cited. Let this be my last add to this file.
Megan K Stack: [11-05]
I voted for Harris, but Gaza's horrors weigh on my conscience.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [11-06]
Did Israel hurt the Harris vote in Michigan? "Foreign policy was
low on voters minds, but in these critical counties, Harris was
underperforming."
International reaction:
Ellen Ioanes: [11-07]
From Bibi to Putin, here's how the world leaders reacted to Trump's
win. Aside from Netanyahu, they've mostly kept silent (Putin
included).
Isabel Kershner: [11-06]
In Trump, Netanyahu sees a more favorable US president.
Only a few hours had passed since Donald J. Trump was elected president,
when Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, announced that
he had already spoken to the U.S. president-elect, noting he was "among
the first" to call him.
It was further evidence of the enthusiasm Mr. Netanyahu's right-wing
government feels -- it had already been celebrating Mr. Trump's victory
since breakfast local time on Wednesday as if it had just won the
American election itself.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's ultranationalist minister of national
security, posted a festive "Yesssss" on social media, along with
emojis of a flexed biceps muscle and the Israeli and American flags,
even before the last polls had closed in Alaska.
H Scott Prosterman: [11-08]
Netanyahu, delirious at Trump's return, dumps his Defense Minister
to pursue complete occupation of Gaza.
Trump:
Peter Baker: [11-06]
'Trump's America': Comeback victory signals a different kind of
country: "In the end, Donald J. Trump is not the historical
aberration some thought he was, but instead a transformational
force reshaping the modern United States in his own image."
This piece came out immediately after the election was called,
showing once again that no one beats the New York Times when it
comes to sucking up to those in power.
Walden Bello: [11-07]
How did I "predict" that Trump, despite his repulsive persona and
politics, would prevail? "Democratic Party leadership has been
discredited and there's room for new progressive leaders to take
the helm."
Jamelle Bouie: [11-09]
What do Trump voters know about the future he has planned for them?
Not much, partly because they don't believe what he says, and they
believe even less what Democrats say he says. At some point in this
post I should quote something Jeffrey St Clair
wrote recently: [10-25]
More than half of Trump's supporters don't believe he'll
actually do many of the things he claims he'll do (mass deportations,
siccing the military on domestic protesters and political rivals),
while more than half of Harris's supporters hope she'll implement
many of the policies (end the genocide/single-payer) she claims she
won't. And that pretty much sums up this election.
What we should add to St Clair's observation is that the Trump
understanding was much more credible than the Harris take. Trump
lies all the time, sometimes just to provoke a reaction. Harris,
well, doesn't have Trump's track record, but she's a politician,
and how far do you trust politicians, especially to do the right
thing?
John Cassidy: [11-11]
Donald Trump's victory and the politics of inflation: "Joe
Biden's strong record on jobs and Kamala Harris's vow to reduce
the cost of living couldn't prevent the Democrats from succumbing
to a global anti-incumbency wave." One thing that bothers me in
virtually every article this week that even mentions inflation
is that no one seems to have a clear understanding of what it
is, of how it works, of what is bad (and in some cases good)
about it, of what can and should be done about it. I can't do
it justice here, but I do want to stress one point: it creates
both winners and losers. Good government policy would try to
limit the winners (perhaps by taxing off their windfall) and
to compensate the losers (the "cola" in Social Security is one
example of this). The press seem to buy the notion that it is
an always bad, which mostly means that they are carrying water
for the side that wants less inflation (e.g., for bankers, which
is largely why the Fed is so hawkish against inflation). I
wouldn't say that there was no real inflation coming out of
the pandemic: I suspect that some inflation was inevitable,
but the winners and losers (and therefore who felt the pain,
and who needed help) were largely determined by pricing power,
which has been tilted against workers and consumers for some
time, but became more acute when inflation was added to the
mix. Policies limiting monopolies and price gouging would have
helped, but Biden and Harris got little credit for them, even
from supposedly liberal economists. Trump offered nothing but
an outlet for rage. Why anyone thought that might be any kind
of solution is way beyond me, but according to polls, many
people did. They were deceived. Whether they ever learn from
such mistakes remains to be seen.
Jelani Cobb: [11-07]
2016 and 2024: "We will be a fundamentally different country
by the end of the next Administration." Indeed, we already are.
Ed Coper: [11-08]
White noise: why hatred of Donald Trump fuels his success as much
as his supporters' love: "A network of organised disinformation
sows doubt, kills policy reform and keep us ad adds as we debate
Trump-mania." Some misdirection in his first paragraph:
Historians will long scratch their heads that a Republican candidate
who -- despite an inability to string a coherent sentence together,
being grossly underqualified and rife with extramarital affairs --
would go on to not only win election but become one of the most
popular presidents in US history.
Turns out the subject here was Warren Harding, elected president
in a 1920 landslide. How it advances an understanding of Trump isn't
clear, but even stranger stories ensue.
David Corn:
[11-04]
Trump and his voters: they like the lying: "He's a con man whose
deceptions and hypocrisies are easy to detect. The question won't fade:
How does he get away with it?" "Trump is demonstrating that he does
not play by the rules of the establishment that these people perceive
(for an assortment of reasons) as the enemy."
[11-06]
America meets its judgment day: "Trump's victory signals a
national embrace of the politics of hate and a possible fascist
future."
Ben Davis: [11-09]
None of the conventional explanations for Trump's victory stand up
to scrutiny: "This election has blown a hole in the worldviews
of both leftists and centrists. The pandemic may be a more important
factor." This piece covers a lot of ground, quite sensibly. The
section on Covid is really about something else:
I propose a different explanation than inflation qua inflation:
the Covid welfare state and its collapse. The massive, almost
overnight expansion of the social safety net and its rapid,
almost overnight rollback are materially one of the biggest
policy changes in American history. For a brief period, and
for the first time in history, Americans had a robust safety
net: strong protections for workers and tenants, extremely
generous unemployment benefits, rent control and direct cash
transfers from the American government.
Despite the trauma and death of Covid and the isolation of
lockdowns, from late 2020 to early 2021, Americans briefly
experienced the freedom of social democracy. They had enough
liquid money to plan long term and make spending decisions for
their own pleasure rather than just to survive. They had the
labor protections to look for the jobs they wanted rather than
feel stuck in the jobs they had. At the end of Trump's term, the
American standard of living and the amount of economic security
and freedom Americans had was higher than when it started, and,
with the loss of this expanded welfare state, it was worse when
Biden left office, despite his real policy wins for workers and
unions. This is why voters view Trump as a better shepherd of
the economy.
I've often thought that the Democrats took way too little credit
for the first big pandemic relief bill, which Pelosi and Schumer
largely wrote and pushed through, while Trump had to acquiesce
because he was mostly worried about the falling stock market.
The sunsetting made it palatable to Republicans, and made sense
given that it was relief for an emergency. Democrats figured
they could run on extending key parts of it, but did they? Not
really. Worse than that, Trump claimed credit for the immediate
effects, then blamed inflation on the act's largesse. Democrats
were, once again, screwed coming and going, mostly for not
following McConnell's formula of just letting the country go
to hell, just so voters would blame the incumbent president.
David Dayen: [11-08]
The triumphant return of corruption: "A look at the biggest stock
gainers since Trump's election shows that paying tribute to the next
president will have its benefits." He identifies several especially
large gains, from outfits like MoneyLion (up 61%, "investors believe,
correctly, that consumer protection, which made a comeback in the
past four years, will be destroyed again"), CoreCivic (up 72%, a
"private prison" company), GEO Group (up 61%, another "private prison"
contractor), and Coinbase (up 41%, "the crypto exchange"). "We can
get ready for four years of pay-to-play deals, corporate back-scratching,
and a public unprotected from scam artists."
John Harris: [11-10]
From Trump's victory, a simple, inescapable message: many people
despise the left: "The tumult of social media and rightwing
propaganda has successfully cast progressives as one judgmental,
'woke' mass." I don't doubt his point, but the examples mostly
make me think that most of the people who "hate the left" have
little if any idea what or whom the left is. That suggests some
kind of communication problem, which makes most sense in the US,
where we don't have our own party, and are often stuck under the
dead carcass of a Democratic Party, whose leaders hate us as much
as the right thinks it does. But there must be more to the story
than that: some deep, dark psychological factors that are never
really acknowledged and near impossible to dislodge There must
be a literature researching this. We certainly have research on
why people become fascists, which overlaps significantly with
hating the left. On the other hand, my own study of history has
shown that everything decent and valuable that has ever happened
in America has its origin in the left. Why can't anyone else see
that?
David Hearst: [11-07]
Trump has a choice: Obliterate Palestine or end the war:
Most likely he won't even think of it as a choice, but simply
following the directions of his donors. The question is whether
he can see the many downsides of doing so. He has several odd
talents, but clear thinking and foresight aren't among them.
Conventional wisdom has it that Trump 2.0 will be a disaster for
Palestinians, because Trump 1.0 all but buried the Palestinian
national cause.
And it is indeed true that under Donald Trump's first term as
president, the US was wholly guided by the Zionist religious right --
the real voice in his ear, either as donors or policymakers.
Under Trump and his son-in-law adviser, Jared Kushner, Washington
became a policy playground for the settler movement, with which the
former US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, was unashamedly
aligned.
Consequently, in his first term, Trump upended decades of policy
by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the US
embassy there; he disenfranchised the Palestinian Authority by closing
down the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington;
he allowed Israel to annex the Golan Heights; he pulled out of the
nuclear accords with Iran; and he assassinated Qassem Soleimani, the
most powerful Iranian general and diplomat in the region.
Even more damaging for the Palestinian struggle for freedom was
Trump's sponsorship of the Abraham Accords.
This was -- and still is -- a serious attempt to pour concrete
over the grave of the Palestinian cause, constructing in its place
a superhighway of trade and contracts from the Gulf that would make
Israel not just a regional superpower, but a vital portal to the
wealth of the Gulf.
This led directly to the Hamas revolt, and the Israeli reprisal,
not just collect punishment but a systematic plan to render Gaza
uninhabitable, so credit him there, too. As I noted in my intro,
I expect he will simply cheer Netanyahu on to "finish the job."
I don't think he has any idea what that entails, how it will look,
and how it will reflect back on America, and on him personally.
Nor do I think he cares. He's one of those guys who strictly lives
in the present, trusting his instincts will never fail him.
There is much more to this piece, including a concluding section
on "Hope for the future," where he notes: "It may be that as Biden
departs, we have seen the party's last Zionist leader. That in itself
is of immense significance for Israel."
Murtaza Hussain: [11-06]
Trump is eyeing Iran hawk Brian Hook as first foreign policy
pick.
Lauren Markoe: [11-07]
Who is Howard Lutnick? Trump transition team leader is a billionaire
supporter of Jewish causes and Israel.
Michael Mechanic: [11-07]
Why did Trump really win? It's simple, actually. "When the economy
thrives while half of America struggles, something has got to give."
Lorrie Moore: [11-07]
A fourth-rate entertainer, a third-rate businessman, and a two-time
president: "The 2024 election, like the one in 2016, had the
same nutty and vapid Donald Trump, the same retrograde gender
politics, and the same result."
He is a third-rate businessman and fourth-rate entertainer, a husband
to fashion models, a wannabe standup comedian who cannot land a punch
line but floats language out into the air, hoping it will cohere, then
flare, though it usually wanders into vapor and fog. As with much
current standup, it can get raunchy and crass, but the MAGA people
accept this lack of dignity. I was struck with puzzled admiration at
his forty minutes of quiet swaying to "Ave Maria." It was like
performance art. He also did a skit at McDonald's and one in a
garbage truck. He will do most anything to avoid talking about
actual governing, which he does not know that much about. He perhaps
understands that most voters don't want to discuss that and want to
just leave it to their elected officials. We are a country that is
about money and entertainment. Trump was running as the embodiment
of these. One PBS commentator used a Hollywood metaphor to explain
him: Trump is a franchise blockbuster, familiar and splashy; Harris
is an independent art-house film with subtitles.
Elie Mystal: [11-07]
There's no denying it anymore: Trump is not a fluke -- he's America:
"The United States chose Donald Trump in all his ugliness and cruelty,
and the country will get what it deserves." This is certainly one
viewpoint. Still, I have to ask, how many people didn't understand
the choice this clearly? And for those who did not, why not?
We had a chance to stand united against fascism, authoritarianism,
racism, and bigotry, but we did not. We had a chance to create a
better world for not just ourselves but our sisters and brothers
in at least some of the communities most vulnerable to unchecked
white rule, but we did not. We had a chance to pass down a better,
safer, and cleaner world to our children, but we did not. Instead,
we chose Trump, JD Vance, and a few white South African billionaires
who know a thing or two about instituting apartheid. . . .
Everyone who hates Trump is asking how America can be "saved"
from him, again. Nobody is asking the more relevant question: Is
America worth saving? Like I said, Trump is the sum of our failures.
A country that allows its environment to be ravaged, its children
to be shot, its wealth to be hoarded, its workers to be exploited,
its poor to starve, its cops to murder, and its minorities to be
hunted doesn't really deserve to be "saved." It deserves to fail.
Trump is not our "retribution." He is our reckoning.
Rick Perlstein:
[11-05]
Garbagegate, with a twist: "The media's penchant to balance the
two parties and control the narrative didn't quite work when it came
to a Trump insult comic's comments about Puerto Rico."
[11-13]
How to hear a fascist: "Trump was supposed to be in decline, losing
it. He lost it all the way to the White House."
Kelefa Sanneh: [11-07]
How Donald Trump, the leader of white grievance, gained among
Hispanic voters.
Timothy Snyder: [11-08]
What does it mean that Donald Trump is a fascist? "Trump takes
the tools of dictators and adapts them for the Internet. We should
expect him to try to cling to power until death, and create a cult
of January 6th martyrs." This is an article that we must admit,
he's competent to write, but hardly anyone else is competent to
read. I bookmarked it because it's an issue I take some perverse
interest in. I haven't read it yet, because I doubt that I'll
learn much -- e.g., I already knew the Marinetti story, and
that's pretty obscure -- and the rest will probably just be
annoying.
Rebecca Solnit:
Elizabeth Spiers: [11-06]
Trump offered men something that Democrats never could.
Asawin Suebsaeng/Tim Dickinson: [10-03]
'American death squads': inside Trump's push to make police more
violent: "Trump's recent call for a 'violent day' of policing
is part of his plan to push cops to be as brutal as possible and
shield them from accountability." Pre-election piece I should have
noticed earlier (or should have been better reported).
Michael Tomasky: [11-08]
Why does no one understand the real reason Trump won? "It wasn't
the economy. It wasn't inflation, or anything else. It was how people
perceive those things, which points to one overpowering answer."
The answer is the right-wing media. Today, the right-wing media --
Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News
Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers,
iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network
(Christian radio), Elon Musk's X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan's,
and much more -- sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed
their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made
it possible for Trump to win.
Let me say that again, in case it got lost: Today, the right-wing
media sets the news agenda in this country. Not The New York Times.
Not The Washington Post (which bent over backwards to exert no
influence when Jeff Bezos pulled the paper's Harris endorsement).
Not CBS, NBC, and ABC. The agenda is set by all the outlets I listed
in the above paragraph. Even the mighty New York Times follows in its
wake, aping the tone they set disturbingly often. . . .
I think a lot of people who don't watch Fox or listen to Sinclair
radio don't understand this crucial chicken-and-egg point. They assume
that Trump says something, and the right-wing media amplify it. That
happens sometimes. But more often, it's the other way around. These
memes start in the media sphere, then they become part of the Trump
agenda.
I haven't even gotten to the economy, about which there is so much
to say. Yes -- inflation is real. But the Biden economy has been great
in many ways. The U.S. economy, wrote The Economist in mid-October,
is "the envy of the world." But in the right-wing media, the horror
stories were relentless. And mainstream economic reporting too often
followed that lead. Allow me to make the world's easiest prediction:
After 12:00 noon next January 20, it won't take Fox News and Fox
Business even a full hour to start locating every positive economic
indicator they can find and start touting those. Within weeks, the
"roaring Trump economy" will be conventional wisdom. (Eventually, as
some of the fruits from the long tail of Bidenomics start growing on
the vine, Trump may become the beneficiary of some real-world facts
as well, taking credit for that which he opposed and regularly
denounced.)
Back to the campaign. I asked Gertz what I call my "Ulan Bator
question." If someone moved to America from Ulan Bator, Mongolia in
the summer and watched only Fox News, what would that person learn
about Kamala Harris? "You would know that she is a very stupid person,"
Gertz said. "You'd know that she orchestrated a coup against Joe Biden.
That she's a crazed extremist. And that she very much does not care
about you."
Same Ulan Bator question about Trump? That he's been "the target
of a vicious witch-hunt for years and years," that he is under constant
assault; and most importantly, that he is "doing it all for you."
To much of America, by the way, this is not understood as one side's
view of things. It's simply "the news." This is what people -- white
people, chiefly -- watch in about two-thirds of the country. I trust
that you've seen in your travels, as I have in mine, that in red or
even some purple parts of the country, when you walk into a hotel
lobby or a hospital waiting room or even a bar, where the TVs ought
to be offering us some peace and just showing ESPN, at least one
television is tuned to Fox. That's reach, and that's power. And then
people get in their cars to drive home and listen to an iHeart,
right-wing talk radio station. And then they get home and watch
their local news and it's owned by Sinclair, and it, too, has a
clear right-wing slant. And then they pick up their local paper,
if it still exists, and the oped page features Cal Thomas and Ben
Shapiro.
Liberals, rich and otherwise, live in a bubble where they never
see this stuff.
Also, this ends with another key point/example:
The Democratic brand is garbage in wide swaths of the country, and
this is the reason. Consider this point. In Missouri on Tuesday,
voters passed a pro-abortion rights initiative, and another that
raised the minimum wage and mandated paid leave. These are all
Democratic positions. But as far as electing someone to high office,
the Man-Boy Love Party could probably come closer than the Democrats.
Trump beat Harris there by 18 points, and Senator Josh Hawley beat
Lucas Kunce, who ran a good race and pasted Hawley in their debate,
by 14 points.
The reason? The right-wing media. And it's only growing and growing.
And I haven't even gotten to social media and Tik Tok and the other
platforms from which far more people are getting their news these days.
The right is way ahead on those fronts too. Liberals must wake up and
understand this and do something about it before it's too late, which
it almost is.
Katrina vanden Heuvel: [11-07]
Americans are desperate for change. Electing Trump was a misguided
message: "The causes of Donald Trump's victory will be endlessly
debated, but misdirected discontent is clearly a major factor."
Julio Ricardo Varela: [11-08]
Trump broke a record with Latino voters. History can tell us why.
"Trump exploited an 'us versus them' mentality that has long existed
among Latinos living in the US and those outside this country."
Also, some more speculative pieces on what a second Trump term
might do (some issue-specific, some more general). Most of these
assume Trump will try to do what he campaigned on, but I suggested
an alternative scenario in the second section of the intro (but
even it doesn't argue against most of the forebodings here):
Matt Bruenig: [11-07]
What does Trump's win mean for the NLRB? "Donald Trump will
probably sack National Labor Relations Board general counsel
Jennifer Abruzzo, who has been friendly to unions, on day one
of his presidency."
Jonathan Chait: [11-08]
Trump can prosecute anybody he wants, transition leader says:
"Department of Justice is now Department of Trump Justice."
Rachel M Cohen: [11-06]
Trump won. So what does that mean for abortion? "It will be
easier to restrict reproductive rights in the president-elect's
second term."
Tim Dickinson:
'You can't despair. Because that's what they want.' "Experts tell
Rolling Stone what resisting authoritarianism in America will
look like in Trump's second term." And if you have a subscription,
you can find out what they have to say.
Abdallah Fayyad: [11-06]
This one chart foreshadows Trump's immigration crackdown:
"Investors in private prisons think they've hit the jackpot with a
second Trump presidency."
Jonathan Freedland: [11-08]
Think you know how bad Trump unleashed will be? Look at the evidence:
it will be even worse. I can think of many risks, but I'd hardly
put "the end of Nato" second (or anywhere) on my list. It's not going
to happen, because NATO is really just an arms sales cartel, and
Trump loves a good racket. His threats to withdraw from NATO were
just meant to shake down more tribute. He won't back out, not least
because that would only incentivize Europe to build up their own
arms cartel.
M Gessen: [11-15]
This is the dark, unspoken promise of Trump's return: An
expert on Russia, learned the hard way, looks back there for
insight.
For those bewildered by why so many Americans apparently voted against
the values of liberal democracy, Balint Magyar has a useful formulation.
"Liberal democracy," he says, "offers moral constraints without
problem-solving" -- a lot of rules, not a lot of change -- while
"populism offers problem-solving without moral constraints." Magyar,
a scholar of autocracy, isn't interested in calling Donald Trump a
fascist. He sees the president-elect's appeal in terms of something
more primal: "Trump promises that you don't have to think about
other people."
Around the world, populist autocrats have leveraged the thrilling
power of that promise to transform their countries into vehicles for
their own singular will. Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban vowed to
restore a simpler, more orderly past, in which men were men and in
charge. What they delivered was permission to abandon societal
inhibitions, to amplify the grievances of one's own group and heap
hate on assorted others, particularly on groups that cannot speak
up for themselves. Magyar calls this "morally unconstrained collective
egoism."
While there are people in Trump's circle who look to Orban as a
guide to how to lock into power, Trump has many other sources of
inspiration, even without cracking open his copy of Mein Kampf.
For instance, the crypto-creep in El Salvador,
Nayib Bukele, who was reelected with 84% of the vote, his
popularity largely credited to his war on gangs. That's the sort
of publicity Trump would gladly kill for.
Andrea González-Ramirez: [11-08]
What to know about Susie Wiles, Trump's next Chief of Staff.
Karen J Greenberg: [11-07]
It's not just about the president: "It's about the presidency."
Indeed, the first Trump presidency vastly accelerated the claims of
expanded presidential power. Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer . . .
in their 2020 book, After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency,
they contended that "Donald Trump operated the presidency in ways that
reveal its vulnerability to dangerous excesses of authority and
dangerous weaknesses in accountability."
And as they make all too clear, the stakes were (and remain) high.
"The often-feckless Trump," they wrote, "also revealed deeper fissures
in the structure of the presidency that, we worry, a future president
might choose to exploit in a fashion similar to Trump -- but much more
skillfully, and to even greater effect." . . .
A second Trump presidency will undoubtedly take unilateral
presidential powers to a new level. . . . New York Times reporters
Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage, and Maggie Haberman
reported that Trump "and his associates" plan to "increase the
president's authority over every part of the federal government that
now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of
independence from political interference by the White House."
Ken Klippenstein: [11-12]
Read the leaked Rubio dossier: "Trump camp details 'lightweight'
Marco Rubio's liabilities." I restrained myself from noting
reports that Rubio is in line to become Secretary of State, but
couldn't resist reporting this.
Paul Krugman: [11-11]
Why Trump's deportations will drive up your grocery bill:
Seriously, a week after the election, and this is the best he can
do? Alternate title: "Did you know that the pennies you saved on
groceries were paid for by exploiting undocumented immigrant labor?"
At least he paid off the "tarrifs will drive inflation" story he's
already done a dozen times.
Avery Lotz: [11-10]
Trump rules out Haley, Pompeo admin posts: No surprise with
Haley, who still has a lot of sucking up to do. Pompeo, however,
was always so good at it. The mark against him, beyond his very
brief presidential campaign, could be policy. He is remembered as
one of Trump's stealthiest hawks, and was especially influential
in sabotaging Trump's North Korea diplomacy. Suppose Trump
remembers that?
Rachel Maddow: [11-10]
Dead last: "Authoritarian rule always entails corruption. With
Donald Trump in office, watch your wallet." More than you, or I at
least, need to read right now about Huey Long, Spiro Agnew, and
anti-corruption hero Viktor Navalny (who is inconveniently dead).
This sounds like an AI distillation of her recent books, which
sound like they were written by someone else -- not that, by this
point, we have any idea what her authentic self might sound like.
Branko Marcetic:
[11-02]
Trump is planning a third red scare: "Donald Trump and his allies
aren't making a secret of it: if they win, they're going to launch a
campaign of repression to destroy the pro-Palestinian movement and
the organized left."
[11-08]
Trump is planning a presidency of, by, and for the rich: "Now
that the 'pro-worker' GOP led by Donald Trump holds the reins of
government, what does it plan to do? A program of handouts for big
business and austerity for the rest of us."
Dylan Matthews: [11-06]
Trump proposed big Medicaid and food stamp cuts. Can he pass them?
"What Trump's return means for America's poor people."
Jane Mayer: [11-08]
Donald Trump's Supreme Court majority could easily rule through
2045: "Democrats failed to make the Court itself a major campaign
issue, but what comes after the Dobbs decision could very well be
worse, and more far-reaching."
Julianne McShane: [11-06]
After win, Trump fans admit "Project 2025 is the agenda".
George Monbiot: [11-07]
Trump has pledged to wage war on planet Earth -- and it will take
a progressive revolution to stop him.
David Remnick: [11-09]
It can happen here: "Everyone who realizes with proper alarm
that Trump's reëlection is a deeply dangerous moment in American
life must think hard about where we are."
Tony Romm: [11-11]
Trump eyes pro-crypto candidates for key federal financial
agencies: "The incoming administration has explored new personnel
and policy that can deliver on Trump's campaign promise to turn the
United States into the 'crypto capital of the planet.'" Something
else that Trump is going to do that is going to be really horrible,
although in this case not without an element of farce.
Jennifer Rubin: [11-11]
Trump can keep campaign promises or be popular. Not both. This
is pretty much what I said in my second intro. The problem here is
that Republicans don't see the need to be popular, or even want to.
They want to rule. They want to be feared. And they think that they
can extort and/or terrorize enough people to vote for them that,
with their other dirty tricks, they can stay in power, and do all
the sick and demented things they've been dreaming of. Remember
the 2000 election? Lots of pundits thought that Bush, with his
"compassionate conservatism" spiel, and coming off a relatively
moderate record as governor of Texas, would show some modesty --
he had, after all, lost the popular vote, and only won when the
Supreme Court prevented a recount in Florida -- and tack to the
center. But as soon as Bush was inaugurated, Cheney took over
and declared that Republicans had come to power with a purpose,
and they were going to do everything they wanted, just the way
they wanted it. Getting re-elected wasn't his department. He was
there to break things, and that's exactly what he did. (Then,
somehow, Rove managed to wangle Bush a second term anyway, despite
the fact that nearly everything he had done in his first was
massively unpopular.)
Matt Sledge: [11-07]
Crypto sweep puts Congress on notice: vote with us or we'll come
after you with millions: "In all likelihood, crypto deregulation
is coming."
Peter Wade: [11-10]
Trump tells GOP to bypass Senate confirmation process, block Biden
judicial appointments: "Despite an incoming Republican majority,
Trump wants new party leadership to agree to recess appointments."
That way he can appoint people even Republicans could object to.
(Obviously, RFK Jr. jumps to mind.) Here's another report:
Joel Warner: [11-07]
What can we expect from a second Trump presidency? "From unleashing
more dark money in politics to expanding fossil fuel production and
assaulting reproductive rights, here's some of what we can expect from
a second Donald Trump administration.
PS: Trying to wind up on Monday, I'm starting to see a
number of early appointments (e.g.,
Trump picks Rep. Elise Stefanik as ambassador to the United Nations),
which are beyond the scope of this post and section, as well as damn
near impossible for me to keep up with. I will say that they do show
that he's actually thought about transition and administration this
time (unlike in 2016), he has a plan, and is executing it quickly.
This certainly argues against the notion that he might not govern
as viciously as he campaigned. I should also note that the Wade
story above shows that he intends to dominate Congress (or bypass
them wherever possible), rather than have to negotiate with anyone
(even mainstream Republicans). He is basically confirming the fears
of all those who predicted that Trump would turn the presidency
into a dictatorship.
PPS: I know I said I wouldn't do this, but here's a brief
general survey of the first two weeks of Trump appointments:
Alex Skopic/Stephen Prager: [11-21]
Hell is empty, and all the devils are here: "Trump's staff picks
are a rogue's gallery of cranks, oligarchs, religious fanatics, and
alleged sexual abusers. He's not 'draining the swamp,' he's deepening
it and adding more snakes." Section heads: The Warmongers (start with
Rubio); The Oligarchs (start with Musk); the Quacks (start with RFK
Jr.); The Climate Vandals (less famous, with fracking Chris Wright,
Lee Zeldin, and Doug Burgum); and Miscellaneous Depravity (picture
of Kristi Noem, but she's not the only one).
At the last count, more than 76 million Americans voted for Donald
Trump to be president. Some of them are probably your friends,
relatives, classmates, neighbors, and co-workers. But when you
cast an eye over the list of his appointees, you have to wonder:
is this truly what they thought they were voting for? A government
composed of billionaires and lobbyists, crackpots who think the
concept of medical science is suspect, and foreign policy hawks
who are just itching to go to war with Iran or China? Tabloid
celebrities like Dr. Oz and Linda McMahon being placed in charge
of whether you get healthcare and education or not? It seems
unlikely. Rather, it seems Trump -- who's built his entire career
on lies, scams, and fraud -- has scammed the American people again,
promising to sweep into Washington and clean it out when really
he's going to do the opposite.
Harris:
Kat Abughazaleh: [11-08]
Democrats need to clean house before they screw up again: "It
wasn't just the people running Kamala Harris's campaign who failed.
The leadership of the entire party is at fault."
Dean Baker: [11-13]
Did bad economic reporting doom Harris?
This is the time for everyone to do their election autopsy, where
everyone pushes their preferred story of what went wrong for the
Harris campaign. Mine will focus on what I consider the simplest
and most obvious, the media painted a picture of a bad economy
which was virtually impossible for the Harris campaign to overcome.
And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the alternative reality
folks at Fox, I mean the New York Times, Washington Post, and other
bastions of the establishment media.
Just to provide context, there is little doubt that people's views
of the economy were hugely important in determining the vote. Exit
polls consistently put the economy as the
number 1 or
number 2 issue in people's minds as they went to vote. And those
rating the economy as a top issue voted for Trump by a huge margin.
I find it completely unfathomable why anyone worried about the
economy would look to Republicans (especially Trump) for relief.
History, as far back as Herbert Hoover, is unanimous on this point,
at least for most (working/middle class) people -- higher-income
people may have done relatively better with Republicans, but with
the possible exception of the top 1% (at most), they too have fared
better with Democrats. Or you could look at policy preferences, which
again favor Democrats by a huge margin. As Baker points out, a big
part of people's evaluation of the economy is simply partisan, but
that doesn't explain why a majority (actually well above the actual
vote) thought better of Republicans.
Baker continues:
At the most basic level, the media have continually chosen to highlight
the negative about the economy. University of Wisconsin political
science professor Mark Copelovitch did an
analysis last year showing that mentions of "inflation" and
"recession" dwarfed mentions of unemployment, even as the latter
was hitting record lows and we never had a recession.
The inflation we did see was part of a worldwide burst of inflation
related to the pandemic, where the US rate was little different than
the inflation seen in countries like France and Germany. We were told
people don't blame the pandemic, they blame Biden. That is undoubtedly
true, but that is because the media didn't remind people that the
inflation was due to the pandemic in the same way they always reminded
people that the withdrawal from Afghanistan was "disastrous." . . .
Most people are not getting their news from the New York Times or
Washington Post, but the information presented in these outlets does
spread to other news outlets and to social media. When people hear the
bad economy story in the elite media they help its spread elsewhere.
It's true that most regular consumers of these outlets supported
Harris, but that misses the point. . . . They helped to advance a bad
economy story that was at odds with reality. Given the importance of
perceptions of the economy in people's voting, it would have been all
but impossible for Harris to overcome this negative economy story, and
she didn't.
Josh Barro: [11-09]
This is all Biden's fault. He starts with Biden picking Harris
as his VP in 2020.
Chris Bohner: [11-02]
Kamala Harris is not doing well with union voters.
Jonathan Chait: [11-06]
Why America rejected the Biden-Harris administration: "It's not
that people love Trump. Democrats simply failed." As usual, Chait
swims in his own tide:
The seeds of Harris's failure were planted eight years ago, when the
Democratic Party responded to Trump's 2016 victory not by moving
toward the center, as defeated parties often do, but by moving away
from it. This decision was fueled by a series of reality-distorting
blinders on the Democrats' decision-making elite.
So, after Hillary Clinton failed, they should have moved further
to the right? How was that even possible? No mention of what the
Democrats did in 2018, after moving so far into left-wing peril.
(They won both houses of Congress.) But Chait then claims Biden
in 2020, who "won because he abstained from that rush to the left,
keeping him closer to where the party's voters had remained" --
maybe he should recheck his old columns complaining about Biden
getting hoodwinked trying to appease Sanders voters?
Aida Chavez: [11-07[
Harris ran to Trump's right on immigration -- and gained absolutely
nothing for it: "Harris could have focused on how US foreign
policy pushes immigrants to leave their homes. Instead, she ran on
border security."
Maureen Dowd: [11-09]
Democrats and the case of mistaken identity politics: Inevitable
that someone would bring this up. Who are these "normal people"? And
when does one ever get a chance to really talk with them? Yet
somehow, they always show up to second guess you.
Liza Featherstone:
Malcolm Ferguson: [11-08]
Democrats say Kamala Harris ignored their dire warnings on Liz
Cheney.
Daniel Finn: [11-07]
Corporate donors guided Kamala Harris to defeat: E.g., Mark
Cuban.
Oliver Hall: [11-09]
I spent hours trying to persuade US voters to choose Harris not Trump.
I know why she lost.
You should know what I didn't hear during the hours speaking to US
voters. I can only think of one occasion when someone mentioned
stricter taxes on billionaires or any similar policies. The atrocities
being committed by Israel in Gaza only came up six times in more than
1,000 calls. The idea that Harris was not leftwing enough seems false:
the majority of the country just voted for the complete opposite.
After all those conversations, I think the main reason that Harris
and Walz lost this campaign is simple: Trump. Ultimately, he was simply
too much of a pull again. Despite the gaffes, despite his views on women,
despite his distaste for democracy and despite an insurrection, voters
just didn't care.
For reasons that I'm sure will be studied for decades, when he speaks,
people listen. When he speaks, people believe him. After all those calls,
I can be shocked at this result, but hardly surprised.
Benjamin Hart: [11-09]
Why Kamala Harris's campaign was doomed from the start:
Interview with Amy Walter, publisher/editor of Cook Political
Report.
Bob Hennellyk: [11-11]
Progressives aren't the problem in the Democratic coalition:
"Ignoring low-wage and low-wealth voters cost Kamala Harris big."
Sarah Jones:
[11-06]
Kamala Harris squandered her opportunity to win.
Donald Trump had bet on a sense of aggrieved masculinity as the
return path to power, and while there's much we don't know about
who turned out to vote and why, his strategy did not alienate
white women in the numbers Harris needed to win. Misogyny and
racism should receive due attention in postmortems to come, but
they can't explain Tuesday on their own. The story is more
complicated, and dire. Though she spoke of freedom, of forward
motion, of change, voters did not trust her to deliver. Some
will blame the left for this, but Harris tried centrism as did
Biden and Clinton before her, and that didn't work, either.
Leftists do not control the Democratic Party and never have;
only consider the party's intransigence on Gaza. If the Democratic
brand is poison now, blame its grifter consultants, who never fail
out of politics no matter how many pivotal races they lose. Blame
Harris, too, whose message was simply too anemic to overcome decades
of Democratic failure.
[11-12]
Bigotry is not the answer to Donald Trump: There's a Seth Moulton
quote in here that is horrible not because he's slandering trans
people (maybe he wanted to, but I doubt he's referring any actual
people) but because it shows how clueless some Democrats can be
when it comes to facing Republican talking points. Democrats have
to get much smarter at that. Some decent humane principles wouldn't
hurt, either.
Even so, the Democratic Party's problems did not start with Harris
or with her economic policy, or with a few pro-trans remarks that
she made before she ran for president. The party's inconsistency --
its refusal to reliably champion working Americans -- left trans
people vulnerable to attacks from the right. Had voters believed
that Democrats would lower the costs of housing or health care or
other basic necessities, perhaps Harris would have won, or at least
run a closer race. Instead she courted elites, as generations of
Democrats have done before her, and handed the country to an
aspiring tyrant.
Now some Democrats and their liberal supporters would rather
help Trump divide the working class against itself than admit the
party failed. Liberals project their own intellectual and moral
failings onto the left, which they accuse of rigidity and a certain
wishful thinking. When Maureen Dowd
wrote that "woke is broke" in her post-election diatribe, she
imagined a country that is nothing more than a mirror of herself.
When the hosts of Morning Joe
read her column on air in its tedious entirety, they revealed
themselves, not some hidden truth in the national soul. Their
conclusions are far too convenient to be realistic. How lucky for
Dowd that voters share her exact biases, that their enemies are
her enemies and their fears her fears.
Democrats need to deal with the electorate they have, but they
can and should do so without denigrating trans and nonbinary people.
Liberals and electeds who say the party should move further to the
right do so because they aren't interested in serving the working
class. They'd rather absolve themselves while avoiding the hard
work of introspection. That way lies a political dead end. If the
Democratic Party is to be fit for purpose, it will have to offer
voters real answers, not technocracy or elitism or scapegoats.
Trans people didn't cost Democrats the election. Liberals did
that all by themselves.
Tim Jonze: [11-06]
'George Clooney - who cares?' Did celebrity endorsements actually
harm Kamala Harris?
- Eric Levitz:
[11-08]
The debate over what Democrats do now hinges on one question:
"There are two ways of interpreting Harris's loss." Actually, there
are lots of ways to interpret the loss. The question isn't which one
is right. (Even if you could do that, what good would it do you? A
book? A posh job in academia, or at some think tank?) The only real
question is: what, given the new reality, do you do about it? And
no single Democrat is going to answer that. As Will Rogers explained
back in the 1930s: "I am not a member of any organized political
party. I am a Democrat." Today's Democrats aren't more organized
or ideologically coherent than they were in Rogers' day. Ever since
the Civil War, the Republicans have been the core party -- calling
themselves the G.O.P. was brilliant, shape-shifting PR -- and the
Democrats were whatever fell off the margins: tariff-adverse traders
and bankers, big city immigrant machines, neo-Confederates, rural
populists, any stray Catholics or Jews. Under FDR, they picked up
labor support, and briefly became the majority, but Republicans
never lost their conceit that they are the one true American party,
and as they became more conservative, they evened up the balance by
welcoming white racists (while Democrats attracted blacks and other
estranged minorities, while losing their older ethnic groups to the
Republican melting pot).
After losing Congress in 1994 and 2010, Democratic presidents
could consolidate their control over what was left of the Party,
and respond to the losses in a coherent manner -- which guided
both Clinton and Obama to second terms, but offered damn little
help for other Democrats (either politicians or the party base).
But this loss, like the McCain loss in 2008, leaves the Party with
no leadership. Harris has liquidated her political capital, as
have her predecessors (Biden, Obama, the Clintons), who were all
very much (in retrospect, much too much) of her campaign.
Which basically sets up a free-for-all to see who can rise
up and lead a revived Democratic Party. Sure, some pundits and
consultants are going to advise accommodation to the right winds,
but who among the rank-and-file really wants to compromise on
abortion bans, book burning, or genocide arming? At some point,
you have to decide that enough is enough, that the right and
the rich already have much more than they deserve, and that we
have to fight back. And as that happens, new leaders will rise
from the ranks. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is once again setting
an example of a politician who intends to defend us -- from Trump,
of course, but also from the defeatists in our own ranks.
After the utter disaster of the Bush-Cheney regime in 2008,
the Republican grandees were left aimless and speechless. Then
the Tea Party broke out, and moved the Party radically to the
right. The Tea Party didn't take over the Party, but the Party
revived, largely on their energy, and bounced back remarkably
fast. This will be harder for Democrats, because everything is
harder for Democrats, but it won't be for lack of issues and
critical analysis. And if the money powers get in the way, we
need to learn to live without them, and show them to be the
villains they actually are.
[11-15]
The left's comforting myth about why Harris lost: "Progressives
need an accurate autopsy of Kamala Harris's campaign, not an
ideologically convenient one." Too late to mount a critique of
this one, but that may be a worthy future project, especially
as Levitz expands on his ideas in his new
The Rebuild newsletter. I shouldn't get too defensive about
Levitz's seeming turn against "the left," as the real bottom
line here is how to make the Democratic Party more viable in
general elections. The left needs an effective Democratic Party
to implement our preferred policies (which are the best policies
for everyone -- that's why we prefer them). But the Democratic
Party also needs a strong left to keep them focused on real
problems, steering away from the temptations of donors and
their special interests.
Answering those questions will require Democrats to analyze their
predicament with open minds. If we seek ideologically comforting
explanations for the party's problems -- rather than empirically
sound ones -- the coalition will march deeper into the wilderness.
Unfortunately, in the wake of Vice President Kamala Harris's
loss, virtually
every
Democratic faction has produced its share of motivated reasoning.
In future newsletters, I plan to take issue with some centrists'
analysis of the party's difficulties. But today, I want to explain
why I worry that the left is allowing wishful thinking to cloud its
vision of political reality.
Since November 5, some progressives have drawn a sweeping lesson
from Trump's second victory: Harris's loss proves Democrats gain
little from
"moderation"
or
"centrism"
and must
"embrace
radical policies" in order to compete. I admire many of the
writers making this argument. But their confidence in this
narrative strikes me as wildly unfounded.
It is true that Harris
pivoted to the center on border security, crime, and, to a
lesser extent, economics. There are plenty of sound arguments --
both moral and political -- against Democrats moderating on
specific issues. Yet it's hard to see how anyone could be
confident that Harris lost because she moderated, much less
that her loss proved that moderation is electorally
counterproductive as a rule.
I habitually respond to world events by imaging the kind
of book I'd like to write about them. I've had a practical
political book in mind at least since the 2004 election where
I would methodically detail how Republicans are evil-hearted,
lame-brained bastards leading us to ruin, and try to convince
Democrats that they could not only win elections but actually
solve problems by drawing on left ideas. While my faith in
the healing power of those ideas remains, the 2024 election
has demolished my faith that better ideas can win elections.
So that kills off the old book concept, and intrdouces a new
one: What We Learned From the 2024 Elections. I don't
know the answer to that yet, but I what I suspect is that it
has very little to do with issues and policies, and even less
with the left-right axis, but turns around credibility and
trust, on how you talk to people.
Jill Lepore: [11-10]
Democrats tried to counter Donald Trump's viciousness toward
women with condescension: "The Harris campaign felt the
need to remind women voters that they can vote for whomever
they want. Women understood this. The campaign failed to."
Damon Linker: [11-07]
Kamala Harris failed to read the room.
Milan Loewer: [11-05]
If Harris loses today, this is why: "To win working-class voters --
and possibly today's election -- Democrats need to attack economic
elites. But the Kamala Harris campaign hasn't consistently offered
an anti-elite counter to Donald Trump's right-wing populism." On
the other hand, Republicans are very adept at channeling rage
against elite Democrats. Why can't Democrats turn the tables on
the some of the most entitled, selfish, greedy people in America?
Martin Longman: [11-07]
I'm not sure the race was ever winnable. A big chunk of this is
based on a pre-election piece:
Nate Cohn: [11-02]
Why are Democrats having such a hard time beating Trump? "The
national political environment just isn't as conducive to a Harris
victory as many might imagine." I don't really buy the argument for
a global tide toward conservatism, and there's much else I'd nitpick
in his left-and-right momentum survey, but he's certainly right that
Harris leaned against progressive policies that just four years ago
Biden leaned into, and that undermined both the Democrats' credibility
and the message that Trump and the Republicans are nihilist lunatics
with no plans that could actually solve anything.
Branko Marcetic: [11-06]
Democratic Party elites brought us this disaster. I'm tempted
to quote lots of this rant, but can't quite hone in on any single
section. I also rather doubt that the Trump vote is being driven
by economic hardship -- not least because Trump's offering nothing
to help, whereas Harris actually is. The problem there seems to be
that mass of people who believe Trump on everything and Harris (or
any other Democrats) on nothing.
As a general rule, politicians campaign for donors early on, and
make amends to donors after the election, but during the closing
stretch, they focus on trying to appeal to voters. That's the point
when, for Democrats at least, their messaging leans left, toward
things that might actually help people. Voters have good reason to
be skeptical, and I can think of cases where it didn't work well,
but at least the politician is showing them some respect. I can't
say as I was paying a lot of attention, but I didn't notice Harris
doing that this campaign. Rather, they were raising money like crazy,
and she doesn't seem to have taken the necessary step of changing
that money into votes. I think that goes back to credibility, which
has been in short supply since Clinton started triangulating. Even
if it seemed to be working, as with Clinton and Obama, you look
back years later, and see what the donors got out of the process,
but can't remember what you got.
Clinton like to quote Harry Truman as saying, "if you want to
live like a Republican, you have to vote Democratic." Problem
there is that when folk start living like Republicans, they start
voting Republican, so you lose them -- especially the snots who
will kick the ladder out so no one else can follow them (which,
by the way, seems to be part of the problem why Democrats are
losing Latino voters). Meanwhile, the people who didn't make it
up start blaming you, and some of them vote Republican (or just
don't vote) just to spite you, so it's lose-lose.
Nicholas Nehamas/Andrew Duehren: [11-09]
Harris had a Wall Street-approved economic pitch. It fell flat.
"The vice president vacillated on how to talk about the economy,
and ended up adopting marginal pro-business tweaks that both
corporate and progressive allies agreed made for a muddled message."
I wonder if her late start didn't have something to do with this.
She wound up spending way too much time talking to donors, and not
enough to voters. She adopted much of what the former told her,
and little from the latter. Most campaigns shift from one focus
to the other (then the donors get a second shot after the votes
are counted), but she was relentlessly, obsessively fundraising
up to the very end. That worked to raise a lot of funds, but
they never managed to turn those funds into votes -- possibly
because the interests aren't the same. Or maybe she had enough
time and help to figure things out, but just liked the donors
more. And wanted more to impress them, perhaps because that's
where her personal future lies (now more than ever).
Lydia Polgreen/Tressie McMillan Cottom: [11-07]
Democrats had a theory of the election. They were wrong.
Transcript of a conversation between two of their non-right opinion
columnists:
Polgreen: On Tuesday we found out that the nation really,
really wanted a change. Not only did Donald Trump take the presidency,
but Republicans took the Senate and made gains in blue states like my
home state of New York and big gains in New York City, too. . . .
McMillan Cottom: I don't live in New York full time, I live
in the South. I spent a lot of time with working-class people, people
living in the mountains and rural parts of the country. And I also saw
a sort of acceptance and integration of Donald Trump's vision of an
America where no one has to give up anything to win. And it appeals
a lot to Hispanic voters, to working-class voters, especially
working-class men. It appealed a lot to people in rural parts of
the state of all races. That concerned me and concerned me the
entire campaign.
Polgreen: I think I was a bit more optimistic, in part
because, to me, this election really turned on this question of
who has a stake in the system as it currently exists and who feels
that they could benefit from just blowing it all up. . . .
I think I felt hopeful that here we had a generic Democrat who
had these plain vanilla policies that were not that exciting. They
tried to address around the edges some of the issues that people
needed from government.
I thought maybe that could work. Maybe there's just enough chaos,
just enough of a sense that this is too dangerous. That gamble was
just wrong, and ultimately you were right.
McMillan Cottom: Again, I take no pleasure in that because
if I am right, I am right because I thought -- and now have evidence --
that the anger that Americans feel cannot be directed toward the truth.
More interesting things in here, including:
Polgreen: The other thing is that we are living in this
zero-sum moment where people think giving something to someone else
means taking something away from me.
There was that moment where JD Vance was talking about how if
immigrants made countries rich, then Springfield, Ohio, would be
the richest city in the world, and the United States would be the
richest country in the world. Well, news flash, the United States
is the richest country in the world. . . .
McMillan Cottom: One of the things that JD Vance is
actually very good at that Donald Trump is not good at, is he
figured out how to take something that is a problem about
relative differences and make it feel like an absolute loss.
The point here isn't that Vance is really clever, but that he
finds a way to get back to his basic campaign proposition. He's
not unique -- I've seen Bernie Sanders do this many times, but
the secret here is not dogged repetition, but having a point to
get back to. Continuing:
McMillan Cottom:
But that relative loss, despite the fact that objectively, they
are still doing OK, is enough when turned into anxiety and fear
and aggression, which Donald Trump is very good at doing, feels
like an emotional catharsis. And then JD Vance comes behind and
says, "Not only are you losing, but yes, your loss is coming
because someone else is gaining."
What we do not have on the other side, to your point, is either
a center or center-left and, I'd even argue, a Democratic center-right
story that captures that emotion in the same kind of way.
Also:
Polgreen: Yeah. And I think that the idea that the Democratic
Party has to work within a set of defined rules of the existing order
is just a brain disease.
I had initially skipped over all the New York Times pundits, until
I was pointed here by:
Steve M.: [11-07]
Voters think every party is the leopards eating people's faces
party:
What this suggests to me is that millions of voters didn't think
they were voting on a choice between chaos and stability. They
think both parties destabilize the country. So they chose Trump's
promise of a form of destabilization they found appealing over the
status quo, which they see as an unappealing destabilization.
In the famous
meme, a supporter of the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
says, "I never thought leopards would eat MY face." Donald Trump
won because millions of voters think Democratic policies lead
leopards to eat their faces, and Trump's policies will make leopards
eat the faces of people they don't like.
In particular, young men of all ethnicities think liberal culture
has created a pro-queer gynocracy that's eating the faces of straight
males. They want leopards to eat the faces of people they think are
benefiting in this culture. . . .
A majority of Hispanic men
appear to have voted for Trump despite the fact that some will be
caught up in his crackdown on undocumented immigrants. These Trump
voters believe that only the undocumented will have their faces eaten,
and they're fine with that. (Harris campaigned on a border crackdown,
so she didn't talk much about how heavy-handed Trump's immigration
policies are likely to be.)
Trump chose popular victims of the leopards -- women, trans people,
immigrants, criminals. Democrats could have chosen the rich, but
bashing the rich reportedly scares some moderates. It sets off alarm
bells in the "liberal" commentariat and reduces the big-money
contributions that are necessary for Democrats to run one of our
country's staggeringly expensive presidential campaigns.
A day earlier, M. also wrote:
[11-06]
Trump is a toxically masculine Andy Kaufman, and other unorganized
thoughts: "A few thoughts on one of the worst days in American
history." Section heads (some with a bit of quote):
- Eeyore: I was right to be pessimistic, and it's clear
that I should have remained pessimistic even after Kamala Harris
entered the race.
- Democrats and Republicans agree that Democrats are bad
[longer quote to follow]
- Maybe ground game is meaningless
- But didn't voters think Trump is crazy?
- Which brings me to Biden: But the race might have been
different for her or Biden if Biden had been able to persuade
voters that he cared and was working hard to make their lives
better [but he couldn't, and she wouldn't].
- And also, America is massively sexist: I don't think
I'll live to see a female president. There are too many trad
Christians and too many whiny boy-men -- and they just elected
the biggest whiny boy-man of them all.
The point about Democrats cited a comment from
Frank Wilhoit that is worth quoting here:
People vote their emotional compulsions, which, by definition, are
purely destructive; that is why all voting is negative-partisan.
Trump will get one vote: his own. The votes that are recorded as
his will be votes against, not Kamala Harris, but the Democratic
Party and its constituencies. Comparably, Harris will get no votes at
all; the votes that are recorded as hers will be votes against,
not Trump, but the Republican Party and its constituencies.
History is on the side of the Republicans here, because they
understand what is going on; that is why they focus exclusively
upon degrading the Democratic brand. We do not understand. . . . We
should have spent every moment of the past forty-five years screaming
total rejection of the "conservative" pseudophilosophy, and nothing
else. . . .
It is too late now; one cannot suddenly "discover" a problem that
has been in being for decades and try to whip up any urgency around it.
Patrick Healy/David French: [11-06]
It's time to admit America has changed: Two more conservative
New York Times pundits discuss the election.
- Stephen Prager: [11-15]
Don't you dare blame Harris's loss on the left: "Some prominent
pundits are trying to blame 'woke' for the Democrats' embarrassing
defeat. It won't work."
- Waleed Shahid: [11-18]
The left didn't sink Kamala Harris. Here's what did. "It's easier
to blame activists, but far more powerful forces have led Democrats
to neglect the real crises facing Americans." Much of this is to be
expected, but the ending is stirring:
History reveals that oversimplified approaches often sidestep the
harder questions. Success doesn't come from rejecting the complexity
of a diverse coalition but from learning to navigate it. To win,
Democrats must inspire the public in a fractured information age,
engage meaningfully with the cultural shifts around race, gender,
family, and migration, make democracy work despite obstructionists
like Manchin and Sinema, and -- most critically -- deliver tangible
results that improve people's lives. And if the corporate, status
quo -- loving forces within the party are standing in the way of
that mission, they must be moved aside.
Success will come not by pointing fingers but by telling a story
of transformation -- with clear villains, bold vision, and conviction
that democracy can, indeed, make a difference.
The first part of the last line could use some editing: you do
need to point fingers, but at the clear villains that are essential
to your story. The one thing you have to grant Republicans is that
they're good at identifying villains. It shouldn't be hard to name
our own:
- Greedy, arrogant billionaire donors (or more broadly but also
more succinctly, the 1%). These are the people who feel entitled
to run the world.
- Right-wing media. These are the people who will lie and cheat
and play any imaginable games to control your minds.
- The theocrats who want a new inquisition, to force you to live
as they think you should. These are the people who will take away
your rights and freedom.
- The scammers, scoundrels, crooks and frauds. These are the
people who will steal whatever else you have left.
That's not a lot of people, but they have a big impact on very
many lives. And bear in mind that the goal in identifying these
villains isn't the all-too-popular wish to "lock them up" or to
"take them out." The goal is to significantly reduce their power
over and impact on everyone else.
Norman Solomon: [11-07]
Democrats ignored every warning and the results are catastrophic:
"Now that a fascistic party has won the presidency along with the
Senate and apparently the House as well, the stakes for people and
planet are truly beyond comprehension."
Andrew Prokop:
[11-06]
One striking pattern hidden in the election results: "Were voters
rejecting Democrats -- or just the Biden-Harris administration?" Or,
I have to ask, just Harris? I haven't entertained the possibility,
at least in print, that they simply don't trust a person with any/all
of her attributes, which most obviously include: woman, color, from
California, both parents immigrants. None of that bothers me, nor
does it bother most people, and nearly all of the people who think
of such things were going to vote Trump anyway, but if you can't
win the kind of landslide you deserve on issues alone, maybe think
about that. As for the pattern:
But when you zoom in on the details of that result, there's a striking
pattern: Democratic Senate candidates are outperforming Harris. Or,
put another way, Republican Senate candidates are doing worse than
Trump.
[11-06]
Why Kamala Harris lost: "Trump won because Harris inherited a
tough situation from Joe Biden -- and ultimately could not overcome
it." I'll nominate this piece for a bracket elimination tournament
to find the most intellectually lazy explanation for the loss. He
offers three reasons: a global trend ("in the years since the pandemic,
incumbent parties have been struggling in wealthy democracies across
the world"); "Biden's unpopularity" (which Harris "had to figure out
what to do about that"); and "Harris's own record," by which he means
Harris's 2019 presidential campaign, when she "embraced progressive
policy positions that Democrats now view as politically toxic."
As I've said, I don't know what the answer is, but it's got to be
something more than that. As for the "tough situation" Biden left
Harris in, his only detail was that Israel-Gaza had "divided
Democrats' coalition." (I'd submit that it didn't divide the
coalition that actually identified as Democrats, but it turned
off a lot of other voters that Harris needed.)
[11-11]
The debate over why Harris lost is in full swing. Here's a guide.
"Was she a weak candidate? Was it Joe Biden's fault? Did Trump have
unexpected strength? Or was it a global trend?" This appeared too
late for me to explore, but I have one suggestion: instead of looking
for things that might have moved the needle a point or two, start
from the assumption that Trump (and most Republicans) were be any
objective criteria so bad they should have lost by at least 10,
possibly 20 points, and see if you can identify any problems at
that scale? I'd start with money and media structure, and then
consider the difficulties of establishing trust against those
odds. Harris wasn't a weak candidate so much as one not strong
enough to overcome those bigger obstacles. Same for Biden, who
had some additional weaknesses that Harris only partly made up
for. We can go on down the list, but we keep coming back to what
happened to the world to make Trump seem credible, while Harris
was ultimately judged by many to be some kind of phony.
Nathan J Robinson: [11-06]
Once again, the Democratic leadership has failed us all:
"In 2016, we warned that Hillary Clinton's campaign was not resonating
with Americans. In 2024, we warned about Kamala Harris, and we were
ignored again. Now, the worst has happened. So, what do we do? A
leftist analysis can help us chart a path forward."
Since we're here, let's file some "I told you so" links cited in
the article:
Andrew Duehren/Lauren Hirsch: [10-14]
How Wall St. is subtly shaping the Harris economic agenda: "The
vice president has repeatedly incorporated suggestions from business
executives into her economic agenda."
Dan Friedman: [09-13]
Harris' embrace of Dick Cheney was just one way she courted national
security hawks: "On Gaza, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, the VP signaled
she won't ditch DC's interventionists."
Yasmin Nair: [08-23]
Kamala Harris will lose.
Nathan J Robinson:
[10-23]
Is Kamala blowing it? "Her campaign began with huge fanfare.
Now she's slipping in the polls and making seemingly obvious
mistakes. What's going on?"
[08-21]
Politics should not be parasocial: "We are electing a head of
state who will wield immense power and control a massive nuclear
arsenal. 'Policy' is not peripheral or dispensable, it's the only
thing that really matters."
[04-02]
What Trump understands about war: "Donald Trump's militarism
is even worse than Biden's. But he's keeping relatively quiet on
Israel-Palestine, probably because he knows the public doesn't
like war."
[2022-07-02]
The ACA marketplace is a scam covered with a veneer of "choice":
"Purchasing health insurance on the marketplace is so confusing that
it is impossible for consumers to make rational choices."
Ken Silverstein: [11-07]
While Harris torched at least $2 billion during humiliating defeat
to Trump, former top staffers and advisors for the Veep, Biden,
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sanders, and Warren got rich: "Ten
political consulting firms with close ties to the Democratic
establishment raked in more than $100 million from Harris's
campaign coffers."
Alex Skopic/Nathan J Robinson: [08-06]
It's a bad idea for Harris to abandon progressive policies:
"In recent days the Vice President has quickly ditched some of
her boldest initiatives, needlessly making herself look unprincipled."
Bret Stephens: [11-06]
A party of prigs and pontificators suffers a humiliating defeat:
I can't stand Stephens, who even spoils his conversations with Gail
Collins -- their latest,
The Trump era never really ended, has a title that could develop
into interesting analysis, but doesn't. This piece, too, is mostly
crap, but he gives you a good taste of how the Republican mindset
caricatures Democrats. (Do you suppose his Harris endorsement was
another plant? He doesn't seem to have the faculties to have based
it on reason -- well, as he explains later in the piece, his first
reason for voting for Harris was Ukraine, followed by trade policy.
The only time Republicans ever go bipartisan is when they suspect
an opportunity to make Democrats look bad to their voters.)
Here's a sample:
The dismissiveness with which liberals treated these concerns was
part of something else: dismissiveness toward the moral objections
many Americans have to various progressive causes. [bogus examples
follow, starting with trans athletics]
The Democratic Party at its best stands for fairness and freedom.
But the politics of today's left is heavy on social engineering
according to group identity. It also, increasingly, stands for the
forcible imposition of bizarre cultural norms on hundreds of millions
of Americans who want to live and let live but don't like being told
how to speak or what to think. Too many liberals forgot this, which
explains how a figure like Trump, with his boisterous and transgressive
disdain for liberal pieties, could be re-elected to the presidency.
Last, liberals thought that the best way to stop Trump was to treat
him not as a normal, if obnoxious, political figure with bad policy
ideas but as a mortal threat to democracy itself. [more bogus examples]
And it made liberals seem hyperbolic, if not hysterical, particularly
since the country had already survived one Trump presidency more or
less intact.
Today, the Democrats have become the party of priggishness,
pontification and pomposity. It may make them feel righteous, but
how's that ever going to be a winning electoral look?
This is massively unfair, but it's the bread and butter of
right-wing media, so Democrats have to get better at handling
it. That doesn't mean inching closer to Republicans, not least
because that never works, but better framing is possible, and
trust-building is essential. I don't see that working with a
hack like Stephens, but most people are more open-minded than
him (or minded, for that matter).
Bhaskar Sunkara: [11-08]
The Democrats lost because they ran a weak and out of touch
campaign: "The party, increasingly divorced from workers,
leaned too much on an activist base instead of a voting base."
Michael Tomasky: [11-06]
Latino men were the big defectors -- but they weren't the only ones:
"Here's how Harris failed to replicate Biden's 2020 victory over Trump."
Bernie Sanders: Sanders
endorsed and campaigned for Harris. After the election he
posted this:
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has
abandoned working class people would find that the working class has
abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is
Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership
defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change.
And they're right.
Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of
Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth
inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for
weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now
than they were 50 years ago.
I don't have the links handy, but right after Sanders
made his statement about Democrats abandoning the working class, I saw
a bunch of flak on Twitter charging Sanders with hypocrisy because
during the campaign he praised Biden's record for labor (most pro-labor
president since . . . ?). Pretty low bar, but during a campaign you
take what you can get. Afterwards, you go back to what you want, which
is a candidate who is more effective for working people. Sanders wants
that. His detractors don't seem to.
Other articles that focused on Sanders:
Jessica Corbett: [11-07]
Sanders slams 'big money interests' that control Democratic Party
after loss to Trump.
Krystal Kyle: [11-06]
Bernie would have won: "The Democratic smothering of the Bernie
coalition reaped its reward today."
Branko Marcetic: [11-07]
Bernie Sanders is right to be incensed at the Democrats.
- Natalie Shure: [11-12]
Bernie would have won. Seriously. "Trump keeps winning because
the Democratic party refuses to be the party of the working class."
Sanders has one thing that few Democrats have, which is credibility.
The counterpoint is that if the Democratic Party had nominated Sanders,
rich Democrats like Michael Bloomberg would have bagged the election,
throwing it to Trump -- much like previous generations of Democratic
elites did to Bryan (1896) and McGovern (1972).
- Jared Ryan Sears:
[reply to a
tweet that featured Sanders' post-election statement, the one
with charging the Democrats with abandoning the working class]:
- Unions are the strongest they've been in decades.
- Wages among the lowest earners grew the fastest.
- The child tax credit was expanded.
- A minimum corporate tax was enacted.
- A tax on stock buybacks was added.
- High inflation was brought down to normal levels without a recession.
- Millions of jobs were created.
- Unemployment has remained low.
- Manufacturing returned to the US.
- Prescription prices were lowered.
- More Americans have healthcare than ever before.
- -Billions were given to student debt relief.
- -The American Rescue Plan got Americans back to work, covered
Cobra payments, and even directly gave Americans money.
Let's stop pretending that nothing was done by this administration
when it inherited a pandemic, a migrant crisis, and high inflation and
managed not only to address all of those issues through Republican
obstruction but accomplished much more as well.
There's always more to do, and mistakes happen, but to act like
Democrats abandoned the working class is ridiculous.
Lots of comments follow, some agreeing with Sanders, but most
attacking him, the vitriol especially strong from points farther
left -- attacks on his endorsements of Clinton/Biden/Harris (I
always filed those under "go along to get along," a game he's
played rather skillfully) and charging him with genocide (he did
reflexively support Israel after the Oct. 7 revolt, but as it
became clear that Netanyahu's game plan was genocide, he has
shown exceptional clarity and bravery in opposing US arms to
further that genocide). I've generally insisted that people of
the left are good-hearted, well-meaning, and thoughtful, but
by evidence here, at least a dozen are simple-minded assholes,
not unlike thousands (or millions?) on the right.
PS: On second thought, I think these comments were to
Sanders' original thread, not to the Zachary Carter tweet that
led me to it. It is quite possible that he is heckled like this
all the time, and that the "extreme left" attacks are deceptive
trolls. Sorry for opening that can of worms.
Resisting and coping:
I've generally put
the "what comes next" pieces under Trump (second section), but the
corresponding "what do we do now" pieces are likely to have nothing
to do with Harris (not that the idea doesn't crop up in the various
pieces critical of the Harris campaign). I wasn't really expecting
to do this section, but found one piece, and thought there may be
more (e.g., I moved the Ganz piece in from elsewhere).
John Ganz: [11-06]
I hope I'm wrong: "About Trump and other things." Many
worthy thoughts in this post:
There's a political lesson there, too, though, that applies to the
present moment: having a clear vision of things, even if it is
unpleasant or dark, beats no vision or an unclear one. Trump's
campaigns had a clear mythos: a story about what America is and
was and where it is going. No Democratic candidate that's run
against him has been able to articulate an opposing vision. This
is not particular to this or that candidate, although all of them
had individual weaknesses. We can litigate that forever. But it's
really a problem of American liberalism: liberalism is unsure of
itself and ameliorative, it's not a bold vision of the future as
it once was in its heyday under LBJ or FDR. Trumpism may be reactionary,
but liberalism too, has become too backward-looking -- look at my
references in the previous sentence. It longs for an old age of
consensus instead of gamely going to war to win a new one. American
liberalism has also become a land of smug statisticians and wonks
who want to test every proposition and shrink from striking out in
a new direction, from testing rhetorical appeals in the public arena
rather than the statistical survey. Trump and his campaigns were
willing to venture boldly and that's part of what appealed to people.
He said, "Follow me and make history," a dubious claim made by others
before him, but it excites people.
He also admits that his command of the history of fascism may
not have helped:
Antifascism is a century-old tradition now and the critics of who see
in it a longing to recreate an old order are on to something. It's a
politics of memory and meaning that are fading from this world. But
it at least has a certain imaginative dimension, it's an ethos: its
mythical core contains a struggle between good and evil. Unfortunately,
it doesn't resonate at this moment. For voters for whom "democracy"
was an issue Harris was the obvious choice, but that wasn't enough
people. It's perhaps too idealistic, too abstract and airy, and not
focused enough on practical issues, although for me it's a social
democratic impulse, uniting the struggle for democracy and people's
day-to-day needs. In any case, it's not a story that the American
people get anymore.
He also points out that "resistance" has its legacy rooted in the
struggle against fascism, which may not be the best model right now.
In particular, Trump's popular margin has given him a clear path to
power, unlike Hitler and Mussolini, who used their demagoguery to
gain a power base, but in the end resorted to force to seize power.
Natasha Lennard: [11-06]
The answer to Trump's victory is radical action: "As ever, don't
expect the Democratic Party to save us. Now is the time for grassroots
action."
Nicole Narea: [11-16]
Democrats got wiped out in 2004. This is what they did next.
"The last time Democrats lost the popular vote spurred a reckoning."
Both times the presidential race was close, but was combined with
Republicans winning both sides of Congress, leaving a leadership
vacuum in the Party. Howard Dean campaigned to run the DNC, and
worked hard to rebuild it from the grass roots up, leading to a
major success in 2006. After that success, Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama seized the throne, turning the party back into an
extension of their personal campaigns, and left the rest of the
party for dead, but that's another story.
Sub-sections here:
- They pursued a 50-state strategy
- Democrats reevaluated their messaging
- Democrats sought to become a party of ideas
Last section is "the limits of political strategy," so some
caveats.
Nathan J Robinson: [11-14]
Here's the silver lining: "Horrible Republican policies are
inevitably unpopular and will generate backlash. As Trump's presidency
becomes a chaotic failure, a new left movement can rise." While it
is a near certainty that Republican policies will fail to solve the
problems they target (even by their own measures), and that they will
generate backlash that will propel a Democratic resurgence (assuming
we still get to vote -- a risk Republicans are all too aware of). But
his "the dog that caught the car" metaphor is dead wrong. Republicans
know exactly what they want to do with the car once they've caught it.
And while Bush in 2000, Reagan in 1980, and Nixon in 1968 offer some
precedents, Trump is moving much more aggressively than any previous
president-elect.
Robinson further
tweeted: "this is not to diminish the terrible harm that will be
done. It's going to be utterly awful, but it may spark unexpected
popular uprising that lead to a transformative political movement."
I responded:
The "dog that catches the car" metaphor doesn't work here. Trump may
seem clueless -- I've quipped that he doesn't know how to devise "dog
whistles"; he's just a dog who responds to them -- but his crew know
exactly what they want to do, and are doing it at record speed.
Another commenter, perhaps facetiously: "Thank you for your role
in giving the American people this convenient accelerant. When you
think about it, in the end it was Hitler who brought lasting democracy
to Germany after the war."
Timothy Shenk: [11-08]
It's time to resist the resistance: "Resistance" in the sense of
reflexive opposition that focuses on Trump personally:
The origins of Resistance politics go back over a decade, even before
Mr. Trump entered politics. In 2011, with Mr. Trump making headlines
as the leading spokesman for birtherism, Barack Obama's team seized
the opportunity to cast him as the face of the entire Republican
opposition. Years later, David Plouffe, an Obama campaign manager
turned presidential adviser, explained the strategy. "Let's really
lean into Trump here," Mr. Plouffe remembered thinking. "That'll be
good for us."
And it was, for a while -- so good that when Mr. Plouffe joined
Kamala Harris's campaign over the summer, it still seemed like the
basis for a winning coalition. . . .
But there was a price to be paid. No matter how progressive the
rhetoric, Resistance politics inevitably feels conservative. It's
reactionary in a literal sense: The other side decides the terms
of debate, and it usually ends with finding yet another norm under
assault, a new outrage to be tutted over or another institution that
needs protecting.
Robert Wright: [11-08]
How to fight Trump mindfully. This is good, but that he's actually
quoting himself from seven years ago is a bit inauspicious:
The premise of the Mindful Resistance Project is that understanding
and addressing the root causes of Trumpism is important -- so
important that we shouldn't let Trump's antics and outrages get in
the way of this mission. To put a finer point on it: 1) We need to
respond to each day's news about Trump wisely -- with moral clarity
and forceful conviction but with awareness of the way overreactions
to his provocations can play into his hands. 2) Meanwhile, we need
to get a deeper understanding of the forces that led so many people
to vote for Trump. These forces include globalization, demographic
change, the loss of jobs through automation, and a political
polarization that is grounded partly in the tribalizing tendencies
of social media. This polarization is also grounded in what you might
call the psychology of tribalism, in cognitive biases that afflict
us all -- so fostering an understanding of how our minds work will
be among the goals of this project.
Senate:
Nia Prater: [10-07]
Where does control of the US Senate stand? As of Thursday,
Republicans defeated Democratic incumbents in Ohio and Montana,
and picked up the seat in West Virginia (not reported here), with
races in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada still undecided (with
Pennsylvania looking like another Republican gain).
House of Representatives:
I thought I'd
have more in this section, including specific races, but I never
even got around to looking at the numbers.
Other election matters:
Gerry Condon: [11-10]
November 11 was originally Armistice Day, a peace holiday:
I didn't realize the holiday until I got a bunch of email this
morning offering special deals to veterans -- reminding me that
my "service," which mostly consisted of trying to get and keep
us out of bullshit wars, is still very much unappreciated.
Condon's a member of Veterans for Peace, so he deserves
thanks on both counts.
Ed Kilgore: [11-07]
The pro-choice ballot winning streak ends: "Voters in Florida,
Nebraska, and South Dakota rejected constitutional amendments
protecting abortion rights." In Florida, the amendment got 57% of
the vote, but 60% was required to pass.
On the other hand, abortion-rights initiatives won in seven states,
including four carried by Trump. Margins of victory in these red
states ranged from 4 percent in Missouri to 16 percent in Montana,
22 percent in Arizona, and 28 percent in Nevada.
Three blue states predictably passed sweeping abortion-rights
measures by comfortable margins. In Colorado (62 percent "yes") and
Maryland (74 percent "yes"), state constitutional amendments were
approved providing for unconditional abortion rights. In New York,
abortion rights were advanced via a much broader "equal-rights
amendment" that won 62 percent (despite earlier fears it was in
trouble).
Charles P Pierce:
Jordan Smith:
Missouri voters overturn abortion ban in decisive win for reproductive
rights.
Jessica Washington: [11-06]
Voters overwhelmingly chose to protect abortion -- even when they
didn't choose Harris: "In every state it was on the ballot,
reproductive care was more popular than Kamala Harris."
Other Republicans:
Griffin Eckstein: [11-09]
Jones calls for "Nuremberg Two" against Democrats following Trump
win: "The conspiracy theorist and radio host said the Trump DOJ
had a mandate from God to prosecute Dems." The subhed is no surprise,
but the invocation of "Nuremberg" shows a mind-boggling level of
ignorance (specifically, about Nazi Germany) and contempt for truth,
and indeed for everyone. Of course, that's hardly news with this
guy.
Adam Clark Estes: [11-07]
We're all living inside Elon Musk's misinformation machine now:
"As Musk gains even more power, X gains more influence."
More on Musk and Big Tech:
John Herrman: [11-08]
Big Tech's loyalty era: "Elon Musk's big bet paid off. Tech
leaders are adjusting -- and warming -- to a new reality."
Timothy Noah: [11-08]
Dump Twitter: "If you stick with Elon Musk, you're complicit."
Whatever you call it, the social media site was Musk's primary tool
to elect Trump. In Bloomberg's Tech Daily newsletter for November 7,
Kurt Wagner writes that Musk "turned his feed into a Trump-inspired
billboard for his more than 200 million followers," that it "became
a major source of anti-immigrant conspiracy theories," that Musk
"re-shared posts from the former president's supporters, not all
of them accurate," and that Musk turned X into "a much more powerful
version of Truth Social."
Still, hard for me to see how shutting down my account, with
3000 posts, 650 followers, and 49 following, is going to make a
dent in Musk's bottom line, much less his brain.
John Feffer: [10-30]
The cruelty of crowds: "The far right has weaponized the
Internet."
Casey Wetherbee: [11-03]
The GOP playbook for sabotaging environmental regulations.
Other Democrats:
Kate Aronoff:
Ryan Cooper: [11-07]
Time for Democrats to abandon the mainstream media: "The 'liberal
media' was in the tank for Trump. Democrats should take their subscription
dollars elsewhere."
Nicole Narea: [11-07]
Why Democrats couldn't sell a strong economy, in 3 charts: "Top-line
indicators pointed to cooling inflation and a strong economy. What did
Democrats miss?" Section heads:
- There was a real inflation backlash (even though chart shows
that "overall wage growth has outpaced inflation")
- The job market is tougher (chart shows: "more people are
facing long-term unemployment")
- Americans have less money and are taking on more debt
(chart: "Americans are saving less after the pandemic"; doesn't
look like much less, after a big spike during the pandemic, but
credit card debt and delinquency rates are up)
By the way, here's more on the credit card thing:
Steve M: [11-08]
The election explained, in two charts. I probably missed the
significance of this because I don't have any credit card debt,
and had no idea the interest rates were this high (21.9%, up
from a little over 14% just a year ago?). Part of the problem
has to do with Biden reappointing Trump's Fed Chair pick, but
the larger part is that we got rid of the anti-usury laws that
used to provide a cap on this kind of loansharking. Harris could
have came out with an anti-usury platform, and when questioned
about it, told folk to look it up in the Bible. That, plus
writing off most student debt -- which only exists due to
political malfeasance, and which while Biden attempted some
remedies, Harris hardly ever talked about -- would have had
much broader and more tangible appeal than the silly notion
of exempting tip income (a Trump idea that Harris adopted
and helped legitimize -- every time you create a haven for
untaxable income, you undermine our ability to tax the rich.
How hard would it have been to point out that if we taxed
rich folk at levels they had to pay before they paid off
politicians for their tax cuts, people who depend on tips
to make up for subminimal wages, as well as everyone else
who is underpaid in America, could be taxed less, and get
better benefits in the bargain?
By the way, M. points out (and I can relate, not least
by being a bit older):
Ordinary people were already struggling more than their parents,
then inflation struck in 2021. It hurt incumbent parties all over
the world.
Yes, it has receded in America. Yes, we now have the
strongest economy in the world.
But the two charts at the top of this post show how the economy
looks to people who were already struggling to pay their bills
every month when inflation hit. In all likelihood, they pulled
out credit cards to buy necessities, and now they can't pay those
credit cards off.
My wife and I can afford to pay our credit card bills in full
every month, but I don't look down on people who can't. If your
family is bigger than ours, if you're younger (we're in our sixties),
if you've ever had a stretch of unemployment or big medical bills,
you have it harder than we did. If you went to college or grad
school in the past twenty years, you'd be shocked at how small
our student loan burden was in the 1970s.
By economists' criteria, this is a booming economy. It's pretty
sweet for people who can afford it. But I completely understand
that it doesn't look so sweet if you're living paycheck to paycheck.
I tried to run a one-person business for a while in my twenties
and early thirties and got myself in debt. It sucks. It sucks to pay
a partial bill and see no decrease in the debt because the interest
keeps compounding and compounding. I managed to get out of that debt
and never looked back, but when you're in the thick of it, it's
miserable.
If you've never been in that situation, count your blessings. If
you think everyone who gets into debt is a bad person, well, I guess
I was a bad person.
Wiley Nickel: [11-11]
What should Democrats do now? Form a shadow cabinet. "The venerable
British institution of the opposition would serve America well today."
I've loved this idea ever since I first found out about it. It's more
natural in a parliamentary democracy than it would be in America, but
it could be done here, and it would give Democrats some leadership
visibility in each specific area of government. Nickel is proposing
drawing the cabinet from Congress members, which would make it a lot
like the committee minority members. I think it would be better for
the DNC to organize and raise money for a shadow government, mostly
of technical experts (which could include some notables, like Pete
Buttigieg in Transportation, or Robert Reich in Labor, or former
members of Congress), selected by the Democratic caucus in Congress,
possibly adding Democratic governors, maybe even party chairs in the
underrepresented-but-still-important red states.
Osita Nwanevu: [11-08]
The long Obama era is over: "The democrats must learn to speak
to voters who don't believe in the politics of old and aren't
interested in returning to it." I never thought of there being
any "Obama era," probably because he made so little effort at
delineating it from the "Clinton era," which he jumped the line
on to little if any practical effect. The more customary term
for them both, on through Biden and Harris, is "neoliberalism,"
except that one already lost its cachet before Biden.
The long Obama era is over. The familiar homilies -- about how there
are no red states or blue states and Americans share a set of common
values and working institutions novelly and externally threatened by
agents of chaos like Trump -- never described political reality. They
now no longer work reliably even as political messaging. The hunt
should be on for alternatives.
The word "homilies" is striking here. Obama specialized in them,
as if he had to constantly remind us that he was utterly conventional,
someone who could be counted on to always say the correct thing. I
remember my surprise at one point when Trump made fun of Obama for
always ending his speeches with "God bless America." It's the most
anodyne statement ever for an American politician, and yet it gives
these yokels, who claim to put God and America above all else, an
excuse to laugh at him.
Stephen Semler:
[09-10]
US child poverty nearly tripled between 2021 and 2023: This
seems like a possibly big deal, not just on the headline topic
but on a wide range of economic issues. The key here is a chart
of "several key US anti-poverty measures expired or were eliminated
after 2021." As the chart makes clear, most of them started with
the pandemic of 2020, while Trump was president, and ended 2021-23,
while Biden was president. Only the last two items started after
Biden became president (child care provider grants, WIC increase).
One might read this chart and think Trump was the champion of
welfare expansion, and Biden its nemesis. The truth is different:
all of the items were pushed by Democrats, mostly by Pelosi and
Schumer when they crafted Trump's first pandemic relief bill. To
mollify Republicans, they were sold as emergency measures and they
included sunset clauses. Democrats tried to extend some of them
(things like the eviction and foreclosure bans were never going
to be extended), but were frustrated by Republicans plus the
sandbagging of a few Democrats (notably Manchin and Sinema, who
held the deciding votes on many issues). Biden's support for
the measures was less clear, but it's grossly simplistic to
blame him for not being able to extend such useful programs.
The child poverty figures are especially striking, dropping
from 12.6% to 5.2% from 2019 to 2021, then rebounding to 12.4%
immediately after ending the child tax credit. The lower figure
shows what could easily be done with a bit of political will,
but that's just one of many metrics here. Few people appreciated
that it was the Democrats who made these remarkable changes happen,
in part because Democrats who wanted to work with Trump shied away
from taking credit. (Trump's subsequent bills were much weaker and
less effective.) But also because Democrats didn't want to see them
as a first start toward a massive expansion of social benefits, as
something to build the future on. The pandemic was a very unusual
period in American history -- one that deviated so far from the
expectations of both political parties that neither seems to be
able to deal with it. Republican delusions are expected, but seems
like the Democrats can't wait to forget either, even though if
they could, they might discover that they by and large behaved
with the care and concern we hope for from the political system,
but rarely get. Why couldn't they campaign on that?
[11-06]
A couple charts to explain a Harris loss: The two charts are:
"US food insecurity increased 40% since 2021" ("number of people
living in food insecure housholds" increased from 33.8M to 47.4M),
and "Poverty in the US increased 67% since 2021" ("number of people
living below the poverty line" increased from 25.6M to 42.8M).
Both of these charts, which measure pretty much the same thing,
show 2020-21 dips before the 2022 rebound. The 2021 columns show
the effects of pandemic relief programs, which had sunset clauses
and were allowed to lapse, mostly due to Republican opposition
(plus a couple bad Democrats). As I noted above, Democrats didn't
claim much credit for the improvement, nor blame Republicans for
the later pain, which allowed people who didn't know any better
to flip the roles. As Semler notes:
Why did I consider her defeat likely? Because Harris ran on an
anti-populist economic agenda and an anti-antiwar foreign policy
platform, and neither of those things poll well.
Paul Waldman: [11-10]
Voters punished Biden for problems he didn't cause and effectively
addressed: But for some reason couldn't talk coherently about,
some of which can be attributed to age, some to his usual awkwardness,
but also also to the problem that Democrats have to speak both to
donors and to voters, two groups that want to hear different things,
a task that even the most eloquent of Democrats have trouble pulling
off. Alternate title, which I clicked on before arriving here, is
"Trump is about to take credit for Biden's accomplishments."
Stephen Wertheim: [11-11]
The Cheney-loving Democratic party needs a reckoning about war:
"Election outcomes have multiple causes, of course. Yet foreign
polilcy was one of the reasons Americans gave Trump the largest
Republican victory in decades."
Matthew Yglesias: [11-12]
A Common Sense Democrat manifesto: This seemed monumental enough to
sneak in the day after. I was pointed here by Jonathan Chait, who
tweeted: "I think (or at least hope) this will be an important
reference document going forward." (Nathan Robinson heckled back:
"shouldn't you probably shut up for a while," with a link to Chait's
October 8 article:
The race is close because Harris is running a brilliant campaign:
"Stop complaining; the centrism is working.") Chait probably likes
it because Yglesias's neoliberalism is showing, and because it's
written in ways that signal anti-left bias. But the "principles"
aren't so bad:
Different people have different views and different priorities, and
principles need to be loose enough to accommodate some differences.
But I also don't want these to be total platitudes; I want some
people to read them and think, "Fuck this, I don't agree." Over the
next few weeks, I'll share posts elaborating on each one individually,
but in the meantime, these are the principles I'd like to see the
Democratic party embrace:
Economic self-interest for the working class includes both
robust economic growth and a robust social safety net.
The government should prioritize maintaining functional
public systems and spaces over tolerating anti-social behavior.
Climate change -- and pollution more broadly -- is a reality
to manage, not a hard limit to obey.
We should, in fact, judge people by the content of their
character rather than by the color of their skin, rejecting
discrimination and racial profiling without embracing views that
elevate anyone's identity groups over their individuality.
Race is a social construct, but biological sex is not. Policy
must acknowledge that reality and uphold people's basic
freedom to live as they choose.
Academic and nonprofit work does not occupy a unique position
of virtue relative to private business or any other jobs.
Politeness is a virtue, but obsessive language policing
alienates most people and degrades the quality of thinking.
Public services and institutions like schools deserve adequate
funding, and they must prioritize the interests of their users, not
their workforce or abstract ideological projects.
All people have equal moral worth, but democratic self-government
requires the American government to prioritize the interests of American
citizens.
Before getting to his list, Yglesias explains (and here I'll add
my comments in brackets):
Being a Democrat should mean caring more than Republicans about the
lives of poor people, about equal rights and non-discrimination,
about restraining big business in matters related to pollution and
fraudulent practices, and about protecting social insurance for the
elderly and disabled. [I'd add everyone else to "poor people," but
you could just say 99% if villains are politically useful. Proper,
not means-tested, social insurance becomes more valuable as you go
up the income scale.]
These are important progressive ideas, and because they are
important progressive ideas, I think that anyone who identifies as
a leftist or a progressive should vote for Democrats. [So why try so
hard to drive us away? The charge that leftists are all-or-nothing
is easily disproven.]
But that doesn't mean that Democrats' agenda should be driven by
those on the far left [or the right, or corporate neoliberalism, or
identity groups, or any faction; it should be driven by problems and
practical solutions]. A big-tent Democratic coalition needs leftists.
But left-wing candidates are rarely winning tough elections, and too
often, they're not improving governance of the solidly blue places
where they're elected. [Leftists face many obstacles from entrenched
forces, including donor-seeking Democrats, but even so, is this really
a valid generalization?] . . .
Most elected Democrats are not, themselves, actually that far left,
and when faced with acute electoral peril, they swiftly ditch ideas
like defund the police or openness to unlimited asylum claims [which
are effectively caricaturs of leftist ideas, propagated to militate
against the left]. But what they haven't generally done is publicly
disavow the kind of simplistic disparate impact analysis that leads
to conclusions like policing is bad. Similarly, the Democrats are not
a degrowth party. [Degrowth is an idea that deserves consideration,
but isn't a left political position.] When good GDP numbers come in,
Joe Biden and his team celebrate them -- they believe in taking credit
for strong growth. But even without being a degrowth party, Democrats
are heavily influenced by the views of major environmentalist
organizations that do have a degrowth ideology at their core.
Critics on the right charge that Democrats are in the grips of
radical ideology, but the truth is more boring: Many elected officials
are just not particularly rigorous thinkers (think of how much
backbench Republicans have shifted on various policies since Trump
took over). Most only really understand a few issues and do a lot
of going along to get along. . . .
Winning elections is important, because if you don't win, you
can't govern. [But if you win on the basis of bad ideas that don't
work, your governing will have accomplished nothing, and you'll
lose again -- at least until the other party reminds people of
their own incompetence.]
The Republican Party is basically just a racket: they lie, cheat,
and steal, whatever it takes to ascend to power, so they can lie,
cheat, and steal some more. Democrats have to run against Republicans,
but they are also expected to tell the truth, to work earnestly for
the public good, and to deliver tangible results. Democrats need the
left, not just as reliable votes against Republicans, but because
the left has useful ideas to solve or at least ameliorate problems
that bedevil us. This repeated cycle of "centrist" or "neoliberal" --
Chait prefers the former term, while Yglesias is one of the few who
actually embraces the latter -- blaming the left for many failures
of the high-roller Democrats they favor needs to stop. Democrats
need to figure out how to sell viable solutions to the people,
and to deliver them once they are elected. Since most of those
solutions come from the left, they need to stop demonizing the
left, and start treating us as respectable and honorable.
PS: Chait just wrote
A farewell to New York, so with his new gig at The Atlantic,
I guess I won't have him to kick around any more. One more reason not
to subscribe.
Israel: This has been my top section
ever since Oct. 7, 2023, only pushed down due to the election.
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Israel vs. world opinion:
Ukraine and Russia:
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Van Jackson: [10-02]
Liberalism has a Heather Cox Richardson problem: I've had this tab
open for more than month, and just found it as I was preparing to reboot.
Had I noticed earlier, I would have included it here, so how [11-24],
why not? It's pretty good, at least up to the point where we slam into
the paywall. It centers on a Richardson tweet:
Important to remember that U.S. alliances and partnerships underpin
the rules-based international order. Weaken the U.S. and you destabilize
that order, opening the door for dictators with imperial ambitions.
Everywhere.
I'm not going to tear this apart, or just laugh at it. Too late
for that. Let's just quote Jackson:
I don't doubt that she believes what she's saying. Her first book,
after all, was called The Greatest Nation of the Earth.
But this is ruling-class propaganda -- not true at all. She's
very much out of her depth pontificating about America in the world.
And she has, under the veil of opposing Trump, made herself the
voice of the powerful, which is why she gets to go on the talk
shows and get paid all the while.
I try to be sympathetic toward shitlib/cringe lib sentiments
because 1) I don't want to live in an illiberal society,
and 2) they represent the largest share of the Popular Front for
democracy that I'm trying to will into existence. No shitlibs,
no antifascist coalition.
And I'm not mad that she supports Ukraine, or that she wants
to critique Republicans for opposing support for Ukraine. Those
are both reasonable -- almost commonsense -- positions.
But her rationale for both supporting Ukraine and condemning
Republicans lacks self-awareness, and not in a harmless way but
in a way that threatens the democracy that she's dedicated her
pen to protecting against Trumpism.
I'd be interested in reading what comes after "Let me explain,"
I can't see myself ever using "shitlib" again, but I do recognize
the type: to quote from
Urban Dictionary:
Shitlibs are self-serving rich elite politicians who are subscribers
of neoliberal economics and governance. The support more deregulation
for big business and corporations, but more regulation and inceased
taxes for smaller businesses and workers. They support outsourcing,
illegal immigrant labor, lower wages, more free trade and privatization
(when it benefits them). They often lie about their support of
egalitarian and socially liberal ideas but never really enact them.
They are often side with tech and media corporations and receive
donations from them regularly. They also support more war and
interventionism abroad.
I don't like "neoliberal" either, but that's the more common
term.
Lukas Scholle: [11-09]
Germany's coalition collapsed, but recession is here to stay:
"German chancellor Olaf Scholz has dismissed his finance minister,
Christian Lindner, pitching the country toward elections. Economic
woes will be at the center of the campaign -- yet proposals for a
break with austerity are are conspicuously absent."
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Other stories:
Kyle Chayka: [10-30]
The banality of online recommendation culture: "A recent surge
of human-curated guidance is both a reaction against and an extension
of the tyranny of algorithmic recommendations." I didn't have time
to write about this piece last week, and don't have time now, but
being a guy who both writes and consumers self-styled "consumer
guides," this is obviously up my alley. Also as a software engineer,
I might note that I was thinking about algorithmic approaches to
sharing preference information before many of the better known
systems for aggregating such data became available -- none of
which, needless to say, I find particularly useful.
Ruby Justice Thelot: [09-11]
In praise of gatekeeping: "Why we need gatekeepers to resist cultural
hyper-optimization." I found this in an open tab next to the Chayka
article, so thought I should keep it. I'm not sure that the specifics
matter to me. Also, the phrase is a bit loaded. The people I know (or
at least the ones I follow) are more likely to be door-openers than
gatekeepers.
Obituaries
Lou Donaldson:
Roy Haynes:
Ella Jenkins:
Books
Osamah F Khalil: A World of Enemies: America's Wars at Home and
Abroad From Kennedy to Biden:
Current Affairs: [11-08]
How America imagines a 'world of enemies': "Osamah Khalil on
how, both domestically and abroad, American elites have conjured
existential nemeses who must be dealt with through never-ending
militarization."
Jonathan Kozol: An End to Inequality: Breaking Down the Walls
of Apartheid Education in America:
Patrick Ruffini: Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial
Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP:
Ezra Klein: [11-09]
The book that predicted the 2024 election: I noticed this book
in one of my
roundups, but didn't
believe it enough to even comment. Interview with Ruffini, in
light of the election, where there appears to have been a black
and (larger) hispanic shift toward Trump, at least among males.
The implication here is that shift swung the election. I'm not
sure of the numbers, nor how that works, but I do think that
racism has changed significantly over my lifetime, including
a shift in who gets respect and who doesn't. I always recall
the book title, How the Irish Became White, as showing
that racism is more about power than pigmentation. As we've
seen many times, starting perhaps with Clarence Thomas's Supreme
Court confirmation, even the most racist Republicans will vote
for a black person with the right credentials. I recall Lyndsey
Graham saying just that. On the other hand, it's hard to tell
any difference between how Republicans regard black Democrats
vs. how they used to regard all blacks.
Chatter
Joshua Frank: [10-24]
I wrote a book on how John Kerry blew the 2004 election by catering
to the right, ignoring the antiwar vote, and outhawking Bush. Twenty
years later, Kamala Harris is following the same losing playbook.
Aaron Maté: [10-27]
If I were the Harris campaign I'd be playing this clip of Trump
refusing to support a minimum wage hike on loop. Instead they're
palling around with the Cheneys and yelling "fascist" at every
turn.
David Sirota: [10-29]
This is so far beyond parody that you could convince me it's a bit.
[Response to Hillary Clinton: New Yorkers: Donald Trump may
have Madison Square Garden, but we have Carnegie Hall.]
David Klion: [10-31]
I'm confused why the Harris campaign thinks it's a good idea to send
Bill Clinton to Michigan days before the election to lecture Arab and
Muslim voters on the ancient Jewish claim to "Judea and Samaria."
Matt Duss: [10-31]
It's ridiculous for Trump to claim to be the anti-war candidate and
it's also ridiculous that that lane has been left wide open for him.
Eric Levitz: [11-96]
Interesting how much rightwing propaganda outperforms leftwing
propaganda across formats. It's not just that Fox beats MSNBC and
the right dominates radio: As Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Rogan
illustrate, podcasters tend to discover they can maximize their
audience by moving right.
The Onion: Breaking News: The Onion on the verge of collapse
after not being able to make up stuff that is more idiotic than
the current reality in our political lives in these United States!
Rick Perlstein: [11-12]
Don't quit Twitter. Ignoring fascist spaces is bad. Silence impliles
assent, shuts down witness of the lies they're devising & the
plans they're hatching. Don't initiate threads; the algo will just
bury them. Tell the truth in threads, like leafletting an occupied
French village.
Jeet Heer: [11-12]
[Comment in response to Wally Nowinski, who offered a chart I can't
read, and said: "Old white folks moved toward Kamala. Every other
group moved towards Trump."]
This is exactly the result you would get if you ran a pro-system,
pro-status quo, hug-the-Cheneys campaign: improvement from those
most invested in the system, alienating everyone else.
[Actually, I find this interesting, perhaps because I belong to
the "old white folks" demographic. Could it be that we weren't
tuned into social media, so missed a lot of the lies, while we
relied on more conventional news sources? Or maybe his point is
to lambast us, while blaming the groups with the largest shifts
to Trump (topped by black men) on the Harris campaign?]
db: [11-13] [illustration is House map, showing Republicans
with 218 seats, clinching the majority, vs. 208 for Democrats]
We did it! Worst possible world. thank you Kamala, thank you Joe,
thank you Barack, and thank you to the DNC for strangling left
populism in the crib and all but assuring this outcome! Couldn't
have done it without you!
Rick Perlstein: [11-14]
I have decided that I hate the adjective "unserious" as shorthand
for "evil person who is stupid and dangerous and wrong about
everything." The people it is purported to describe are plenty
serious.
Dean Baker: [11-15]
It's pretty funny to hear Trump boasting about his huge mandate. No
Democrats has ever been elected president with a smaller mandate.
I guess we can't expect a reality TV show star to be very good with
numbers.
[Later amended: "sorry, forgot about John Kennedy."]
David Sirota: [11-24]
In retrospect, the campaign was effectively over when Democrats
decided that their final October Surprise was touting Liz Cheney
and aggressively attacking rather than just ignoring Jill Stein.
Looking back, everyone shoulda realized this was Dems surrendering.
Ken Klippenstein [11-23]
Bill Clinton: "in demonizing all establishments and all people who
wear a tie like you and me to work and have a good education, we
are breaking down the legitimacy of . . . people who actually know
things that are very important for us today and very important for
our continued growth and prosperity and harmony."
Nathan J Robinson commented: "[I] wrote a 300 page book
on why Bill Clinton is awful and I can assure you that 'wearing a
tie' is not one of the listed offenses."
Nathan J Robinson: [11-22]
I'm grateful that The Atlantic and New York magazine have paywalls
because they function as a kind of quarantine for bad opinions,
making sure they don't escape and infect those not already affected
by them.
[Further down, I found an
Atlantic tweet quoting Elizabeth Bruenig: "Trump is in touch
with the impulses and desires that run counter to social norms,
and he invites his audience to put aside the usual internal
barriers to acting on or voicing them. This moment is an
opportunt one for a revival of Freud, whose work, with its
signature focus on subterranean inner worlds, helps make sense
of these tendencies and their implications for politics."
First line seems true, and worth thinking about. Second line
is an example of what passes for thinking in intellectual
circles, but isn't really. I can't say that Freud never had
an interesting idea, but his hit/miss ratio was about random,
and his misses inadvertently self-revealing.]
Matt Duss: [11-23]
It should be noted that the policy area where progressive groups
were able to have arguably the least influence, Israel-Palestine,
is the one that ultimately destroyed Biden's legacy.
Jon Schwarz: [11-26]
The 35% jump in Tesla's stock price immediartely after the election
shows that investors believe the US government will soon be completely
corrupt.
Allen Lowe [11-07]
Facebook post that somehow I managed to see on [11-15], but worth
keeping for later:
One of the most annoying results of the election are those who are
now standing up and saying the Democrats are gone and corrupt and
that's it. Well, I'm not going to join the party of Jill Stein. And
the Democrats still have a demographic advantage and still won a
large percentage of the votes, and I don't care what you think,
they are the only hope. Even Bernie Sanders agrees.
So I don't want to hear about how the billionaires would've won
either way. I want to hear about how Biden basically eliminated 50%
of child poverty only to be rebuffed by the Republicans when the law
wasn't renewed. I want to hear about this huge infrastructure bill
which is employing so many people and helping to make unemployment
incredibly low. I want to hear about social welfare which flourishes
under the Democrats because the agencies make appointments staffed by
good people who take care of poor and disabled people. The Republicans
staff them with people bent on destroying them and harming people like
my disabled son.
I thought we learned our lessons during the prior Trump administration,
when those who had told us that Hillary and Trump were the same slunk
into the corner with their tails between their legs. Now they're coming
out to try to tell us this is what they predicted all along.
Ridiculous, but it does show that many of them secretly hope the
United States will sink into oblivion so a revolution will rise from
the ashes. More people have to suffer so they can justify their own
hallucinatory politics.The only thing that will rise from the ashes
is more death and destruction.
Some good comments, like this one by Brian Simontacchi:
I think this is relevant to our conversation yesterday, so I'll just
chime in and rebut a couple of your points:
- Biden did some very good things, shockingly. My expectations weren't
high initially. He exceeded them easily
- As long as they try to prevent this outcome, I'll be supportive of
Democrats and hold their feet to the fire at the same time. I can walk
and chew gum
- Billionaires always win. Why spend all that money for no return?
- I think it's clear no lessons have been learned at all
I feel like you're working backwards from the conclusion that the
outcome determines the causality. I don't think that. I think people,
highly susceptible to misinformation and visceral tribalism, are
easily manipulated, and Trump and his echo chamber are quite good
at pressing those buttons. I think people change their minds with
what they think is happening in the news and to them, and they don't
care as much about a global or local responsibility to stability, if
they ever did. When the billionaires make the global economic trends,
they determine which professions and trades are most distressed and
how those people will likely respond in an election. Its all
coordinated; things will get worse before they get worse.
I'm just here to diagnose trends and be honest. I have no soft
spot for billionaires or politicians. I want peace for my neighbors
but I have to understand what's happening. Frankly, I have no loyalty
to either party, only to harm reduction which I can't even impact
from a blue state. If we can't have consistent progress, I'll settle
for harm reduction, even though that is not my ultimate goal, or my
responsibility to successive generations.
I hope we can talk about this amicably. If we can't, I'll cease
and desist.
Robert Christgau: [11-20]
Xgau Sez: Very late addition here, his answer to Carola Dibbell's
question: "Any takes on the election, Robert? PS: I'd rather you
not include your ongoing mea culpa for admiring Harris's articulateness,
which you now recognize might have lost voters who thought she sounded
too educated."
First of all, Harris was one of the most fluent prose stylists ever to
run as a plausible presidential candidate--which despite her own
considerable oratorical skills doesn't mean she was as impressive a
speaker as Lincoln, Obama, Washington it says here, or the fireside
FDR or as purely brilliant intellectually as at the very least
Madison, who did after all play a major role in conceiving the
Constitution we say we fight for and the Trumpers hope to wreck. She
was also arguably the handsomest, especially if dumb-ass Warren
Harding's square-jawed thing didn't turn you on. But what both
impressed me and led me astray was what the polls told us was the
50-50 race it clearly wasn't--at least not in the electoral college. I
was confident ordinary voters saw her brains and looks as an
attractive positive, which they clearly didn't. On the contrary, let's
specify the obvious. She was Black and female and both cost
her. Sexism and racism. Definitive? Maybe not, and we'll never know
how big they were for sure. (It is also worth bearing in mind, just as
a quirky oddity if you prefer, that what I'd estimate were the two
most intelligent plausible presidential candidates of my and your
lifetimes were both of part-African heritage.)
But in addition I'll note that my biggest personal political gaffe
is that I never glimpsed the economic factors I have no doubt cost
Harris big because that seems to be how it worked all over the
pan-Covid world. About that I was ignorant, to my and so many of my
allies' disgrace. I've also been paying more mind than I ever thought
I would to what is now, evocatively, labeled bro culture. As someone
who would always rather read, listen to music, or both than resort to
YouTube and/or the podcast world, I ignore both the way I avoid Rush
and Kansas reissues, living without that market share, which for me is
negligible economically--but not, it would seem, electorally. Now those
motherfuckers scare me.
Although I've long followed electoral politics in considerable
detail, I don't have the expertise or vanity to make any
prognostications here. I'm glad MSNBC is operative because I find it
comforting--especially for the nonce Lawrence O'Donnell, whose detailed
firsthand knowledge of DC in particular I've been finding informative
and on occasion comforting.
I can imagine three or four different responses to this, with
the big one possibly, albeit slowly, evolving into a full-fledged
book project on What We Learned From the 2024 Election,
but even though I have a few ideas, I don't think we can say we've
learned much yet. I do think it helps to realize that we really
need to ask two different questions: what could Harris have done
differently to swing a
1.6% election margin the other way? and
what could Democrats have done to win the landslide that should
have been possible given Trump's
historic low favorability: 44.7% (-8.6) on Nov. 2; as low as
38.0% (-17.5) on Jan. 10, 2023? I'd be the first to admit that to
get the landslide they deserve, Democrats need to tell a better
story: one that make it clear to most people (and here we're
talking 60-70%, not 50.01%) how horrible Republicans are --
that part should be pretty easy -- and how Democrats can be
believed and trusted to do much better things (ok, that's the
hard part).
Harris didn't have that story, and couldn't, because Democrats
haven't been aiming for landslides (much less to be the party of
the 99%) for, well, donkey's years. They've been chasing donor
money with promises of growth satisfying everyone, while using
the Republican threat to keep their base in line (while wooing
supposedly moderate suburbia): a delicate balancing act, and
one that risks exposing themselves as two-faced. Harris's story
was what the Democrats bequeathed her with. We can debate about
how well she sold it, and whether small shifts in emphasis and
focus could have helped. (I think she had a big problem with
Biden's wars. Others point to economics and/or cultural issues,
which could have been handled better, but I regard as much less
decisive.) But all the way to the end, I was happy with her as
a candidate, and I expected her to win.
That she didn't, I blame on the people (and the media, but
let's not go there). But in a democracy, you can't blame the
people. You can't, in Brecht's phrase, "dissolve them and elect
another." You have to figure out how to deal with them, to break
through the highly polarized media bubble that insulates them
from such obvious truths as that Trump is a greedy liar who has
no practical understanding of how the world works and who is
ultimately only concerned with his own vanity. You have to ask:
why can't at least half of the people see that? You can't seriously
think that the people who voted for him did so because they knew
all that and still liked him?
Conversely, how can a large segment of Trump's voters think of
Harris as a "low IQ" tramp who slept her way to the top and/or is
trying to pass herself off as black because she thinks that makes
her cool? There's something seriously wrong with these people,
but you shouldn't say that, because they're every bit as much of
"the people" as you are, and because attacking them just backfires
on you -- e.g., "deplorables" or "trash," nor does it help to
point out that they routinely say much worse things about you.
Nor does it help to try to cozy up to them by feigning agreement
on marginal issues (like Kerry's goose hunting photo-op, or Harris
waving her gun).
I think this can be done, both personally -- I know a fair
number of these people and get along with them reasonably well,
although even in Kansas, and even in my family, most of my time
is spent in a social bubble that extends to my left as well as
to my right - and politically (which is not my job, and safe to
say, never will be). But self-hating is always a bad look. And
it's not necessary, even if it worked, which it doesn't. We
shouldn't have to, or expect to, change to escape a political
trap. But we do need to stop taking our prejudices and neuroses
out on other people.
A couple things about Christgau's letter still bother me.
His assumption that being "Black and female and both cost her"
suggests a race-and-sex consciousness that most Republicans
seem to have moved beyond (perhaps symbolically or cynicly,
and with no real concessions to equality). Even if it is still
a factor -- one might argue that race had some impact on the KY
and NC gubernatorial elections, where black Republicans in red
states ran and lost to white Democrats, but the margins were
thin, so the effect couldn't have been large -- it's not one
that does us any good to dwell on (not just because doing so
attacks people can also turn people off as condescending).
I have less of an idea what to say about
bro culture -- I had to look it up to get a definition,
and even so I can't say that it applies to anything I've ever
been part of. Still, unless it's meant to excuse assault or
rape, or you try to translate it into the realm of politics,
I don't see problem. "Different strokes," you know? Isn't that
something we support? Maybe if we were less terrified of other
people, they'd learn to cut us some slack, too?
As for MSNBC, I wouldn't know, as I never watch it, but my
wife tells me that "O'Donnell is the worst" ("even worse than
Maddow"), and that the whole place is a den of Clinton-Obama
DNC orthodoxy ("Hillary-bot," "anti-Bernie" über alles), i.e.,
the same ideas and elitist strategies that keep letting the
Republicans back in the door -- after Bush and Trump showed
conclusively that they really have no clue how to govern, even
to preserve the status quo.
But I understand the "comforting" feeling. For the last eight
years I've taken much comfort from watching the anti-Trump late
shows (Kimmel, Colbert, Meyers: monologues, not celebrity guest
talk), not so much because of what they said -- which could be
problematical -- as because their audiences were at least as
partisan, and it felt good to be in the company of ordinary
people who react to these outrages the same way I do. As a
leftist from way back -- my initiation was a mid-1960s tabloid
called The Minority of One -- I'm used to losing and
lonely isolation, with my ideas rejected not on their merits
but as a kneejerk reaction to the direction they're coming
from (generally, like all leftists, a commitment to peace,
justice, and equality). So it was nice not to feel so totally
isolated for once.
Since the election, I've given up on watching those shows, as
well as giving up on network news, my local paper, and even most
of the center-to-left-leaning sources I faithfully collated for the
Speaking of Which years. But I'm still here, and we're still
here, and we're just a couple points short of inching back into
majority power, which should be easy enough to make up as people
increasingly realize what a complete train wreck of a political
juggernaut they've handed power to. But what's driving all this
has nothing to do with that I did or did not write over the past
20 years -- words that are still
online, very few of which I have any
regrets about (most errors were on the optimistic side, where
I'm more inclined to blame the world than to admit my own fault).
But right now, I have no optimism whatsoever that people (let
alone Democrats) will start reading me and learn some new tricks.
But if they want to survive the Trump debacle[*], they're going
to have to look at the real problems, then come up with solutions
and credible ways of talking about them; they're going to have to
find ways to talk to everyone, to appeal to their better natures,
and to their various hopes; they're going to have to win elections,
deliver results, and make this a better world for as many people
as possible.
One thing I've learned over recent years is that there are a
lot of smart and good people already working on this. I've noted
some of them, especially in my
Books posts, and I have no doubt but there is much more I
haven't noticed -- needless to say, there is also no shortfall
of nonsense in the Books posts. On the other hand, as much of the
post-mortem analysis cited above shows, learning the hard way is
often even harder than you expect. Especially given that the
lessons that should have been learned from the 2016 loss and
the 2020 win have thus far only produced a second, even more
heartbreaking, loss.
[*] I thought I'd be witty here and use "Trumpocalypse," but
that turns out to be the title of two books, both dated: one
scathing from neocon never-Trumper
David Frum (2020), another a delirious prophecy by
Paul McGuire and Troy Anderson (2018). John Nichols also used
the term in the title of his 2017 book on the initial Trump cabinet
picks:
Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous
People in America, which he could well be writing a sequel to
right now. C.J. Hopkins also published a collection of "brave,
original, enlightening, and hilarious" (sez Matt Taibbi) essays,
Trumpocalypse: Consent Factory Essays, Vol. I (2016-2017).
PS: A couple days after writing this, I woke up feeling I should
say something more about "comfort" in such times. I've never been one
to beat myself up over what the world does, especially in spite of my
best efforts. And I've always striven to make my own life as comfortable
as possible. But I'm finding little comfort in familiar political haunts
right now. It was easy after 2016 to blame the loss on the candidate,
because I had many of the same misgivings -- just more sense than to
think that Trump might be the answer. Biden's 2020 win allowed us to
overlook Trump's stronger-than-expected performance, but that too was
easily rationalized. But none of those explanations really work here.
Harris wasn't a bad candidate. History hasn't vindicated Trump. The
usual metrics did not suggest a Trump win (even a close one). But
something happened, which calls into question some of our fundamental
assumptions about how politics works. And until we figure that out,
we should be uncomfortable. That's the only thing that keeps us from
falling back into the same old rut.
My new problem with the late shows is that I suspect that their
style of talking about Trump is counterproductive. I've slowly grown
more aware of how attacking Trump only seems to validate him in the
hearts and minds of his fans. But I never imagined the effect would
be as strong as it evidently is. We need to regroup, and recalculate.
As best I recall, I've been pretty consistent in
believing that
Biden, and later Harris, would defeat Trump, but I saw one scenario
as particularly ominous: if the wars in Ukraine and Israel drag on
through election day (as they have now done), I predicted that many
voters would desperately search for an alternative, which could tip
the election to Trump. I relaxed my prediction a bit when Harris
replaced Biden, figuring she would be seen as less culpable, but she
was in Biden's administration, was involved in much of its disastrous
foreign policy, and made little if any effort to distance herself
from its failures. Worse still, she started campaigning with hawks
like Liz Cheney.
I figured I should go back and find the quotes. I've found several
bits I wrote on a possible Trump win, so I'll include them here.
The main one was from July 24 (actually quoting a July 18 letter),
but we'll keep them in order, starting with this one (I'm adding
bold in a couple spots):
June 22, 2024:
I find it impossible to
believe that most Americans, when they are finally faced with the
cold moment of decision, will endorse the increasingly transparent
psychopathology of Donald Trump. Sure, the American people have
been seduced by right-wing fantasy before, but Reagan and the
Bushes tried to disguise their aims by spinning sunny yarns of
a kinder, gentler conservatism.
Even Nixon, who still outranks Trump as a vindictive, cynical
bastard, claimed to be preserving some plausible, old-fashioned
normality. All Trump promises is "taking back" the nation and
"making America great again": empty rhetoric lent gravity (if
not plausibility) by his unbridled malice toward most Americans.
Sure, he got away with it in 2016, partly because many people
gave him the benefit of doubt but also because the Clinton spell
wore off, leaving "crooked Hillary" exposed as a shill for the
money-grubbing metro elites. But given Trump's media exposure,
both as president and after, the 2024 election should mostly be
a referendum on Trump. I still can't see most Americans voting
for him.
That doesn't mean Trump cannot win, but in order to do so, two
things have to happen: he has to make the election be all about
Biden, and Biden has to come up seriously short. One can ponder
a lot of possible issues that Biden might be faulted for, and
come up with lots of reasons why they might but probably won't
matter. (For example, the US may experience a record bad hurricane
season, but will voters blame Biden for that and see Trump
as better?) But we needn't speculate, because Biden already has
his albatross issue: genocide in Gaza. I'm not going to relitigate
his failures here, but in terms of my "optimistic view," I will
simply state that if Biden loses -- and such an outcome should be
viewed not as a Trump win but as a Biden loss -- it will be well
deserved, as no president so involved in senseless war, let alone
genocide, deserves another term.
So it looks like the net effect of my optimism is to turn what
may look like a lose-lose presidential proposition into a win-win.
We are currently faced with two perilous prospects: on the one
hand, Biden's penchant for sinking into foreign wars, which he
tries to compensate for by being occasionally helpful or often
just less miserable on various domestic policies; on the other,
Republicans so universally horrible we scarcely need to list out
the comparisons. Given that choice, one might fervently hope for
Biden to win, not because we owe him any blanket support, but
because post-election opposition to Biden can be more focused
on a few key issues, whereas with Trump we're back to square
one on almost everything.
But if Biden loses, his loss will further discredit the centrist
style that has dominated the Democratic Party at least since Carter.
There are many problems with that style, most deriving from the need
to serve donors in order to attract them, which lends them an air of
corruption, destroying their credibility. Sure, Republicans are
corrupt too, even more so, but their corruption is consistent with
their values -- dog-eat-dog individualism, accepting gross inequality,
using government to discipline rather than ameliorate the losers --
so it comes off as honest, maybe even courageous. But Democrats are
supposed to believe in public service, government for the people,
and that's hard to square with their individual pursuit of power
in the service of wealth.
So, sure, a Trump win would be a disaster, but it would free the
Democrats from having to defend their compromised, half-assed status
quo, and it would give them a chance to pose a genuine alternative,
and a really credible one at that. I'd like to think that Democrats
could get their act together, and build that credible alternative
on top of Biden's half-hearted accomplishments. It would be nice
to not have to start with the sort of wreckage Trump left in 2021,
or Bush left in 2009, or that other Bush left in 1993 (and one can
only shudder at the thought of what Trump might leave us in 2029).
But people rarely make major changes based on reasoned analysis.
It usually takes a great shock to force that kind of change --
like what the Great Depression did to a nation previously in love
with Herbert Hoover, or like utter defeat did to Germany and Japan
in WWII.
If there was any chance that a Trump win in 2024 would result
in a stable and prosperous America, even if only for the 51% or
so it would take for Republicans to continue winning elections,
we might have something to be truly fearful of. But nothing they
want to do works. The only thing they know how to do is to worsen
problems, which are largely driven by forces beyond their control --
business, culture, climate, war, migration -- and all their lying,
cheating, and outright repression only rub salt into the wounds.
When people see how bad Republican rule really is, their support
will wither rapidly.
The question is what Democrats have to do to pick up the support
of disaffected Trumpers. One theory is to embrace the bigotry they
showed in embracing Trump. A better one would be promise the grit,
integrity, independence, and vision that Trump promised by couldn't
deliver on, partly because he's a crook and con man who never cared,
but largely because he surrounded himself by Republicans who had
their own corrupt and/or deranged agendas.
July 18, 2024:
For what little it's worth, here's my nutshell take on Biden:
If he can't get control of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza by
early October, he's going to lose, no matter what else happens.
For people who don't understand them, they're bad vibes, so why
not blame the guy who was in position to do something about them.
That may be unfair, but that's what uninformed voters do. And if
you do understand them (which I think I do), Biden doesn't look
so good either. He sees Ukraine as a test of resolve, and Israel
as a test of loyalty, and those views are not just wrong, they
kick in his most primitive instincts.
Otherwise, the election will go to whichever side is most
effective at making the election into a referendum on the other
side. That should be easy when the other side is Trump, but it
gets real hard when most media cycles focus on your age and/or
decrepitude. That story is locked in, and isn't going away. When
your "good news" is "Biden reads from teleprompter and doesn't
fumble," you've lost.
Even if Trump's negatives are so overwhelming that even Biden,
incapacitated as he is, beats him (and surely it wouldn't be by enough
to shut Trump up), do we really want four more years of this?
September 1, 2024:
Nia Prater: [08-27]
RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard are joining the Trump transition team:
I noted this story last week, dismissing it with "sounds like something,
but probably isn't." Here I should note that while it probably isn't,
it could actually be something. Kennedy and Gabbard have a lot of traits
that discredit them as presidential candidates, but the one thing they
do have is pretty consistent antiwar track records, which they are not
just committed to, but are eager to use against Biden and Harris, who
are not exactly invulnerable to such charges. Moreover, they can say
that they left the Democratic Party because they opposed how hawkish
the Party had become -- so hawkish that even Trump would be a safer
and more sensible foreign policy option. It remains to be seen how
credible they'll be, because, well, on most other issues they're nuts,
but on this one, they could be more credible than Trump himself to
people with real concerns. I've said all along that if Biden doesn't
get his wars under control, he will lose in November. The switch to
Harris gives Democrats a partial reprieve, but the one thing she is
most seriously vulnerable on is the suspicion that Democrats are
going to continue saddling us with senseless and hopeless foreign
wars. Kennedy and Gabbard could be effective at driving that point
home -- sure, not to rank-and-file Democrats, who are generally
much more dovish than their leaders, and who are even more wary of
Republicans on that count, but to the "undecideds," who know little,
even of what little they know.
September 9, 2024:
Robert Wright: [09-26]
Is Trump a peacenik? No, but if you're worried that Biden
(now Harris) is a bit too fond of war, he says a vote for him
will save you from WWIII. And given that American politicians
of both parties have long and ignominious histories of lying
about wanting peace while blundering into war, and given how
little reliable information there is about either, there may
be enough gullible but concerned people to tilt the election.
Wright reviews some of the contradictions here, and there are
much more that could be considered.
I've been worried about just this prospect all along, and
I remain worried. I don't have time to explain all the nuances,
but very briefly, Biden has done a very bad job of managing US
foreign affairs, failing to make any progress dealing with a
number of very manageable hostilities (North Korea, Venezuela,
Iran, many others) while letting two crises (Ukraine, Gaza)
drag into prolonged wars that he seemingly has no interest in
ever resolving (at least he doesn't seem to be putting in any
effort). The only good thing you can say about his handling of
Afghanistan is that he dodged the worst possible option, which
was to stick around and keep losing. And while he's made money
for the arms and oil industries, both have made the world a
much more dangerous place. And then there's China -- do we
really need to go there?
One might reasonably think that anyone could have done a
better job than Biden has done, but we actually know one person
who had every same opportunity, and made them all worse: Donald
Trump, the president before Biden. Is there any reason to think
that Trump might do better with a second chance? The plus side
is that he may be more wary this time of relying on the "deep
state" advisers who steered him so badly. (Biden, too, was
plagued by their advice, but he seemed to be more in tune with
it -- the only changes Biden made in US foreign policy were to
reverse Trump's occasional unorthodox lapses, especially what he
viewed as softness on Russia.)
On the other hand, Trump brings
a unique set of disturbing personal characteristics to the job:
he cares more about perception than reality; he wants to be seen
as very tough, but he's really just a whiney bitch; he's majorly
ignorant, and incoherent on top of that; he's impetuous (but he
can usually be talked down, because he rarely has any reasons
for what he wants to do); he's vain and narcissistic; he has
no empathy with people he meets, so has no idea how to relate
with them (e.g., to negotiate any kind of agreement); he has
no sympathy for other people, so he has no cares for anything
wrong that could happen; he has a weird fascination with using
nuclear weapons, so that's one of the things he often has to
be talked down from; I know I already said that he's ignorant
and implied that he's clueless, but he's also pretty stupid
about how most things in the modern world actually work. He
does, however, have a keen interest in graft, and a passing
admiration for other right-wing demagogues, if only because
he admires their art and sees them as his peers. About the
only thing I can see as a positive is that he doesn't seem
to feel any personal need for war to prove his masculinity --
for that he's satisfied abusing women.
I'm sure there are more, but these at least make the point.
After Harris took over, I hoped that she might be held less
responsible, and other factors would give her a chance. I also
resisted all the hectoring from the left, figuring that's just
what we normally do, even if it's not helpful at the moment.
Besides, I knew that I couldn't really do anything about it:
that the forces in motion were way too powerful for whatever
I think to make any difference at all. So I just went with it.
But now I'm left with all these doubts: about my own judgment
and understanding, about other people, about the whole notion of
sides. I'm getting old, and tired, and frustrated. And while it's
premature to say that we have no future, I can't see any viable
path for me to continue working like this.
Therefore, this is my last Speaking of Which post.
Probably ever, at least not for quite some well. I have a
Jazz Poll to
run, and that's going to be enough of a time sink to last me
to January. I'll keep posting
Music Week,
probably as long as I'm able, possibly with a new burst of
energy but more likely with diminishing returns. The political
book I've contemplated for twenty-some years now is definitely
dead. Much of it would have been practical advice on how Left
Democrats might more effectively frame issues. Clearly, I'm in
no position to do that.
I may consider writing up more "blue sky" policy ideas. I've
always been very fond of Paul Goodman's Utopian Essays and
Practical Proposals, which gives me the perfect subtitle.
But each chunk of that would take considerable work to research
and whip into shape, and I have little confidence of doing that.
The more serious writing project would be to return (or restart)
the memoir. I don't know that will be of any interest, but it's
a subject I know, have thought about, and often find myself
slipping into, and it could be a springboard for anything else
I wanted to slip in.
The other obvious project would be to go back and review the
several million words I've written (most collected
here, from the founding of the
notebook and/or
blog up to some point in 2022) and
see what can be packaged into something useful. A couple people
have looked at this, and thrown their hands up in the air. When
I look, I see lots of things that still strike me as worthwhile,
but I, too, have little idea what to do with them. My ideal
solution would be to find an editor willing to work on spec,
but I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that.
If anyone is interested in nattering on about this life
decision, you can contact me through the little-used
question form.
Original count: 265 links, 26798 words (31647 total)
Current count:
345 links, 37102 words (43518 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
Music Week
November archive
(in progress).
Music: Current count 43118 [43099] rated (+19), 36 [41] unrated (-5).
We got to the polls later than I expected, so I had some time
early today to fiddle with, and I used it to add more links to
yesterday's
Speaking of Which (up to 159, from 135). Vox emailed me a
couple election anxiety/guide articles, so I figured it wouldn't
hurt to cite them. I sometimes imagine going back through the
blog for notes to write a journal-type book, so it's nice to
have a fairly competent record, even if much of it is of passing
interest. My latest concept for such a book would be subtitled
What I Learned During the 2024 Election. Most of what I've
learned is how irrational people can be in weighing matters of
politics. Main downside to developing that idea is that most of
my notes are from people who are well-informed and exceptionally
rational. Explaining the 40-60% of Americans who are supposed to
be voting for Trump today is going to take more research, and
it's not likely to be pretty.
I'm a bit surprised that the rated count this week is only 19,
but we're a couple days short of a week, and in a bit of a down
cycle. I am finally nearing the end of my bedroom/closet project.
I did some more caulking today, around the trim (which already
has one coat, but in various places needs another). I'll sand
and paint tomorrow. It'll probably take another day to touch up
spots where I colored outside the lines. I'm a pretty lousy
painter, so that happens more often than it should. That leaves
the problem with the ceiling (masking tape pulled down strips
and splotches of paint), but I'm going to kick that back to the
guy who plastered and painted the ceiling in the first place,
and it shouldn't take him long.
I got all the paneling up in the closet, including new boards for
the ceiling. I put the lights back up this afternoon. Next thing
there is to cut some trim boards and screw them in place. The boards
are prepped, and most of that should go pretty quickly. I don't have
a plan for finishing it yet, but we don't have to do that part before
moving back into the bedroom (actually, more of an office, but it
has a futon, which works for a spare bed). What we will still need
to do is cleaning, sorting, and reorganizing, but that's an ongoing
process everywhere.
My next big project should be the Francis Davis Jazz Critics Poll.
I'll try to set up the website next week, and get invites out the
week after. Biggest uncertainty there is communications, as my email
list last year (and mid-year) proved pretty unreliable. That probably
means paying for a commercial list provider, as it's almost impossible
to avoid spam blacklisting on your own -- presumably, that is doable
if that's your business, otherwise you wouldn't have a business. We
also need to vet new critics. I'm thinking of setting up an advisory
board to help on things like that, as well as to sanity-check my own
thinking and coding. If you're interested in helping, or just know
of a critic we should be polling, please get in touch.
As for my own writing, the next two months should be a good time
to re-evaluate what, if anything, I still might try to work on.
I've resisted checking the news all evening, which should hold
out until I get this (and the Speaking of Which) updates up, around
11 PM CDT.
New records reviewed this week:
T.K. Blue: Planet Bluu (2022 [2024], Jaja):
Saxophonist, mostly alto, b. 1953 in New York as Eugene Rhynie,
parents Jamaican and Trinidadian, recorded several albums as
Talib Kibwe (1987-96), side credits including Randy Weston and
Sam Rivers, made his debut as T.K. Blue in 1999. Very spirited
mainstream group here.
B+(**) [cd]
John Cale: POPtical Illusion (2024, Domino):
Originally from Wales, made his mark in New York as a co-founder
of the Velvet Underground, playing electric violin on first two
albums. Now 82, with his 18th studio album, not counting various
collaborations (including notable ones with Terry Riley, Lou
Reed, and Brian Eno) and many soundtracks. This reminds me much
of his early 1970s albums, his baroque phase, not that he hasn't
picked up a few tricks since then.
B+(***) [sp]
Avishai Cohen: Ashes to Gold (2023 [2024], ECM):
Israeli trumpet player (not the bassist), albums since 2002.
Quartet with piano (Yonathan Avishai), bass (Barak Mori), and
drums (Ziv Ravitz). This is quite nice.
B+(**) [sp]
The Cure: Songs of a Lost World (2024, Fiction):
English art rock band, principally Robert Smith, debut 1979, one
of those 1980s bands other people seemed to like but I never
developed any attachment to. Hit their commercial peak with
Wish in 1992 (UK: 1, US: 2), dropped back to a record
every four years after that, until 2008, then a 16-year gap
until this one, which I was surprised to find well reviewed
(91/29 at AOTY). I recall very little of that, but there are
impressive patches here, and some not so.
B+(*) [sp]
The Dare: What's Wrong With New York? (2024,
Republic): New rave singer-songwriter Harrison Smith, from Los
Angeles, previously known as Turtlenecked, had a 2022 single
that got him noticed by Charli XCX, giving him a bit role on
Brat. First album (as The Dare, anyway), 10 songs,
27:24, makes an impression.
B+(*) [sp]
Joe Fahey: Andrea's Exile (2024, Rough Fish):
Folkie singer-songwriter, another nice album.
B+(**) [sp]
Nubya Garcia: Odyssey (2024, Concord Jazz):
British tenor saxophonist, parents from Guyana and Trinidad,
debut EP in 2017, various lineups here, including vocal
features for Esperanza Spalding and Georgia Anne Muldrow
plus her own spoken word. I'm not wild about that turn, but
I'm more bothered by the soundtrack texturing.
B [sp]
Rich Halley 4: Dusk and Dawn (2023 [2024],
Pine Eagle): Tenor saxophonist, from Portland, has run up a string
of superb albums ever since I first noticed him in 2005, about the
time when he retired from his day job (as I recall, but he's 77
now, and had a couple earlier albums I still haven't heard). His
last two albums were elevated by pianist Matthew Shipp. Here he's
back with his old quartet: Michael Vlatkovich (trombone), Clyde
Reed (bass), and Carson Halley (drums, his son). Little if any
drop here, the trombone a definite plus.
A- [cd]
Jazzmeia Horn: Messages (2024, Empress Legacy):
Jazz singer, from Dallas, fourth album since 2017, impressive
range, some scat, I'm unclear on credits.
B+(**) [sp]
Randy Ingram: Aries Dance (2024, Sounderscore):
Pianist, originally from Alaska, studied at USC and NEC, has
a half-dozen albums since 2009, this a nice mainstream trio
with Drew Gress (bass) and Billy Hart (drums), playing six
originals and three standards.
B+(**) [cd]
Ryan Keberle & Catharsis: Music Is Connection
(2023-24 [2024], Alternate Side): Trombone player, albums since
2006, adopted the group name in 2012, has increasingly used vocals,
sings some himself but mostly Camila Meza here (also on guitar).
With Jorge Roeder (bass) and Eric Doob (drums), plus a spot for
saxophonist Scott Robinson. I like the trombone more than the
vocals, but the latter grew on me.
B+(***) [cd]
Jason Keiser: Kind of Kenny (2024, OA2): Guitarist
(acoustic, steel string & nylon string), from San Francisco,
second album, also features John Stowell (electric guitar &
baritone fretless guitar), with a tribute to Kenny Wheeler, with
Erik Jekabson (trumpet/flugelhorn), Michael Zilber (tenor/soprano
sax), and Danielle Wertz (vocals).
B+(**) [cd]
Laura Marling: Patterns in Repeat (2024,
Chrysalis/Partisan): English singer-songwriter, seventh studio
album since 2008, a quiet affair of voice and acoustic guitar,
against a background of dubbed-in strings.
B+(**) [sp]
Thollem McDonas: Infinite-Sum Game (2023 [2024],
ESP-Disk): Pianist, originally from Bay Area, many albums since 2004,
often just goes as Thollem. Solo set, recorded in Dublin, pretty
engaging as these things go.
B+(***) [cd]
Nacka Forum: Peaceful Piano (2024, Moserobie):
Swedish quartet, founded 1999, not sure whether they qualify as
"all-stars," but all players you should know on their own: Goran
Kajfes (trumpet), Jonas Kullhammar (reeds), Johan Berthling (bass),
Kresten Osgood (drums), with a couple guest spots for Lars-Göran
Ulander (alto sax, "known from the legendary '60s recordings").
No piano. None needed.
A- [cd]
NLE Choppa: Slut Szn (2024, Warner, EP):
Memphis rapper Bryson Potts, first singles/mixtape 2018, two
albums, this is 8-song, 21:56 set is counted as his eighth
mixtape. Very jumpy, but runs down fast.
B+(*) [sp]
Pony Boy All-Star Big Band: This Is Now: Live at
Boxley's (2024, Pony Boy): Seattle-based big band, led
by drummer/arranger Greg Williamson, also exists as a 7-piece
"mini big band." Seems to be their first album, the group taking
its name from an independent jazz label that has several dozen
other albums, but few names I'm familiar with. My promo came
with a bonus CD (two tracks, 15:58, from an earlier date).
B+(**) [cd]
Brandon Seabrook: Object of Unknown Function
(2023 [2024], Pyroclastic): Plays banjo and guitar, solo here,
supplemented by electronics/tapes. I'm impressed, but without
much pleasure.
B+(*) [cd]
Luke Winslow-King: Flash-a-Magic (2024, Bloodshot):
Singer-songwriter, originally from Michigan, at least eight albums
since 2008.
B+(*) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Terry Gibbs Dream Band: Vol. 7: The Lost Tapes, 1959
(1959 [2024], Whaling City Sound): Vibraphonist, still ticking at
100 -- his first album was Good Vibes in 1951, his "last"
the quite good 92 Years Young from 2017, or perhaps 2022's
The Terry Gibbs Songbook, credited to Terry Gibbs Legacy
Band, which he played some on, and he's still listed as producer
here. He led a big band in 1959, with Mel Lewis on drums, Bill
Holman on tenor sax (and arranging), and other cool jazz notables,
with Marty Paich, Med Flory, Manny Albam, and Al Cohn among the
arrangers. They produced four albums through 1961, starting with
Launching a New Band, and since 1986's Dream Band
various of their concert tapes have been released, through 2006's
superb Vol. 6. This latecomer is one of the best, ferocious
swing and crackling power extended over 71 minutes.
A- [cd]
Old music:
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Lemadi Trio: Canonical Discourse (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
- Tonus: Analog Deviation (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
- Transition Unit: Fade Value (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
- Martina Verhoeven Quintet: Indicator Light (Live at Paradox 2023) (A New Wave of Jazz Axis) [10-15]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Monday, November 4, 2024
Speaking of Which
Draft file opened 2024-11-01 5:10 PM.
Trying to wrap this up Monday afternoon, but I keep sinking into
deep comments, like the
Müller entry below, to which I could easily
add another 3-5 paragraphs. Now I need to take a long break and do
some housework, so I'm not optimistic that I'll be able to add much
before posting late this evening. We're among the seeming minority
who failed to advance vote, so will trek to the polls tomorrow and
do our bit. As I've noted throughout (and even more emphatically in my
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump), I'm voting for
Harris. While Kansas is considered a surefire Trump state -- the
silver lining here is that we're exposed to relatively little
campaigning -- around my neighborhood the Harris signs outnumber
the Trump signs about 10-0 (seriously, I haven't seen a single
one, although I've heard of Harris signs being stolen). Not much
down ballot activity either, although if I find any more Democrats,
I'll vote for them (minimally, our state legislators, who are
actually pretty good).
In the end, it got late and I gave up. Perhaps I'll add some more
tidbits tomorrow, but my more modest plans are to go vote, stop at
a restaurant we like after voting, and finish the bedroom trim paint.
Presumably there'll be a Music Week before the day's done, but not
really a lot to report there.
Soon as I got up Tuesday, I found myself adding a couple "chatter"
items, so I guess I'm doing updates on Election Day. In which case,
I might as well break my rule and include a sample of the extremely
topical items that will become obsolete as soon as they start counting
ballots. I'll keep them segregated here:
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Ramzy Baroud: [10-31]
Israel's extremists plan for the day after the genocide: "Gaza is ours,
forever."
Dave DeCamp: [11-05]
Netanyahu fires Defense Minister Gallant: His co-defendant on
genocide charges, they've evidently had a falling out with Gallant
"calling
for Israel to make 'painful concessions' to reach a hostage deal
with Hamas."
Jason Ditz: [11-04]
Israel imposed evacuation in much of East Lebanon, but many attacks
outside those zones.
Anis Germani: [11-04]
Is Israel using depleted uranium to bomb Lebanon? "Israel's use
of 80 bunker-buster bombs to assassinate Hasan Nasrallah has raised
concerns that it is using depleted uranium in its bombardment of
Lebanon. We need an impartial investigation given Israel's track
record of using prohibited weapons."
Tareq S Hajjaj:
Qassam Muaddi:
[11-01]
Israel is hitting a wall in Lebanon. What is its endgame?
"Israel's military campaign in souther Lebanon is failing. As
Israel runs out of options, the US is scrambling for a way out
of the Lebanese quagmire -- including by reviving hopes for a
Gaza ceasefire." I don't trust anyone's reporting on ground
operations in Lebanon, but "quagmire" implies that Israel is
stuck, which I doubt. My impression is that Israel's bombing
and ground operations in Lebanon are wanton and capricious --
things that they mostly do for the hell of it, perhaps to degrade
Hezbollah, or simply to show the Lebanese people the peril they
blame on Hezbollah, but nothing they can't retreat and regroup
from if the going gets a bit sticky. One report cited here:
Amos Harel: [Israel's defense chiefs say fighting
in Gaza and Lebanon has run its course. Does Netanyahu agree?
The implication here is that Israel's defense leaders are finding
it increasingly difficult to justify further operations on defense
grounds. That they are continuing is a purely political directive,
coming from Netanyahu, for purely political ends.
[11-04]
Fake document scandal reveals Israeli efforts to undermine ceasefire
talks: "A scandal over fabricated documents allegedly leaked
by an aid to Benjamin Netanyahu has revealed Israel's efforts to
sabotage Gaza ceasefire negotiations."
Jonathan Ofir: [11-02]
Israeli justice minister calls for 20-year prison sentence for
citizens promoting sanctions against the state: "Israeli
Justice Minister Yariv Levin is demanding a 20-year prison
sentence for citizens who call for sanctions against Israeli
leaders and military personnel."
Fayha Shalash/Mera Aladam: [11-04]
Armed Israeli settlers torch Palestinian homes, cars and olive
trees across West Bank.
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Michael Arria:
Connor Echols: [10-29]
Nation building is back! "Israel is breaking the Middle East,
and the US is lining up to rebuild it." Well, talking about it,
with lots of strings, including Israel calling all the shots.
Echols used to be a staff writer for Responsible Statecraft,
but seems to have landed in Robert Wright's
Nnzero Substack.
Robert E Hunter: [10-31]
Israel using US election to take free hand against Gaza, Lebanon:
"But even as a lame duck, will Biden do the right thing? Likely
not."
Anatol Lieven/Ted Snider: [10-23]
Biden's 'leadership' is blowing the lid off two wars: "The
president promised to contain Gaza and Ukraine but both conflicts
have been a slow burn to something much bigger."
Justin Logan: [10-15]
No, Iran isn't America's 'greatest adversary': "VP Harris might
have been trying to score points, but her comments are absurd."
Paul R Pillar: [10-21]
41yrs ago: 220 Marines involved in Israel's war on Lebanon killed:
If the US hadn't got ensnared in Tel Aviv's affairs, the bombing
would never have happened."
Mitchell Plitnick: [11-02]
Israel's limited Iran attack reflects a dangerous regional agenda:
"Even though Israel's much-anticipated strike on Iran was smaller
than expected, the threat of a potential global war may actually
be growing."
Dave Reed:
Israel vs. world opinion:
Juan Cole: [11-02]
As UN warns entire population of Gaza is at risk of death, Bill
Clinton says he's not keeping score.
Here's a report on Clinton's campaign for Harris:
Nada Elia: [11-01]
On vote shaming, and lesser evils: "I will not be shamed into
voting for a candidate who supports the genocide of the Palestinian
people, and no one who supports progressive issues should be either."
Hers is a vote against Harris -- not sure in favor of who or what --
and I think we have to respect her conviction, even if one disagrees
with her conclusion. We need people opposed to genocide more than we
need voters for Harris, not that the two need be exclusive. Elections
never just test one red line, so they require us to look beyond simple
moral judgments and make a messy political one. Agreed that Harris
fails on this red line -- as does her principal (and only practical)
opponent, arguably even worse[*] -- but there are other issues at play,
some where Harris is significantly preferable to Trump, none where
the opposite is the case. I don't have any qualms or doubts about
voting for Harris vs. Trump. But I respect people who do.
[*] Harris, like Biden (with greater weight of responsibility),
is a de facto supporter of Israel committing genocide, but she
does not endorse the concept, and remains in denial as to what
is happening (unaccountably and, if you insist, inexcusably, as
there is little room for debating the facts). Trump, on the other
hand, appears to have explicitly endorsed genocide (e.g., in his
comments like "finish the job!"). Both the racism that separates
out groups for collective punishment -- of which genocide is an
extreme degree -- and the penchant for violent punishment are
usually right-wing traits, which makes them much more likely for
Trump than for Harris. And Trump's right-wing political orientation
is more likely to encourage and sustain genocide in the future, as
it derives from his character and core political beliefs.
Some other pieces on the genocide voting conundrum (probably
more scattered about, since I added this grouping rather late):
Chris Hedges: [10-31]
Israel's war on journalism.
There are some 4,000 foreign reporters accredited in Israel to cover
the war. They stay in luxury hotels. They go on dog and pony shows
orchestrated by the Israeli military. They can, on rare occasions,
be escorted by Israeli soldiers on lightning visits to Gaza, where
they are shown alleged weapons caches or tunnels the military says
are used by Hamas.
They dutifully attend daily press conferences. They are given
off-the-record briefings by senior Israeli officials who feed them
information that often turns out to be untrue. They are Israel's
unwitting and sometimes witting propagandists, stenographers for
the architects of apartheid and genocide, hotel room warriors.
Bertolt Brecht acidly called them the spokesmen of the spokesmen.
And how many foreign reporters are there in Gaza? None.
The Palestinian reporters in Gaza who fill the void often pay
with their lives. They are targeted, along with their families,
for assassination.
At least 134 journalists and media workers in Gaza, the West
Bank and Lebanon, have been killed and 69 have been imprisoned,
according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, marking the
deadliest period for journalists since the organization began
collecting data in 1992.
Jonathan Ofir: [10-30]
New UN Special Rapporteur report warns Israel's genocide in Gaza
could be expanding to the West Bank: "A new report by Francesca
Albanese."
Wamona Wadi: [11-03]
CNN finally covered the Gaza genocide -- from the point of view of
Israeli troops with PTSD: Don't laugh. That's a real thing, a
form of casualty that's rarely calculated, or for that matter even
anticipated, by war planners. It should be counted as reason enough
not to start wars that can possibly be avoided, which is pretty much
all of them. Perhaps it pales in comparison to the other forms of
trauma unleashed by war, but it should be recognized and treated
the only way possible, with peace.
Videos: I have very little patience
for watching videos on computer, but the one with Suárez came
highly recommended, and the title shows us something we need to
be talking about now. When I got there, I found much more, so
I noted a few more promising titles (not all vetted, but most
likely to be very informative).
Election notes: First of all, I'm deliberately
not reporting on polling, which right or wrong will be obsolete in a
couple days, and saves me from looking at most of this week's new
reporting. Two more notes this week: this section has sprawled this
week, as I've wound up putting many pieces that cover both candidates,
or otherwise turn on the election results, here; also, I'm struck by
how little I'm finding about down-ballot races (even though a lot of
money is being spent there). I'm sure I could find some surveys, as
well as case stories, but Trump-Harris has so totally overshadowed
them that I'd have to dig. And even though for most of my life, I've
done just that, I feel little compulsion to do so right now.
Thomas B Edsall: [10-30]
Let me ask a question we never had to ask before: A survey of
"a wide range of scholars and political strategists," asking not
who will win, but who will blamed by the losers.
Saleema Gul: [10-31]
A community divided: With Gaza on their minds, Muslim and Arab Americans
weigh their options ahead of election day: Such as they are, which
isn't much.
John Herrman:
Democrats are massively outspending the GOP on social media:
"It's not even close -- $182 million to just $45 million, according
to one new estimate." As I recall, Republicans were way ahead on
social media in 2016 (with or without Russian contributions), and
that was seen as a big factor. (But also, as I recall, Facebook's
algorithms amplified Trump's hateful lies, while Democratic memes
were deemed too boring to bother with.)
Ben Kamisar: [11-03]
Nearly $1 billion has been spent on political ads over the last
week. Most of this money, staggering amounts, is being spent
on down-ballot races, including state referenda.
Howard Lisnoff: [11-01]
We're in some deep shit: Now that's a clickbait title, as you
have to click to get to anything specific, of which many subjects
are possibilities. Turns out it's mostly about Jill Stein: not what
you'd call an endorsement -- his own view is summed up in the Emma
Goldman quote, "if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal" --
but using anti-Stein hysteria as a prism for exposing the vacuousness
of the Democrats, as if Trump wasn't in the race at all (his name only
appears once, in a quote about 2016). Links herein:
Matt Flegenheimer: [10-23]
Jill Stein won't stop. No matter who asks. "People in Stein's
life have implored her to abandon her bid for president, lest she
throw the election to Donald Trump. She's on the ballot in almost
every critical state." This piece is, naturally, totally about
how she might siphon votes from Harris allowing Trump to win,
with nothing about her actual positions, or how they contrast
with those of Harris and Trump. Even Israel only gets a single
offhand mention:
Her bid can feel precision-engineered to damage Ms. Harris with
key subgroups: young voters appalled by the United States' support
for Israel; former supporters of Bernie Sanders's presidential
campaigns who feel abandoned by Democrats; Arab American and
Muslim voters, especially in Michigan, where fury at Ms. Harris
and President Biden has been conspicuous for months.
The Sanders comment seems like a totally gratuitous dig --
he is
on record as solidly for Harris even considering Israel, and
few of his supporters are likely to disagree. The other two points
are the same, and have been widely debated elsewhere (including
several links in this post), but the key thing there is that while
Stein may benefit from their disaffection, she is not the cause of
it. The cause is American support for genocide, which includes
Biden and Harris, but also Trump, Kennedy, and nearly everyone in
Congress.
Glenn Greenwald:
Kamala's worst answers yet? A 38:31 video with no transcript,
something I have zero interest in watching, although the comments
are suitably bizarre (most amusing: "Consequences of an arrogant
oligarchy and descending empire").
Dan Mangan: [11-02]
Shock poll shows Harris leading Trump in Iowa. An exception to
my "no polls stories" policy. My wife mentioned this poll to me, as
a possible reason to vote for Harris in Kansas where she had been
planning on a write-in.
Parker Molloy: [11-04]
We already know one big loser in this election: the mainstream
media: "When your most loyal supporters start questioning
your integrity, that's not just a red flag -- it's a siren blaring
in the newsroom."
Clara Ence Morse/Luis Melgar/Maeve Reston: [10-28]
Meet the megmadonors pumping over $2.5 billion into the election:
The breakdown of the top 50 is $1.6B Republican, $752M Democratic,
with $214M "supportive of both parties" (mostly crypto and realtor
groups). The top Democratic booster is Michael Bloomberg, but his
$47.4M this time is a drop in the bucket compared to the money he
spent in 2020 to derail Bernie Sanders.
Nicole Narea: [11-01]
2024 election violence is already happening: "How much worse
could it get if Trump loses?" I'm more worried about: how much
worse could it get if Trump wins? It's not just frustration that
drives violence. There's also the feeling that you can get away
with it -- one example of which is the idea that Trump will pardon
you, as he's already promised to the January 6 hoodlums. Nor should
we be too sanguine in thinking that frustration violence can only
come from the right. While rights are much more inclined to violence,
anyone can get frustrated and feel desperate, and the right has
offered us many examples of that turning violent.
Margaret Simons: [11-02]
Can democracy work without journalism? With the US election upon
us, we may be about to find out: "Most serious news organisations
are not serving the politically disengaged, yet it's these voters
who will decide the next president." Seems like a good question,
but much depends on what you mean by journalism. Although I have
many complaints about quality, quantity doesn't seem to be much
of a problem -- except, as compared to the quantity of PR, which
is over the top, and bleeding into everything else. As for "soon
find out," I doubt that. While honest journalism should have
decided this election several months ago, the commonplace that
we're now facing a "toss up" suggests that an awful lot of folks
have been very poorly informed. Either that, or they don't give
a fuck -- (not about their votes, but about what consequences they
may bring -- which is a proposition that is hard to dismiss. There
are many things that I wish reporters would research better, but
Donald Trump isn't one of them.
Jeffrey St Clair: [11-01]
Notes on a phony campaign: strange days.
Margaret Sullivan: [11-04]
The candidates' closing campaign messages could not be more different:
Well, aside from automatic support for America's global war machine,
extending even to genocide in Israel, and the unexamined conviction
that "the business of America is business," and that government's
job is to promote that business everywhere. But sure, there are
differences enough to decide a vote on: "There is hateful rhetoric
and threats of retribution from one side, and messages of inclusion
and good will from the other." But haven't we seen this "bad cop,
good cop" schtick before? Or "speak softly, but carry a big stick"?
These are the sort of differences that generate a lot of heat, but
very little light.
Zoe Williams: [10-31]
An excess of billionaires is destabilising politics -- just as academics
predicted: "Politicians have always courted the wealthy, but Elon
Musk and co represent a new kind of donor, and an unprecedented danger
to democracy."
Endorsements:
Trump:
The New Republic: [10-21]
The 100 worst things Trump has done since descending that escalator:
"Some were just embarrassing. Many were horrific. All of them should
disqualify him from another four years in the White House." I ran this
last week, but under the circumstances let's run it again. If I had
the time, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to write up 20+ more, many of
which would land in the top 20. For instance, Israel only merits 2
mentions, at 76 and 71, and the latter was more about him attacking
George Soros: no mention of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, or many
other favors that contributed to the Oct. 7 revolt and genocide.
Ditching the Iran deal came in at 8, but no mention of
assassinating Iranian general Qasem Soleimani (I hope I don't
need to explain why). There is only one
casual reference to Afghanistan (22. Escalates the drone war), none
that he protracted the war four years, knowing that Biden would be
blamed for his surrender deal to the Taliban. He gets chided for his
being "pen pals with Kim Jong Un," but not for failing to turn his
diplomacy into an actual deal. Not all of these items belong in a
Trivial Pursuit game, but most would be overshadowed by real policy
disasters if reporters could look beyond their Twitter feeds.
Zack Beauchamp: [11-02]
It's not alarmist: A second Trump term really is an extinction-level
threat to democracy: "Why a second Trump term is a mortal threat
to democracy -- though perhaps not the way you think." Having written
a recent book --
The Reactionary Spirit: How America's Most Insidious Political Tradition
Swept the World (I bought a copy, but haven't gotten into it
yet -- on this broad theme, he predictably offers us a rehash with a
minor update. It's nice to see him dialing back the alarmism, enough
to see the real longer-term erosion:
If the first Trump term was akin to the random destruction of a toddler,
a second would be more like the deliberate demolition of a saboteur.
With the benefit of four years of governing experience and four more
years of planning, Trump and his team have concluded that the problem
with their first game of Jenga was that they simply did not remove
enough of democracy's blocks.
I do not think that, over the course of four more years, Trump could
use these plans to successfully build a fascist state that would jail
critics and install himself in power indefinitely. This is in part
because of the size and complexity of the American state, and in part
because that's not really the kind of authoritarianism that works in
democracies nowadays.
But over the course of those years, he could yank out so many of
American democracy's basic building blocks that the system really
could be pushed to the brink of collapse. . . .
A second Trump term risks replacing Rawls's virtuous cycle with
a vicious one. As Trump degrades government, following the Orbánist
playbook with at least some success, much of the public would
justifiably lose their already-battered faith in the American
system of government. And whether it could long survive such a
disaster is anyone's guess.
While "toddler" is certainly apt, eight years later he hasn't
changed that aspect much, and in many ways he's even regressed.
His narcissistic petulance is ever more pronounced, which may be
why many people dismiss the threat of a second term as hysteria.
No matter how naughty he wants to be, even as president he can't
do all that much damage on his own. He looks like, and sounds
like, the same deranged blowhard he's always been, but one thing
is very different this time: he and his activist cult have found
each other. As president, he will empower them from day one, and
they'll not only do things he can only dream of, but they will
feed him new fantasies, carefully tailored to flatter him and
his noxious notions of greatness, because they know, as we all
should realize by now, that job one is stoking his ego.
No doubt much of what they try will blow up before it causes
real harm -- nobody thinks that, even with a Republican Senate,
Big Pharma is going to let RFK Jr. destroy their vaccination cash
cow -- and much of what does get promulgated and/or enacted will
surely blow back, driving his initially record-low approval rates
into the ground. But he knows better than to let GOP regulars
construct "guard rails" with responsible "adults in the room."
The loyalty of everyone he might hire now can be gauged by their
track record -- both what they've said in the past, and how low
they can bow and scrape now (Vance is an example of the latter,
of how to redeem yourself in Trump's eyes, although I'd surmise
that Trump's still pretty wary of him).
PS: Here's a video of Beauchamp talking about his book:
The realignment: The rise of reactionary politics.
Aaron Blake: [11-01]
Trump's latest violent fantasy: "Trump keeps painting pictures
of violence against his foes despite allegations of fascism. And
Republicans keep shrugging."
Sidney Blumenthal: [11-02]
Donald Trump's freakshow continues unabated: "Trump insists on
posing as the salient question of the election: are you crazier
today than you were four years ago?"
Kevin T Dugan: [11-01]
Wall Street's big bet on a Trump win: "Gold, bitcoin, prisons, and
oil are all thought to be the big moneymakers for the financial class
if Trump wins another term." More compelling reasons to sink Trump.
Michelle Goldberg: [11-01]
What I truly expect if an unconstrained Trump retakes power.
Steven Greenhouse: [10-30]
Trump wants you to believe that the US economy is doing terribly. It's
untrue: "Despite his claims to the contrary, unemployment is low,
inflation is way down, and job growth is remarkably strong." But unless
you're rich, can you really tell? And if you're rich, the choice comes
down to: if you merely want to get richer, you'd probably be better
off with the Democrats (who have consistently produced significantly
higher growth rates, ever since the Roaring '20s crashed and burned),
but if you really want to feel the power that comes with riches, you
can go with one of your own, and risk the embarrassment. And funny
thing is, once you've decided which side you're on, your view of the
economy will self-confirm. From any given vantage point, you can look
up or down. That's a big part of the reason why these stories, while
true enough, have virtually no impact (except among the neoliberal
shills that write them).
Arun Gupta: [11-01]
Triumph of the swill: A night at the Garden with Trump and MAGA.
About as good a blow-by-blow account as I've seen so far. Ends on
this note:
Eight years wiser and with four years to plan, Trump, Miller, and
the rest of MAGA are telling us they plan to occupy America. They
are itching to use the military to terrify, subjugate, and ethnically
cleanse. The only liberation will be for their violent desires and
that of their Herrenvolk who went wild at mentions of mass deportations.
They loved the idea.
Also by Gupta:
[10-29]
Night of the Fash: "At Madison Square Garden with Trump and his
lineup of third-rate grifters and bigots." An earlier, shorter
draft.
[11-04]
Kamala says she'll "end the war in Gaza": "For opponents of
Israel's genocide, sticking to principles gets results. But for
Harris, her flip-flop is a sign of desperation." I don't really
believe her -- it's going to take more than a sound bite to stand
up to the Israel lobby -- but I would welcome the sentiment, and
not just make fun of her. It may be desperate, but it's also a
tiny bit of timely hope, much more plausible than the magic Trump
imagines.
Margaret Hartmann: [11-01]
Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein: Everything we've learned: "Michael
Wolff claims he has Epstein tapes about Trump, and saw compromising
Trump photos."
Antonia Hitchens:
[11-03]
Trump's final days on the campaign trail: "Under assault from all
sides, in the last weeks of his campaign, the former President speaks
often of enemies from within, including those trying to take his life."
[10-19]
Inside the Republican National Committee's poll-watching army:
"The RNC says it has recruited tens of thousands of volunteers to
observe the voting process at precincts across the country. Their
accounts of alleged fraud could, as one Trump campaign official
put it, "establish the battlefield" for after November 5th."
Chris Hooks: [11-02]
The brainless ideas guiding Trump's foreign policy: "Conservatives
recently gathered in Washington to explain how they would rule the
world in a second Trump term. The result was incoherent, occasionally
frightening, and often very dumb." My first reaction was that one
could just as easily write "The brainless ideas guiding Democrats'
foreign policy," but then I saw that the author is referring to a
specific conference, the Richard Nixon Foundation's "Grand Strategy
Summit."
Marina Hyde: [11-01]
Trump may become president again -- but he's already a useful idiot
to the mega rich: "They make nice with him when it suits, ridicule
him when he's not listening. Their lives are money and gossip -- with
him they get both."
Ben Jacobs: [11-04]
The evolving phenomenon of the Trump rally: "Rarely boring,
always changing, and essential to his appeal."
Hannah Knowles/Marianne LeVine/Isaac Arnsdorf: [11-01]
Trump embraces violent rhetoric, suggests Liz Cheney should have
guns 'trained on her face': "The GOP nominee often describes
graphic and gruesome scenes of crimes and violence, real and
imagined."
Eric Levitz: [11-01]
Elon Musk assures voters that Trump's victory would deliver "temporary
hardship"; "And he's half right." Meaning the hardship, but not
necessarily "temporarily":
Now, as the race enters the homestretch, Musk is trying to clinch
Trump's victory with a bracing closing argument: If our side wins,
you will experience severe economic pain.
If elected, Trump has vowed to put Musk in charge of a "government
efficiency commission," which would identify supposedly wasteful
programs that should be eliminated or slashed. During a telephone
town hall last Friday, Musk said his commission's work would
"necessarily involve some temporary hardship."
Days later, Musk suggested that this budget cutting -- combined
with Trump's mass deportation plan -- would cause a market-crashing
economic "storm." . . .
This is one of the more truthful arguments that Musk has made
for Trump's election, which is to say, only half of it is false.
If Trump delivers on his stated plans, Americans will indeed suffer
material hardship. But such deprivation would neither be necessary
for -- nor conducive to -- achieving a healthier or more sustainable
economy.
After discussing tariffs and mass deportation, Levitz offer a
section on "gutting air safety, meat inspections, and food stamps
will not make the economy healthier." He then offers us a silver
lining:
Trump's supporters might reasonably argue that none of this should
trouble us, since he rarely fulfills his campaign promises and will
surely back away from his economically ruinous agenda once in office.
But "don't worry, our candidate is a huge liar" does not strike me
as a much better message than "prepare for temporary hardship."
Nicholas Liu: [10-31]
Trump nearly slips attempting to enter a garbage truck for a campaign
stunt.
Carlos Lozada: [10-31]
Donald and Melania Trump were made for each other: Basically
a review of her book, Melania. The title could just as
well read "deserve each other," but that suggests a measure of
equality that has never been remotely true.
Melania's relationship with Donald is among the book's haziest features.
She depicts her initial attraction to him in superficial terms: She was
"captivated by his charm," was "drawn to his magnetic energy" and
appreciated his "polished business look." He was not "flashy or dramatic,"
she writes, but "down-to-earth." And though we know how he speaks about
women in private, Melania writes that "in private, he revealed himself
as a gentleman, displaying tenderness and thoughtfulness." The one
example she offers of his thoughtfulness is a bit unnerving: "Donald
to this day calls my personal doctor to check on my health, to ensure
that I am OK and that they are taking perfect care of me."
Clarence Lusane: [10-31]
The black case against Donald Trump: "Hold Trump accountable for
a lifetime of anti-black racism."
Branko Marcetic: [10-31]
'Anti-war' Trump trying to outflank Harris at critical moment:
"It may be a cynical strategy, but he seems to have read the room
while she has chosen a more confused, if not hawkish, path." This
has long been my greatest worry in the election.
Amanda Marcotte:
Peter McLaren: [11-03]
Donald Trump versus a microphone: a head bobbing performance.
Jan-Werner Müller: [11-04]
What if Trump's campaign is cover for a slow-motion coup?
"Even if Trump can't really mobilize large numbers of people to
the streets, just prolonging a sense of chaos might be enough."
Why are people so pre-occupied with imagining present and future
threats that have already happened? I'm sorry to have to break
the news to you, especially given that you think the election
tomorrow is going to be so momentous, but the "slow motion coup"
has already happened. Trump, while easily the worst imaginable
outcome, is just the farce that follows tragedy. The polarization
isn't driven by issues, but by personality types. A lot of people
will vote for Trump not because they agree with him, but because
in a rigged system, he's the entertainment option. He will make
the other people suffer -- his very presence drives the rest of
us crazy -- and Trump voters get off on that. And a lot of people
will vote against him, because they don't want to suffer, or in
some rare cases, they simply don't like seeing other people suffer.
Harris, actually much more than Biden or Obama or either Clinton,
is a very appealing candidate for those people (I can say us here),
but is still can be trusted not to try to undo the coup, to restore
any measure of real democracy, let alone "power to the people."
Here's a way to look at it: skipping past 1776-1860, there have
been two eras in American history, each beginning in revolution,
but which fizzled in its limited success, allowing reaction to set
in, extending the power of the rich to a breaking point. The first
was the Civil War and Reconstruction, which gave way to rampant
corruption, the Gilded Age and Jim Crow, ultimately collapsing
in the Great Depression. The second was the New Deal, which came
up with the idea of countervailing powers and a mixed economy with
a large public sector, mitigating the injustices of laissez-faire
while channeling the energy of capitalism into building a widely
shared Affluent Society.
But, unlike the Marxist model of proletarian revolution, the
New Deal left the upper crust intact, and during WWII they learned
how to use government for their own means. The reaction started to
gain traction after Republicans won Congress in 1946, and teamed
with racist Democrats to pass Taft-Hartley and other measures,
which eventually undermined union power, giving businesses a freer
hand to run things. Then came the Red Scare and the Cold War, which
Democrats joined as readily as Republicans, not realizing it would
demolish their popular base. Dozens of similar milestones followed,
each designed to concentrate wealth and power, which both parties
increasingly catered to, seeing no alternative, and comforted with
the perks of joining the new plutocracy.
One key milestone was the end of the "fairness doctrine" in the
1980s, which surrendered the notion that there is a public interest
as opposed to various private interests, and incentivized moguls to
buy up media companies and turn them into propaganda networks (most
egregiously at Fox, but really everywhere). Another was the end of
limits on campaign finance, which has finally reduced electoral
politics to an intramural sport of billionaires. (Someone should
issue a set of billionaire trading cards, like baseball cards,
with stats and stories on the back. I googled, and didn't find
any evidence of someone doing this.) Aside from Bernie Sanders,
no one runs for president (or much else) without first lining up
a billionaire (or at least a near-wannabe). They have about as
much control over who gets taken seriously and can appear on a
ballot as the Ayatollah does in Iran.
The main thing that distinguishes this system from a coup is
that it's unclear who's ultimately in charge, or even if someone
is. Still, that could be a feature, especially as it allows for
an infinite series of scapegoats when things go wrong -- as, you
may have noticed, they inevitably do.
Nicholas Nehamas/Erica L Green: [10-31]
Trump says he'll protect women, 'like it or not,' evoking his
history of misogyny.
Jonathan O'Connell/Leigh Ann Caldwell/Lisa Rein: [11-02]
Conservative group's 'watch list' targets federal employees for
firing.
Andrew Prokop: [09-26]
The Architect: Stephen Miller's dark agenda for a second Trump
term: "Miller has spent years plotting mass deportation. If
Trump wins, he'll put his plans into action." I think the most
important thing to understand about Miller isn't how malevolent
he is, but that he's the archetype, the exemplar for all future
Trump staff. He clearly has his own deep-seated agenda, but
what he's really excelled at is binding it to Trump, mostly
through utterly shameless flattery.
Aaron Regunberg: [11-01]
Why is the Anti-Defamation League running cover for Trump?
"Yes, it's fair to compare Trump's Madison Square Guarden spectacle
to the Nazi rally of 1939."
Aja Romano/Anna North: [11-05]
The new Jeffrey Epstein tapes and his friendship with Trump,
explained.
Dylan Scott: [10-30]
The existential campaign issue no one is discussing: "What happens
if another pandemic strikes -- and Trump is the president." Mentions
bird flu (H5N1) as a real possibility, but given Trump's worldview
and personal quirks, one could rephrase this as: what happens if any
unexpected problem strikes? I'm not one inclined to look to presidents
for leadership or understanding, but the least we should expect is the
third option in "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." Trump
is almost singularly incapable of any of those three options. Moreover,
where most people manage to learn things from experience, Trump jumps
to the wrong conclusions. Case in point: when Trump got Covid-19 in
2016, he could have learned from the experience how severe the illness
is, and how devastating it could be for others; instead, he recovered,
through treatment that wasn't generally available, and came out of it
feeling invincible, holding superspreader events and ridiculing masks.
I've long believed that a big part of his polling bounce was due to
people foolishly mistaking his idiocy for bravura.
Marc Steiner: [10-30]
The failures of liberals and the left have helped Trump's rise:
"Feckless Democrats and a disorganized Left have fed fuel to the MAGA
movement's fire." Interview with Bill Fletcher Jr. and Rick Perlstein.
Kirk Swearingen: [11-02]
Donald Trump was never qualified to be president -- or anything
else: "After a lifetime of lying, failure and incompetence,
this conman stands at the gates of power once again."
Michael Tomasky: [11-04]
Donald Trump has lost his sh*t: "There is no 'context' for
performing fellatio on a microphone. He's gone batty. The only
remaining question is whether enough voters recognize it."
Vance, and other Republicans:
Robert F Kennedy Jr.:
John Ball: [11-03]
My strange year tracking JD Vance, MAGA's future.
Charles Bethea:
Dan Dinello: [11-01]
The super-rich have a long history of backing fascism and buying the
White House: it's happening again: Mostly on Elon Musk, this
time, although the history goes back to Henry Ford.
David Friedlander: [11-03]
Elon Musk's Pennsylvania playbook: "It's secretive and chaotic --
but Trump campaign officials are thrilled."
Sarah Jones: [11-04]
The real class war against normal people.
Andrew Marantz: [11-01]
The Tucker Carlson road show: "After his Fox show was cancelled,
Carlson spent a year in the wilderness, honing his vision of what
the future of Trumpism might look like. This fall, he took his act
on tour."
Rachel Monroe: [10-30]
The conservative strategy to ban abortion nationwide.
Timothy Noah:
How Republicans get away with fleecing their own voters: "Democrats
are highly responsive to voter sentiment. Republicans are not, yet they
win reelection anyway." This could have been an interesting article,
especially if someone figured out why Republicans seem to be so willing
to vote against their own interests, or even if it was just about their
eagerness to suck up Trump merch. But are the Democrats actually better,
at least in terms of attentiveness? They campaign on donor-approved,
poll-tested issues, but rarely entertain anything else, even if it
actually has a lot of popular support.
Harris:
Eric Levitz: [10-22]
If Harris loses, expect Democrats to move right: "Even though
Harris is running as a moderate, progressives are likely to get
blamed for her defeat." I haven't read this, as it's locked up as
a "special feature for Vox Members," but the headline is almost
certainly wrong, and the subhed is very disputable -- I've already
seen hundreds of pieces arguing that if Harris fails, it will be
because she moved too far to the right, and in doing so risked
discredit of principles that actually resonate more with voters.
(And if she wins, it will be because she didn't cut corners like
that on abortion, but stuck to a strong message.) No doubt, if
she loses, the Democrats and "centrist" who never miss a chance
to slam the left will do so again -- you can already see this in
the Edsall piece, op. cit. -- but how credible will they be this
time? (After, e.g., trying to blame first Sanders then Putin for
Hillary Clinton's embarrassing failure in 2016.)
If Harris loses, she will be pilloried for every fault from
every angle, which may be unfair, but is really just a sign of
the times, a rough measure of the stakes. But if Trump wins,
the debate about who to blame is going to become academic real
fast. Republicans are not going to see a divided nation they'd
like to heal with conciliatory gestures. They're going to plunge
the knife deeper, and twist it. And as they show us what the
right really means, they will drive lots of people to the left,
to the people who first grasp what was going wrong, and who
first organized to defend against the right. And the more Trump
and his goons fuck up (and they will fuck up, constantly and
cluelessly), the more people will see the left as prescient and
principled. The left has a coherent analysis of what's gone wrong,
and what can and should be done about it. They've been held back
by the centrists -- the faction that imagines they can win by
appealing to the better natures of the rich while mollifying the
masses with paltry reforms and panic over the right -- but loss
by Harris, following Clinton's loss, will leave them even more
discredited.
As long-term politics, one might even argue that a Trump win
would be the best possible outcome for the left. No one (at least,
no one I know of) on the left is actually arguing that, largely
because we are sensitive enough to acute pain we wish to avoid even
the early throes of fascist dictatorship, and possibly because we
don't relish natural selection winnowing our leadership down to
future Lenins and Stalins. But when you see Republicans as odious as
Bret Stephens and
George Will endorsing Harris, you have to suspect that they
suspect that what I'm saying is true.
Stephen Prager/Alex Skopic: [11-01]
Every Kamala Harris policy, rated. This is a seriously important
piece, the kind of things issues-oriented voters should be crying out
for. But the platforms exists mostly to show that Harris is a serious
issues-oriented candidate, and to give her things to point to when
she pitches various specific groups. Anything that she wants will be
further compromised when the donor/lobbyists and their hired help
(aka Congress, but also most likely her Cabinet and their minions)
get their hands on the actual proposals. Given that the practical
voting choice is just between Harris and Trump, that seems like a
lot of extra work -- especially the parts, like everything having
to do with foreign policy, that will only make you more upset.
Nathan J Robinson introduced this piece with an extended
tweet, making the obvious contrasts to Trump ("a nightmare on
another level"). I might as well
unroll his post here:
The differences between a Trump and Harris presidency: An unprecedented
deportation program with armed ICE agents breaking down doors and tearing
families from their homes in unfathomable numbers, total right-wing
capture of the court system, ending every environmental protection.
Workplace safety rules will be decimated (remember, the right doesn't
believe you should have water breaks in the heat), Israel will be given
a full green light to "resettle" Gaza, all federal efforts against
climate change will cease, international treaties will be ripped up . . .
There will be a war on what remains of abortion rights (if you believe
the right won't try to ban it federally you're the world's biggest sucker),
protests will be ruthlessly cracked down on (with the military probably,
as Tom Cotton advocated), journalists might be prosecuted . . .
Organized labor's progress will be massively set back, with Trump
letting policy be dictated by billionaire psychopaths like Elon Musk
who think workers are serfs. JD Vance endorsed a plan for a massive
war on teachers' unions. Public health will be overseen by RFK
antivaxxers . . .
If you think things cannot be worse, I would encourage you to expand
your imagination. Trump is surrounded by foaming-at-the-mouth
authoritarians who believe they are in a war for the soul of
civilization and want to annihilate the left. I am terrified and
you should be too.
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Ana Marie Cox: [11-01]
Tim Walz has broken Tucker Carlson's brain: "The former Fox News
host is so flummoxed by Kamala Harris's running mate that he's
resorting to immature, homophobic schoolyard taunts."
Ralph Nader: [11-04]
The Democratic Party still can adopt winning agendas. Obviously,
the "there is still time" arguments are finally moot for 2024, not
that the principles are wrong. This makes me wonder what would have
happened had Nader run as a Democrat in 2000, instead of on a third
party. Sure, Gore would have won most of the primaries, but he could
have gotten a sizable chunk of votes, possibly nudged Gore left of
Lieberman and Clinton, and if Gore still lost, set himself up for
an open run in 2004.
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Business, labor, and Economists:
Ukraine and Russia:
Aaron Sobczak: [10-31]
Diplomacy Watch: Russia makes substantial gains in Ukraine's east:
"Kyiv is faced with troop shortages, while North Korean soldiers
are sent to assist Moscow."
Constant Méheut/Josh Holder: [10-31]
Russia's swift march forward in U kraine's east: In maps
and charts. Not a huge amount of territory, but since May the
only significant gains have been by Russia.
Julian E Barnes/Eric Schmitt/Helene Cooper/Kim Barker: [11-01]
As Russia advances, US fears Ukraine has entered a grim phase:
"Weapons supplies are no longer Ukraine's main disadvantage, American
military officials say." Surprising pessimism, coming from the American
Pravda.
Eugene Doyle: [11-01]
The Ukraine War is lost. Three options remain.
Julie Hollar: [10-15]
Media consistently in favor of crossing Putin's red lines:
"Outlets refuse to take the Kremlin's warnings seriously."
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: [10-30]
Nuland & Maddow back at the red string conspiracy board:
"The former State Department official tells MSNBC that Trump, Elon,
and Putin are "all on the same team." I really hate this argument.
I don't like Putin any more than you do, but the US needs to come
up with some way to live and work with Russia, and personal and
political vilification just gets in the way. Even if the intent
here is simply to slam Trump, which in itself if a worthy job,
what's implicit is a hardening of the conflict with Putin, and
that only makes already difficult matters worse.
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Other stories:
Victoria Chamberlin: [11-02]
How Americans came to hate each other: "And how we can make it
stop." Interview between Noel King and Lilliana Mason, author of
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity (2018), and
Radical American Partisanship (2022, with Nathan P Kalmoe).
She seems to have a fair amount of data, but not much depth. There
is very little hint here that the polarization is asymmetrical.
While both sides see the other as treats to their well-being, the
nature of those threats are wildly different, as are the remedies
(not that the promise of is in any way delivered).
Ezra Klein: [11-01]
Are we on the cusp of a new political order? Interview with
Gary Gerstle, author of
The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World
in the Free Market Era. I've noted him as a "big picture"
historian, but I've never read him. But he makes a fair amount of
sense in talking about neoliberalism here, even though I resist
rooting it my beloved New Left. But I can see his point that a
focus on individual freedom and a critique of the institutions of
the liberal power elite could have served the reactionaries, not
least by pushing some liberals (notably Charles Peters) to refashion
themselves, which proved useful for Democratic politicians from
Jimmy Carter on. This sort of dovetails with my argument that the
New Left was a massive socio-cultural success, winning major mind
share on all of its major fronts (against war and racism, for women
and the environment) without ever seizing power, which was deeply
distrusted. That failure, in part because working class solidarity
was discarded as Old Left thinking, allowed the reactionaries to
bounce back, aided by neoliberals, who helped them consolidate
economic power.
Gerstle offers this quote from Jimmy Carter's 1978 state of the
union address:
Government cannot solve our problems. It can't set our goals. It
cannot define our vision. Government cannot eliminate poverty or
provide a bountiful economy or reduce inflation or save our cities
or cure illiteracy or provide energy. And government cannot mandate
goodness.
One thing I'm struck by here is that four of these sentences
immediately strike us as plausible, given how little trust we still
have in government -- a trust which, one should stress, was broken
by the Vietnam War. However, the other sentence is plainly false,
and Carter seems to be trying to pull a fast one on us, disguising
a pretty radical curtailment of functions that government is the
only remedy for: eliminating poverty (spreading wealth and power),
providing a bountiful economy (organizing fair markets and making
sure workers are paid enough to be consumers), reducing inflation,
saving cities, curing illiteracy (schools), providing energy (TVA,
for example; more privatization here, not the best of solutions,
but kept in check by regulation -- until it wasn't, at which point
you got Enron, which blew up).
But once you realize you're being conned, go back and re-read
the paragraph again, and ask why? It's obvious that government can
solve problems, because it does so all the time. The question is
why doesn't it solve more problems? And the answer is often that
it's being hijacked by special interests, who pervert it for their
own greed (or maybe just pride). Setting goals, defining vision,
and mandating goodness are less tangible, which moves them out of
the normal functioning of government. But such sentences only make
sense if you assume that government is an independent entity, with
its own peculiar interests, and not simply an instrument of popular
will. If government works for you, why can't it promote your goals,
vision, and goodness? Maybe mandates (like the "war on drugs") are
a step too far, because democracies should not only reflect the will
of the majority but also must respect and tolerate the freedom of
others.
Elizabeth Kolbert: [2017-02-19]
Why facts don't change our minds: An old piece, seemingly
relevant again."
Obituaries
Books
Ta-Nehisi Coates:
The Message: I'm finally reading this book, so linking it
here was the easiest way to pick up the cover image. It took a
while to get good, but the major section on Israel/Palestine is
solid and forceful.
Music (and other arts?)
Chatter
Dean Baker: [11-03]
quick, we need a major national political reporter to tell us Donald
Trump is not suffering from dementia, otherwise people might get the
wrong idea. [on post quoting Trump ("we always have huge crowds and
never any empty seats") while panning camera on many empty seats.]
Jane Coaston: [11-04]
Every white nationalist is convinced that almost every other person
is also a white nationalist and that's a level of confidence in the
popularity of one's views I do not understand.
Rick Perlstein comments:
I have a riff about that in my next book. I call it "epistemological
narcissism": right-wingers can't imagine anyone could think differently
than themselves. They, of coruse, only being different in having the
courage to tell the truth . . .
Iris Demento: [11-05]
Happy crippling anxiety day [followed by bullet list from 1972:
- "Nixon Now" - Richard M. Nixon, 1972 (also, "Nixon Now, More
than Ever" and "President Nixon. Now more than ever")
- "Come home, America" - George McGovern, 1972
- "Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion for All" - 1972 anti-Democratic
Party slogan, from a statement made to reporter Bob Novak by Missouri
Senator Thomas F. Eagleton (as related in Novak's 2007 memoir, Prince
of Darkness)
- "Dick Nixon Before He Dicks You" - Popular anti-Nixon slogan,
1972
- "They can't lick our Dick" - Popular campaign slogan for Nixon
supporters
Remembering 1972, I contributed a comment:
1972 was the first time I voted. I hated Nixon much more than I hate
Trump today. (Not the word I would choose today; maybe I retired it
after Nixon?) I voted for McGovern, and for Bill Roy, who ran a
remarkable campaign against the hideous Bob Dole, and for Jim Juhnke
against our dull Republican Rep. Garner Shriver. Those three were
among the most decent and thoughtful people who ever ran for public
office in these parts. I voted for whatever Republican ran against the
horrible Vern Miller and his sidekick Johnny Darr. In a couple cases,
I couldn't stand either D or R, so wasted my vote with the
Prohibitionist (a minor party, but still extant in KS). Not a single
person I voted for won. I was so despondent, I didn't vote again until
1996, when I couldn't resist the opportunity to vote against Dole
again. (I was in MA at the time.) I've voted regularly since
then. After moving back to KS in 1999, I got another opportunity to
vote for whatever Republican ran against Vern Miller, and we beat him
this time (although for the most part, my winning pct. remains pretty
low).
- Paul Krugman: [no link, but cited in a post called
Trump could make contagion great again]
I expect terrible things if Trump wins. Until recently, however,
"explosive growth in infectious diseases" wasn't on my Bingo card
[link to article on RFK Jr. saying "Trump promised him 'control'
of HHS and USDA]
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 135 links, 9115 words
Current count:
160 links, 10343 words (13232 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Thursday, October 31, 2024
Music Week
October archive
(final).
Music: Current count 43099 [43065] rated (+34), 41 [46] unrated (-5).
This post has been pushed back two or three days this week,
mostly for reasons explained in yesterday's
Speaking of Which (somewhat augmented today), which in
turn was delayed by my Tuesday posting of my
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump (also posted at
Notes on Everyday Life, which is currently open for comments --
although beware that all but mine are held for moderation, and I
don't seem to be getting notification of pending comments, so I
have to think to look for them).
I sent early links out to a dozen old friends, off the top of
my head, to which I only got one reply (plus one comment, at the
site, both feeling that I was overly generous to Harris, one
insisting on voting for Stein, neither sowing any doubts in my
mind). Maybe it's all too blindingly obvious, or just too tired,
to elicit interest? At this point, what more do you need to know
than this Seth Meyers
A Closer Look?
As noted, I took a chunk of time out last week for my
birthday dinner. More details on it in the
notebook. I'll probably
do a second round next week: the leftovers are pretty much gone --
I reheated the rice tonight, to go with red cooked pork cubes, but
that's about all that's left. The dinner came out of the two Burmese
cookbooks in the "Recent Reading" log, but I've yet to really crack'
open Cradle of Flavor -- maybe next year (or maybe sooner)
I'll finally see what I can do with Indonesian/Malaysian.
I have nothing much to say about this week's music. I did want
to get to the NoBusiness batch, which got me looking for unheard
Arthur Blythe albums, which led to some more finds on YouTube.
I don't recall what got me looking at the Soul Jazz back catalog,
but the label was a favorite back when I was writing
Recycled Goods, so I'm inclined to check out anything I find.
I also got some good tips from the latest
Riotriot.
Plan now is to open a new Speaking of Which draft file tomorrow,
and post whatever I can before election day, so Monday, November 4,
with Music Week on Tuesday. That'll make for a short week, which
will be even more limited by a combination of burnout and feeling
helpless. I may just focus more on the bedroom/closet project. I
had a setback yesterday when I peeled my masking tape off the
ceiling and found it ripped off large patches of paint. I'm not
even sure how to fix that, but it's pretty much guaranteed to be
painful.
I opened up a draft file for November Streamnotes, but didn't
do the indexing for October. I may be farther behind than that.
I got my first 2025 release promos, so had to open up files for
them. Again, I cut a few corners. Unlikely I will play any 2025
releases until after New Year's Day. Still a lot of 2024 to catch
up on.
Also need to start focusing on Jazz Critics Poll. Voting for
that should start mid-November. Most pressing things are to get
the website prepped, and to line up a new mailing list vendor --
my own DIY efforts have proven to be inadequate, but I can see
several reasons to pay for something if it would work flexibly
enough.
New records reviewed this week:
Amyl and the Sniffers: Cartoon Darkness (2024,
B2B/Virgin): Australian pub/punk rock band, third album since 2019,
Amy Taylor the singer-songwriter. I'm not deciphering (or perhaps
I mean remembering?) many words, but after multiple plays this is
sounding great -- even the unnecessary change of pace.
A- [sp]
Jason Anick/Jason Yeager: Sanctuary (2023 [2024],
Sunnyside): Violin and piano, couple albums each since 2011, with
Yeager on Annick's 2013 album. Nice postbop group with two trumpets
(Jason Palmer and Billy Buss), tenor sax (Edmar Colón), cello, bass,
and drums.
B+(***) [cd]
The Attic & Eve Risser: La Grande Crue (2023
[2024], NoBusiness): Portuguese tenor saxophonist Rodrigo Amado's
trio (Gonçalo Almeida on bass and Onno Govaert on drums), with
several superb albums so far, joined here by the French pianist,
for another one.
A- [cd]
David Bailis: Tree of Life (2024, Create or Destroy):
Guitarist, side credits back to 2007 but this seems to be his first
album under his own name, a short one (27:34), four originals and
one cover, with Chris Speed (tenor sax), Eric Lane (piano/synth
bass), and Jason Nazary (drums), nicely done.
B+(**) [cd]
Dharma Down: Owl Dreams (2023 [2024], Dharma
Down): Quartet from Portland, ME, quartet of Duncan Hardy (alto
sax/qanun -- an Assyrian string instrument, for a bit of Middle
Eastern spice), Mike Effenberger (piano), Scott Kiefner (bass),
John Meltam (drums).
B+(*) [cd]
Etran De L'Aïr: 100% Saharan Guitar (2024, Sahel
Sounds): "The longest running wedding band in Agadez, capital of
Tuareg guitar," promises more of the same, and delivers, as usual,
on what I count to be their third album, but who knows how far
back they go?
B+(***) [sp]
Joel Futterman: Innervoice (2024, NoBusiness):
Free jazz pianist, born (1946) in Chicago, affiliated with AACM
before moving to Virginia in 1972, has many records since then.
This one is solo, more measured than most, but very engaging.
B+(***) [cd]
Hinds: Viva Hinds (2024, Lucky Number): Spanish
indie pop band, started as a duo of Carlotta Cosials and Ana
Garcia Perrotte as Deers, expanded to a quartet for their 2016-20
albums, back to a duo (with touring support) now. Includes a
couple songs in Spanish, which surprise me as high points.
A- [sp]
Shawneci Icecold/Vernon Reid/Matthew Garrison & Grant
Calvin Weston: Future Prime (2024, Underground45):
Pianist, synths here, has straddled hip-hop and avant-jazz since
2021, splits the difference here with a fusion (guitar/bass/drums)
quartet. Five songs (32:51), starting with "A Night in Tunisia"
and "Zawinul" before blasting off into space.
B+(***) [cd]
J.U.S X Squadda B: 3rd Shift (2024, Bruiser Brigade):
Detroit rapper, two previous albums since 2021, with an Oakland-based
producer, nothing else by him on Discogs.
B+(***) [sp]
Nick Lowe & Los Straitjackets: Indoor Safari
(2024, Yep Roc): Singer-songwriter, started way back in pub rock,
invented power pop, faded after 1979 but never went away, with
Party of One (1990) his only later album to hit A- in my
book. Faint echoes here, but I can hear some.
B+(*) [sp]
Michael McNeill: Barcode Poetry (2022 [2024],
Infrasonic Press): Pianist, from Buffalo, impressed me totally
out of the blue with his 2012 debut (Passageways), returns
here with a real chamber jazz quartet, with Susan Alcorn (pedal
steel guitar), Dave Ballou (trumpet), and Shelly Purdy (vibes,
percussion). Sounded a bit weepy at first, and I do have trouble
focusing when the going gets slow, but I found myself checking
and rechecking, and the music gradually won me over.
B+(***) [cd]
Yuka Mito: How Deep Is the Ocean (2024, Nana
Notes): Standards singer, originally from Japan, now based in
New York, has a previous album, backed here by piano, bass,
and drums, offers seven very obvious songs (29:46), including
two Jobims, two from Bacharach-David, a Porter, a Berlin, and
"How High the Moon." All nicely, if unremarkably, done.
B [cd]
Mavis Pan: Rising (2023 [2024], self-released):
Pianist, sings some (just one song here), born in Taiwan, moved
to New Jersey when she was 17, first album 2010, has a Master of
Music degree, but also a M.A. from Westminster Theological Seminary.
Original compositions, co-produced by Ted Nash, who plays tenor
sax, flute, and clarinet. Also with Greg Burke (alto/soprano sax,
alto flute, clarinet), bass, and drums.
B+(*) [cd]
William Parker/Hugo Costa/Philipp Ernsting: Pulsar
(2023 [2024], NoBusiness): Recorded in Amstmerdam, an all-improv
set of bass, alto sax, and drums, with Costa getting the lead in
the credits short, but Parker on the cover, presumably because
you've heard of him. Parker seems to pick up a couple records like
this every time he wanders off to Europe. My favorite is one called
And William Danced, with Anders Gahnold, but they're all
pretty good. Costa has several albums, including a duo and a group
called Albatre with Ernsting. This is pretty inspired avant-thrash.
A- [cd]
Pest Control: Year of the Pest (2024, Quality
Control HQ, EP): Dan Weiss pegged them as "my ideal metal band,"
which I took as both warning and challenge, but figured I could
handle 4 songs, 10:27, of anything. I wound up giving them a
second spin. Note that Bandcamp page doesn't tag this as metal:
their proferred terms include "uk thrash," "hardcore punk," and
(first on the list) "nwobhc" (whatever that stands for; at least
I can guess "ukhc").
B+(***) [sp]
Tyshawn Sorey Trio: The Suspectible Now (2024, Pi):
Drummer-led trio with Aaron Diehl (piano) and Harish Raghavan (bass),
"following on the heels of his masterful release Continuing,
which was voted #4 release of 2023 by the Francis Davis Poll of over
150 jazz critics." Most likely another top-five contender, although
I'd be hard-pressed to distinguish it from the Vijay Iyer trio that
won the mid-year poll, and remains the early favorite. Sorey's
arrangements of four long pieces written by others, not really
standards but interesting source material.
B+(***) [cd]
Ben Waltzer: The Point (2023 [2024], Calligram):
Pianist, debut was a trio from 1996, only a couple records since,
plus a few scattered side credits. Quartet here where Geof Bradfield
(tenor sax/bass clarinet) and Clark Sommers (bass) also contribute
originals, plus Dana Hall (drums), and a closing, rather delicate
cover of "A Flower Is a Lovesome Thing."
B+(**) [cd]
Immanuel Wilkins: Blues Blood (2024, Blue Note):
Alto saxophonist, third album since 2020, all on Blue Note, first
two overcame my initial caution, a couple side appearances also
blew me away. Sax is also impressive here, but toned down a bit,
making way for several guest vocals, which I could do without.
Wilkins has polled very well since winning our debut award, and
I expect this will also -- I've already seen one review touting
it as the record of the year, but I'll pass.
B+(**) [sp]
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:
Arthur Blythe Quartet: Live From Studio Rivbea: July 6,
1976 (1976 [2024], NoBusiness): Alto saxophonist (1940-2017),
from Los Angeles, recorded two masterpieces for Columbia in 1978,
In the Tradition and Lenox Avenue Breakdown, after
after a couple minor label releases in 1977. This live set, the
second volume in the label's "Studio Rivbea" series, is just a
bit earlier, a quartet with Juni Booth (bass), Steve Reid (drums),
and Muhammad Abdullah (conga).
B+(***) [cd]
Electro Throwdown: Sci-Fi Inter-Planetary Electro Attack
on Planet Earth 1982-89 (1982-89 [2024], Soul Jazz): No
hits here, the only artist name I recall is Jonzun Crew, but the
echoes of "Planet Rock" and "Trans-Europe Express" (both mentioned
in the notes) are easy to pick up, and pretty satisfying in and
of themselves.
B+(**) [r]
In the Beginning There Was Rhythm (1978-84 [2024,
Soul Jazz): Reissue of the label's founding compilation from 2001,
this captures the evolutionary moment when British punks embraced
hard dance beats. Great idea for a compilation, and it starts off
promisingly, but runs a little thin, just about when yoy start to
wonder where New Order is.
B+(***) [sp]
Old music:
George Adams-Don Pullen Quartet: Jazzbühne Berlin '88
(1988 [1991], Repertoire): Leaders play tenor sax and piano, came
together under Charles Mingus circa Changes, and produced
some outstanding albums over the next decade, with Cameron Brown
(bass) in place of Mingus, and Lewis Nash (drums) replacing Dannie
Richmond here. Three long pieces, originals (with a nod to Monk).
Pullen is an absolutely unique pianist, who shines early on. Adams
is hardly the only real powerhouse saxophonist, but when he hits
his stride, he's undeniable.
A- [yt]
Ray Anderson: Harrisburg Half Life (1980 [1981],
Moers Music): Trombonist, early album recorded in Germany, with
Allan Jaffe (guitar), Mark Dresser (bass), and Gerry Hemingway
(drums). Good start toward the later (from 1989 on) BassDrumBone
trios, where Mark Helias replaced Dresser.
B+(***) [yt]
Black Arthur Blythe: Bush Baby (1977 [1978],
Adelphi): The alto saxophonist's first studio album -- two
earlier live sets appeared on India Navigation, one before
and the other after this release -- a trio with Bob Stewart
on tuba and Ahkmed Abdullah on congas.
B+(***) [yt]
Boombox 3: Early Independent Hip Hop, Electro and Disco
Rap 1979-83 (1979-83 [2018], Soul Jazz, 2CD): Third volume
in a series that started in 2016, the previous volumes rated A-
and B+(***) here, with a couple later releases breaking from the
naming convention. More obscure, but sounding very typical of
the early Sugarhill-dominated period.
B+(***) [r]
Deutsche Elektronische Musik: Experimental German Rock and
Electronic Musik 1972-83 (1972-83 [2010], Soul Jazz): Starts
with Can, and hits many major groups (but no Kraftwerk). Still, not
much really grabs me. Three more volumes were added later, including
3, which I previously graded B+(*).
B+(*) [r]
Deutsche Elektronische Musik 2: Experimental German Rock and
Electronic Musik 1971-83 (1971-83 [2013], Soul Jazz): Digital
has 14 tracks, which is more than the 2-LP's 12 but way less than the
2-CD's 27 (or the later 25-track 4-LP release).
B+(*) [r]
Lloyd McNeill: Elegia (1979 [2019], Soul Jazz):
Perhaps better known as a painter (1935-2021), played flute and
recorded several albums 1968-79, one more in 1997, this the
fifth reissued by the label.
B+(*) [r]
Punk 45: I'm a Mess! D-I-Y or Die! Art, Trash & Neon:
Punk 45s in the UK 1977-78 (1977-78 [2022], Soul Jazz):
Extending what was previously a six-CD series -- all good, the
Cleveland volume (Extermination Nights in the Sixth City an
A-), more obscurities: I don't recall ever hearing of these groups,
much less their singles (16 on the digital, other formats vary).
B+(**) [r]
Space Funk 2: Afro Futurist Electro Funk in Space 1976-84
(1976-84 [2023], Soul Jazz): More crate digging, following their
previous (2019) volume, leaning into early hip-hop (choice cut:
"Smurf Trek," by Chapter Three).
B+(**) [r]
Wiener Art Orchester: Tango From Obango (1979
[1980], Art): Group founded 1977 by Mathias Rüegg, aka Vienna Art
Ochestra, ran through 2010 wtih a couple vocal albums as Vienna Art
Choir. They were especially notable for their eclectic borrowings
from classical music, as well as from Americans like Gershwin,
Ellington, Mingus, and Dolphy. Cover notes: "This music is dedicated
to the people and the Sea of Obango," but I'm not finding any other
references to that location. But the opening tango is delightful,
and after that it's anyone's guess.
B+(***) [yt]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Big Bambi: Compositions for Bass Guitar & Bassoon, Vol. I (ESP-Disk) [09-27]
- Steve Coleman and Five Elements: PolyTropos/Of Many Turns (Pi) [10-25]
- Day Dream: Duke & Strays Live: Works by Duke Ellington & Billy Strayhorn (Corner Store Jazz, 2CD) [11-08]
- David Friesen: A Light Shining Through (Origin) [11-22]
- Al Jarreau: Wow! Live at the Childe Harold (1976, Resonance) [12-06]
- Thollem McDonas: Infinite-Sum Game (ESP-Disk) [10-18]
- Reut Regev's R*Time: It's Now: R*Time Plays Doug Hammond (ESP-Disk) [11-15]
- Steve Smith and Vital Information: New Perspective (Drum Legacy) [02-07]
- Dave Stryker: Stryker With Strings Goes to the Movies (Strikezone) [01-10]
- Friso van Wijck: Friso van Wijck's Candy Container (TryTone) [11-01]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Speaking of Which
File opened 2024-10-24 01:36 AM.
I've been trying to collect my thoughts and write my up
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump. I posted an early
draft -- just the top 10 list -- on Monday afternoon at
Notes on Everyday Life, then blanked out and didn't get to the
second part ("Top 5 Reasons Electing Harris Won't Solve Our Problems")
until Tuesday afternoon (and well into evening). I updated the NOEL
draft that evening, and finally posted the file in the blog. That
pushes this file out until Wednesday, and Music Week until Thursday
(which still fits in October).
As of Tuesday evening, this week's collection is very hit-and-miss
(100 links, 6023 words), typed up during odd breaks as I juggled my
life between working on my birthday dinner, writing the endorsement,
and struggling with my big remodeling project.
The endorsement could
do with some editing, although my initial distribution of the link
has thus far generated almost no comment (one long-time friend wrote
back to disagree, having decided -- "even in a battleground state" --
to vote for Jill Stein). A year ago I still imagined writing a book
that might have some small influence on the election. In some ways,
this piece is my way of penance for my failure, but the more I got
into it, the more I thought I had some worthwhile points to make.
But now it's feeling like a complete waste of time.
The
birthday dinner did feel like I accomplished something. The Burmese
curries were each spectacular in their own way, the coconut rice nice
enough, the ginger salad and vegetable sides also interesting, and the
cake (not Burmese, but spice-and-oats) was an old favorite. I should
follow it up with a second round of Burmese recipes before too long,
especially now that I've secured the tea leaf salad ingredients.
Slow but tangible progress on the bedroom/closet remodel. Walls are
painted now, leaving trim next. Paneling is up in closet, where I still
have the ceiling and quite a bit of trim. [Wednesday morning now:] I've
been meaning to go out back and polyurethane the trim boards, so I can
cut them as needed, first to shore up the ceiling. But it's raining,
so I'll give that pass for another day, and probably just work on this
straggling post. Laura's report of morning news is full of gaffes by
Biden and Hillary Clinton, who seem intent on redeeming the dead weight
of their own cluelessness by imposing it on Harris. With "friends"
like these, who needs . . . Dick Cheney?
Posting late Wednesday night, my usual rounds still incomplete.
I'll decide tomorrow whether I'll add anything here, or simply
move on to next week (which really has to post before election
results start coming in). For now, I'm exhausted, and finding
this whole process very frustrating.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Ruwaida Kamal Amer/Ibtisam Mahdi: [10-24]
For Gaza's schoolchildren, another year of destruction, loss, and
uncertainty.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [10-25]
Survivors of north Gaza invasion report Israeli 'extermination'
campaign: "Survivors of the ongoing Israeli extermination campaign
in north Gaza describe how the Israeli army is separating mothers from
children before forcing them south, executing civilians in ditches,
and directly targeting hospitals and medical staff."
Shatha Hanaysha: [10-25]
'Our freedom is close': why these young Palestinian men choose armed
resistance: "I met resistance fighters from the Tulkarem Brigade
for an interview in the alleyways of Tulkarem refugee camp in the
occupied West Bank. They talked about why they fight against Israel,
and what their dreams are for the future." This is disturbing. I find
it impossible to feel solidarity or even sympathy with people who
would fight back against Israel, even if purely out of self-defense.
But it is understandable, and has long been predicted, every time
Israel has renewed its war on Gaza (going back at least to 1951):
virtually all people, when oppressed, will fight back. That they
should do so, why and why, is mostly a function of the people who
are driving them to such desperate measures. We'd see less of this
if only we were clear on who is responsible for setting the conditions
that make such rebellion seem like the only recourse, especially if
we made it clear that we'll hold those who control an area as the
sole ones responsible for the rebellions they provoke. Sure, I can
think of some cases where control was nebulous and/or revolts were
fueled by external forces, but that is not the case with Israel in
Gaza. Israel is solely responsible for this genocide. And if armed
resistance only accelerates it, that is solely because Israel wants
it that way.
Gideon Levy: [10-25]
Beatings, humiliation and torture: The IDF's night of terror at a
Palestinian refugee camp: "Israeli soldiers abused people during
a raid on a remote refugee camp in the territories. During their
violent rampage, the troops detained 30 inhabitants, of whom 27
were released the next day."
Mohammed R Mhawish/Ola Al Asi/Ibrahim Mohammad: [10-23]
Inside the siege of northern Gaza, where 'death waits around every
corner': "Limbs scattered on the streets, shelters set ablaze,
hundreds trapped inside hospitals: Palestinians detail the apocalyptic
scenes of Israel's latest campaign."
Qassam Muaddi:
Jonathan Ofir: [10-28]
Israeli journalists join the live-streamed genocide: "A mainstream
Israeli journalist recently blew up a house in Lebanon as part of a
news report while embedded with the military. The broadcast shows how
mainstream genocidal activity has become in Israeli society."
Meron Rapoport:
Christiaan Triebert/Riley Mellen/Alexander
Cardia: [10-30]
Israel Demolished Hundreds of Buildings in Southern Lebanon, Videos
and Satellite Images Show: "At least 1,085 buildings have been
destroyed or badly damaged since Israel's invasion targeting the
Hezbollah militia, including many in controlled demolitions, a New
York Times analysis shows." Same tactics, reflecting the same
threats and intentions Israel is using on Gaza, except that you
can't even pretend to be responding to an attack like Oct. 7.
Hezbollah is being targeted simply because it exists, and Lebanon
is being targeted because Israelis make no distinction between
the "militants" they "defend" against and any other person who
lives in their vicinity. The numbers in Lebanon may not amount
to genocide yet, but that's the model that Israel is following.
Oren Ziv: [10-22]
'Copy-paste the West Bank to Gaza': Hundreds join Gaza resettlement
event: "In a closed military zone near Gaza, Israeli settlers,
ministers, and MKs called to ethnically cleanse and annex the Strip --
an idea that is growing mainstream."
America's Israel (and Israel's America):
Yaniv Cogan/Jeremy Scahill: [10-21]
The Israeli-American businessman pitching a $200 million plan to deploy
mercenaries to Gaza: "Moti Kahana says he's talking to the Israeli
government about creating a pilot program for 'gated communities'
controlled by private US security forces." By the way, the authors
also (separately) wrote:
Yaniv Cogan: [10-06]
Blinken approved policy to bomb aid trucks, Israeli cabinet members
suggest.
Jeremy Scahill/Murtaza Hussain/Sharif Abdel Kouddous: [09-18]
Israel's new campaign of "terrorism warfare" across Lebanon.
Ryan Grim/Murtaza Hussain: [10-29]
Project 2025 creators have a plan to 'dismantle' pro-Palestine
movement: "If Donald Trump wins next week, the Heritage Foundation
has prepared a roadmap for him to crush dissent."
The plan, dubbed "Project Esther," casts pro-Palestinian activists
in the U.S. as members of a global conspiracy aligned with designated
terrorist organizations. As part of a so-called "Hamas Support Network,"
these protesters receive "indispensable support of a vast network of
activists and funders with a much more ambitious, insidious goal --
the destruction of capitalism and democracy," Project Esther's authors
allege.
This conspiratorial framing is part of a legal strategy to suppress
speech favorable to Palestinians or critical of the U.S.-Israel
relationship, by employing counterterrorism laws to suppress what
would otherwise be protected speech . . .
To achieve its goals, Project Esther proposes the use of
counterterrorism and hate speech laws, as well as immigration
measures, including the deportation of students and other
individuals in the United States on foreign visas for taking part
in pro-Palestinian activities. It also advocates deploying the
Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law placing disclosure obligations
on parties representing foreign interests, against organizations that
the report's authors imply are funded and directed from abroad.
In addition, the document also suggests using the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, to help construct
prosecutions against individuals and organizations in the movement.
The RICO act was originally created to fight organized crime in the
U.S., and particularly mafia groups.
It occurs to me that the same laws and tactics could be used to
counter Israeli political influence -- that that anyone would try
that -- and that the audit trail would be much more interesting.
Adrian Filut: [10-24]
From Iron Dome to F-15s: US provides 70% of Israel's war costs.
Tariq Kenney-Shawa: [10-29]
Why the Democrats were Israel's perfect partners in genocide:
"By masking support for Israel with hollow humanitarian gestures
and empathy for Palestinians have diluted pressure to end the war."
Akela Lacy: [10-24]
How does AIPAC shape Washington? We tracked every dollar. "The
Intercept followed AIPAC's money trail to reveal how its political
spending impacts the balance of power in Congress."
Mitchell Plitnick: [10-25]
US efforts to entice Israel into minimizing its attack on Iran are
only raising the chances for regional war: "The Biden administration
is showering Israel with military aid and support to persuade it not
to hit Iran's energy sector, but this will only increase Israeli
impunity and push the region closer to war."
Azadeh Shahshahahani/Sofía Verónica Montez: [02-26]
Complicity in genocide -- the case against the Biden administration:
"Israel's mass bombardment of civilians in Gaza is being facilitated,
aided and abetted by the United States government." Older article
I just noticed, but figured I'd note anyway. Reminds me that the
only proper response to the "genocide" charge is to stop doing it.
That at least enables the argument that you never meant the complete
annihilation of everyone, because you stopped and left some (most?)
target people still alive. Needless to say, the argument becomes less
persuasive over time, where you've repeatedly missed opportunities
to say this is enough, "we've made our point."
Richard Silverstein:
Ishaan Tharoor:
[10-25]
Is Israel carrying out de facto ethnic cleansing? "A pro-settlement
Israeli group and some Israeli lawmakers gathered a couple miles from
northern Gaza's blasted neighborhoods to rally around settling Gaza."
[10-28]
The world beyond the election: Middle East in turmoil: "Whoever
takes office in January will face a region being reshaped by an
emboldened Israel and the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
[10-30]
The world beyond the election: So much for democracy vs. autocracy.
The Biden framing was mostly horseshit, mostly because America has
never cared whether other countries practiced democracy, not least
because we don't do a good job of it ourselves, and are certainly
willing to throw it out the window if the polls look unfavorable.
But also I suppose it was a subtle dig at Trump, who's always been
Team Autocracy. That the ardor seems to have faded is less a change
of view than acknowledgment that it hasn't worked so well. Then
there is this line: "Biden once framed the successful defense of
Ukraine as a rejection of a world 'where might makes right.'" But
what is the US "defense" of Ukraine but an exercise in might making
right? And if that case isn't clear cut enough for you, what else
can you make of Israel?
Israel vs. world opinion:
Ahmed Alqarout: [10-29]
How Israel is trying to beat the 'axis of resistance' by dominating
the regional supply chain: "Israel has been able to insulate
itself from the effects of the economic blockade imposed by the
'Axis of Resistance' through supply chain warfare in the Middle East
and the broader region."
Michael Arria:
[10-29]
'Thousands of people will die': Gaza doctors describe impact of
Israel barring medical NGOs: "Israel has barred at least six
international medical NGOs that had been providing crucial support
to Gaza's decimated healthcare sector. Doctors in the banned groups
say the move could result in thousands of additional deaths."
[10-22]
The Shift: Poll shows Trump with slight edge among Arab American
voters: The poll was from
Arab News/YouGov. The split was 45% for Trump, 43% for Harris, and 4% for
Jill Stein. Of chose, 29% chose Gaza as their biggest issue. Both
candidates got 38% when asked "who would be better for the Middle
East," but respondents thought Trump was more likely "to successfully
resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict" (39% to 33%). A recent poll from
Arab American Institute produced similar results. For more on
recent Arab-American polling:
Many people are critics of Harris for not taking a strong stand
against Israel's genocide, but Arria relays a case where Israel's
supporters are attacking Harris for not being supportive enough:
It seems pretty clear that Harris was referring to the humanitarian
crisis in Gaza and not the student's reference to genocide, but this
didn't stop pro-Israel voices from attacking the Vice President.
"A very dangerous precedent,"
tweeted former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael
Oren. "I was disturbed to view the video in which Vice President
Kamala Harris appears to confirm the charge that Israel is committing
genocide in Gaza. This is the first time that the White House has been
linked to a libel which threatens Israel's legitimacy and security.
I call on the U.S. administration to issue an immediate and complete
denial."
Just goes to show that Israel's front-line hasbara warriors
realize that their arguments cannot withstand the admission of any
doubt or ambiguity.
[10-24]
The Shift: More campus crackdowns, DOJ lawyers call for Israel
investigation: "Since the fall semester began last month we
have seen schools implement a new round of repressive measures
to crack down on Palestine activism."
[10-29]
The Shift: Trump seeks to capitalize on voter frustration with
Harris over Gaza: "The Trump campaign is clearly taking steps
to capitalize on voters' frustration over Gaza. While Kamala Harris
was getting booed by protesters in Michigan, Trump was also in the
state making a play to Arab and Muslim voters."
[10-18]
Samidoun's coordinator speaks out on the US and Canada's targeting
of the group: Interview with Mohammed Khatib, European coordinator
for the "Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network" group, accused of
raising funds for the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine).
Ramzy Baroud: [10-25]
Israel's biblical wars of 'self defense': the myth of the 'seven
war fronts'.
Sam Biddle: [10-21]
Meta's Israel policy chief tried to suppress pro-Palestinian Instagram
posts: "Jordana Cutler, Meta's policy chief for Israel and the
Jewish Diaspora, repeatedly flagged for censorship posts by Students
for Justice in Palestine."
Shane Burley: [10-01]
US Jewish institutions are purging their staffs of anti-Zionists:
"A months-long investigation found even the smallest hints of dissent
are often met with unemployment."
Sharaiz Chaudhry: [10-26]
Generating consent for genocide: The BBC's complicity in Israel's
crimes in Palestine and Lebanon: "The BBC is deceiving the
British public and using its position to manufacture consent for
Israel's genocidal assault in Palestine and Lebanon."
Roy Eidelson: [10-23]
The American Psychological Association is abandoning its commitment
to human rights by refusing to speak out on Palestine: "The
American Psychological Association claims to 'prioritize human
rights advocacy,' but if its leaders want to truly honor that
commitment they must recognize and address the genocide of
Palestinians in Gaza today."
Melvin Goodman: [10-28]
The latest absurdities from the columnists of the New York Times:
On Thomas L Friedman and Bret Stephens.
Binoy Kampmark: [10-28]
Crippling UNRWA: The Knesset's collective punishment of Palestinians.
Ben Lorber: [09-05]
The right is increasingly exploiting the horror of genocide:
"Right-wing operatives are channeling the genocide in Gaza into
mainstream antisemitism." This was bound to happen, although it's
been slow to emerge, as most right-wing antisemites are actually
big fans of Israel, and they're not especially sensitive to human
rights abuses of any sort. [PS: On closer examination, I may have
jumped to the wrong conclusion: that right-wingers were feigning
horror at genocide to whip up antisemitic sentiments. Turns out
this is mostly about a group called NatCon, where antisemitism
claims the mantle of "Judeo-Christian nationalism" and supports
genocide to the hilt.]
Joseph Willits: [10-16]
How Starmer's Labour government has enabled Israel's genocide.
Election notes:
Charlotte Alter: [10-25]
Some Democrats believe this might be an abortion election after
all.
Aaron Blake: [10-28]
Can independent Dan Osborn win in Nebraska? And would it matter?
"A new poll adds evidence that we could see a historic result in the
Senate race, but it probably won't affect the chamber's majority."
Julia Conley: [10-29]
'This is just the traceable money': $2 billion pumped into 2024
election by billionaire families.
Bob Dreyfuss: [10-29]
Pennsylvania's undecideds: "The 2024 election will likely turn on
the Democrats' ground game."
John Feffer: [10-23]
Billionaires vs democracy: "The rich are trying to buy elections
all over the world and consign democracy to the trash bin of history."
Sarah Jones: [10-29]
How did this become a gender-gap election: "Trump vs. Harris brings
America's gendered political preferences into sharper focus."
Tony Karon: [10-23]
Voting in a time of genocide.
Celinda Lake/Amanda Iovino: [10-30]
A Democratic and a Republican pollster agree: This is the fault line
that decides the election: Teases you with the "gender gap," the
chart showing Trump +8 with men, Harris +9 with women (gap of 17
points), then offers you the 29-point gap by education, which shows
Trump +10 for non-college, Harris +19 for college. Of course, both
factors compound with a 43-point gap between non-college men (Trump +16)
and college women (Harris +27), but non-college women still prefer
Trump (+4) while college men go with Harris (+7).
Nicole Narea: [10-27]
What if Jill Stein or RFK Jr. decides the election? That you
could even ask such a question shows that you understand nothing
about third-party candidates, or at least their voters. Anyone
who thinks that there is meaningful difference between the two
major party candidates will vote for one or the other. Those who
don't may register that opinion by voting for someone else, or
they may just skip the whole process -- third-party voters are
preferable, because at least they're showing respect for the
process, just not for the two parties and their candidates.
Stein and Kennedy decided to throw their names into the hat,
but that's about it. Perhaps they made that decision hoping
to spoil the election -- that's certainly the only message
popular media has any interest in examining. But the voters'
decisions are purely negative. Neither party has the right to
claim third-party votes as rightfully theirs, because those
votes were clear rejections of both parties.
I've made what I felt was a
pretty strong case that the two-party split really matters
this year, and that one should vote for Harris vs. Trump. But
the first commenter I got back disagreed and reiterated his
decision to vote for Stein. I respect that.
John Quiggin: [10-28]
The end of US democracy: a flowchart: Go to the article for
the chart, but each node has an assigned probability, which of
course is just a wild guess, but this allows the possibility of
adding them up:
If the US were remotely normal, every entry on the left-hand edge
ought to be equal to 1. Harris should be a sure winner, Trump shouldn't
find any supporters for a coup, the MAGA Republicans in Congress should
be unelectable and the moderate program proposed by Harris should be
successful enough that Trumpism would be defeated forever.
But that's not the case. There are two end points in which US
democracy survives, with a total probability (excessively precise)
of 0.46, and one where it ends, with a probability of 0.54. By
replacing my probabilities at the decision nodes with your own,
you can come up with your own numbers. Or you may feel that I've
missed crucial pathways. . . .
Note: Any Thälmann-style comments (such as "After Trump, us"
or "Dems are social fascists anyway") will be blocked and deleted.
The key here is "remotely normal, so that's the part you still
have to puzzle out, and that's where the real problems and solutions
lie.
Catherine Rampell/Youyou Zhou: [10-22]
Voters prefer Harris's agenda to Trump's -- they just don't realize
it. Take our quiz." I hate these pieces, not least because they
deliberately try to screw you over with misleading questions, but
since I'm citing it, I figure I might as well score myself. The
verdict was: "you supported 1 of Trump's policies and 4 of Harris's
policies." The one "Trump proposal" I supported was: "Funding free
online classes with money taken from private university endowments
through taxes, fines, and lawsuits." I can see why Harris wouldn't
have proposed that. I'm not wild about the funding mechanism, but
private university endowments are a huge tax shelter that doesn't
offer much public interest value, so I could see taxing them down.
On the other hand, "free online classes" is a no-brainer. I think
that continuing adult education is drastically underserved in
America, and online classes would be a particularly cost-effective
way of helping out. (I also favor free in-person classes, and I
would fund it all from general funds, but I wasn't asked that.)
The only thing that distinguishes this as a "Trump proposal" is
that it's a bit harebrained. It's also a proposal that Trump will
never lift a finger to implement, nor could he pass through his
caucus.
Eugene Robinson:
The double standard for Harris and Trump has reached a breaking
point: "One candidate can rant about gibberish while the other
has to be perfect."
Shaghayegh Chris Rostampour: [10-14]
Why aren't Harris and Trump talking about nuclear weapons?
"The threat is real and at times the call is coming from inside
our own house." This doesn't really belong under "election,"
because, as noted, it's not something being contested, or even
given much thought.
David Sirota:
How the 2024 election is normalizing corruption.
David Wallace-Wells: [10-30]
The election looks li ke an intramural squabble between billionaires:
That, of course, is what you get when you reduce politics to a game
of raising unlimited money.
Endorsements:
Wajahat Ali: [10-29]
Yes, I think Democrats are complicit in genocide. But Trump would be
far worse: "There is simply no moral argument for allowing the
former president to win in the name of opposing genocide."
Donald Trump will be genocidal and a fascist. On Gaza, Trump
promised he would
let Israel "finish the job." That means fulfilling
his mega-donor Miriam Adelson's wish of annexing the West Bank
and standing pat as Israel
moves to occupy northern Gaza on the graveyard of Palestinians.
There's a reason why Israel's extremist national security minister,
Itamar Ben-Gvir, wants Trump to win and
says he will be better for Israel. . . .
With Harris and Democrats, there is an opening for Americans to
organize, push, and pressure her administration to halt Israel's
genocide and pursue progressive healthcare and economic policies.
Democratic allies include Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
labor organizations and communities of color who remain committed
to social justice, equity and peace. With the Republicans and Trump,
no such allies exist. There's simply a fascist and a white Christian
nationalist regime in waiting.
Matt Bai: [10-30]
George W Bush is running out of time: "He should take this
chance to get right with history, because history will certainly
be hard on him." I've long suspected that Bush had a streak of
plain human decency that he managed to suppress during his eight
years as president. He ended that streak in disgrace, which come
to think of it, is also how he started it, with many even worse
moments along the way. But at least he hasn't compounded that
disgrace, as most other ex-presidents have done. His withdrawal
and silence is really all the recognition we need (or can hope
for) that he is at least somewhat cognizant of his failures.
Doing anything else at this point would only compromise his
last shred of dignity.
By the way, it's easy enough to see Dick Cheney's endorsement
as nothing more than a favor to his daughter, who might still
hope to continue her political career -- not as a candidate but
in some other capacity -- by endearing herself to Harris. While
Cheney is the most certifiably evil character in recent American
politics, he's always had a soft spot for the women in his life.
Ben Burgis: [10-25]
There's no pride in a Dick Cheney endorsement.
Jackie Calmes: [10-20]
Top 10 reasons not to vote for Donald Trump: Plus: "Finally, the
bonus, a positive reason to vote Harris. She's not only among the
most experienced applicants for the job ever, but also: She's not
Trump."
The Guardian: [10-25]
The Guardian view on the US election and foreign policy: the world
can't afford Trump again.
William Lewis: [10-25]
On political endorsement: The Washington Post, presumably as
directed by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, declined to endorse any
presidential candidate this year, breaking with a practice that
they've followed since 1976, even after it's been reported that
they had a Harris endorsement ready to go. The publisher tries to
explain this decision here. I'm not terribly bothered by this,
probably because I deeply distrust the big money media anyway,
especially their pretensions of independence. The Post, like the
New York Times, goes out of their way to "balance" their proper
news reporting -- never free from their own deep seated biases --
with right-wing "opinion" writers. However, many readers recognize
Trump as not just a political opportunist but as such a perversely
malign presence that they think he merits more rigorous scrutiny:
that every mention that does not put his statements in historical
context runs the risk of sanitizing and legitimizing ideas that
most people upon reflection should find truly appalling. So this
particular non-endorsement has elicited an interesting set of
reactions, starting with economic sanctions:
J Michael Luttig: [10-29]
My fellow Republicans, it's time to say enough with Trump.
Also cites his
previous endorsement from August.
Phil Mattingly: [10-23]
23 Nobel Prize-winning economists call Harris' economic plan 'vastly
superior' to Trump's.
The New Yorker:
Harris for President: "The Vice-President has displayed the basic
values and political skills that would enable her to help end, once
and for all, a poisonous era defined by Donald Trump."
Hamilton Nolan: [09-20]
The weird and stupid Teamsters non-endorsement fiasco: "Refusing
to endorse a presidential candidate will do nothing to stop Trump
and the GOP's war on workers."
The Observer: [10-26]
Americans who believe in democracy have no choice but to vote for
Harris
Edith Olmsted: [10-25]
"Extreme danger": Harris earns a stunning endorsement over Trump:
"Kamala Harris has earned an eleventh-hour show of support from
Palestinian,Arab, and Muslim community leaders." I cite their
statement down in the "chatter" section.
Rick Perlstein: [10-23]
Science is political: "For only the second time in its 179-year
history, Scientific American has endorsed a candidate for
president: Kamala Harris.
April Rubin:
Bernie Sanders: [10-30]
How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she supports Israel's war? Here's
my answer: "Trump says Netanyahu is doing a good job and Biden is
holding him back. Even on this issue, Trump is worse."
Catherine Shoard: [10-30]
Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses Kamala Harris: 'I will always be an
American before I am a Republican': "The former Republican governor
said that he was backing the Democrat because a Trump victory would
mean 'four more years of bullshit.'"
Bret Stephens: [10-29]
A conservative case against Trump: This one gives me no comfort.
He's in the running for worst right-wing pundit in America, and
much of his rationale centers on his understanding that Trump is
less reliable than Harris when it comes to supporting war and
genocide: among other things, he worries that "allow Putin to
succeed in Ukraine, and Israel's threats from Russia's allies
in Iran, Syria and Yemen will multiply."
Wikipedia: I ran this last week, but the lists keep
growing:
Trump:
Trump's Madison Square Garden spectacle:
Zack Beauchamp: [10-31]
Inside Trump's ominous plan to turn civil rights law against vulnerable
Americans. Late-breaking but important article.
Jasper Craven:
Trump's cronies threw the VA into chaos. Millions of veterans' lives
are on the line again.
David French: [10-27]
Four lessons from nine years of being 'Never Trump': His
section heads:
- Community is more powerful than ideology.
- We don't know our true values until they're tested.
- Hatred is the prime motivating force in our politics.
- Finally, trust is tribal.
Susan B Glasser: [10-18]
How Republican billionaires learned to love Trump again: "The
former President has been fighting to win back his wealthiest donors,
while actively courting new ones -- what do they expect to get in
return?"
Trump's effort to win back wealthy donors received its biggest boost
on the evening of May 30th, when he was convicted in Manhattan on
thirty-four criminal counts related to his efforts to conceal
hush-money payments to the former adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.
After the verdict, Trump walked out to the cameras in the courthouse
and denounced the case brought against him as "rigged" and a "disgrace."
Then he departed in a motorcade of black Suburbans. He was headed
uptown for an exclusive fund-raising dinner, at the Fifth Avenue
apartment of the Florida sugar magnate José (Pepe) Fanjul. . . .
Trump was seated at the head table, between Fanjul -- a major
Republican donor going back to the early nineties -- and Stephen
Schwarzman, the C.E.O. of Blackstone, the world's largest private-equity
fund, who had endorsed Trump the previous Friday. Securing the support
of Schwarzman was a coup for the Trump campaign. . . .
Trump was fund-raising off his conviction with small-dollar donors
as well; his campaign, which portrayed him as the victim of a
politicized justice system, brought in nearly $53 million in the
twenty-four hours after the verdict. Several megadonors who had
held back from endorsing Trump announced that they were now
supporting him, including Miriam Adelson, the widow of the late
casino mogul Sheldon Adelson; the Silicon Valley investor David
Sacks, who said that the case against Trump was a sign of America
turning into a "Banana Republic"; and the venture capitalist Shaun
Maguire, who, less than an hour after the verdict, posted on X that
he was donating $300,000 to Trump, calling the prosecution a
"radicalizing experience." A day later, Timothy Mellon, the
banking-family scion, wrote a $50-million check to the Make
America Great Again super PAC.
Many more names and dollar amounts follow.
Margaret Hartmann: [10-29]
Melania Trump plays normal political wife for one week only:
"From appearing at Donald Trump's racist MSG rally to insisting
he's 'not Hitler' on Fox News, Melania is now conspicuously
present."
Doug Henwood: [10-30]
Trumponomics: "What kind of economic policy could we expect
from a second Trump term?" A fairly obvious assignment for one of
our more available left-wing economists, but he comes up with
surprisingly little here, beyond income tax cuts and tariffs --
much-advertised themes that are unlikely to amount to very much.
I suspect this is mostly because, despite the obvious importance
of the economy, there isn't much of a partisan divide on how to
run it. Trump would be harder on workers (especially on unions),
and softer on polluters and all manner of frauds, but those are
just relative shifts of focus. He would also shift public spending
away from things that might be useful, like infrastructure, to
"defense," including his "beautiful wall."
Michael Isikoff: [10-28]
Trump campaign worker blows whistle on 'grift' and bugging plot:
"A bombshell email claims millions were funneled from campaign to
'overcharging' firms -- and some went to a top Kamala Harris donor."
Robert Kuttner: [10-30]
Why so much hate? "Trump has tapped into an undercurrent of crude
hatred and encouraged his supporters to express it. Where does all
this hate come from?"
Steven Levitsky/Daniel Ziblatt: []
There are four anti-Trump pathways we failed to take. There is a
fifth. Authors of two books that have many liberal fans --
How Democracies Die (2018), and Tyranny of the Minority:
Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point (2023) --
but never struck me as worth investigating, partly because their
interest in democracy seems more concerned with formal elegance
than with making government serve the people. The fifth path,
when various legal schemes fail, is "societal mobilization" --
isn't that what we used to call "revolution"? The authors have
written several "guest essays" over the years, including:
Nick Licata: [10-29]
Trump's playbook to win regardless of election night results.
Nicholas Liu: [10-30]
RFK Jr. claims Trump promised him "control" of CDC and federal health
care agencies.
Amanda Marcotte:
Nicole Narea: [10-29]
Would Trump's mass deportation plan actually work? "Here's what
history tells us." Related here:
The New Republic: [10-21]
The 100 worst things Trump has done since descending that escalator:
"Some were just embarrassing. Many were horrific. All of them should
disqualify him from another four years in the White House."
Timothy Noah:
Paige Oamek: [10-15]
Trump's campaign manager has raked in an insane amount of money:
"How in the world did Chris LaCivita make this much money from a
campaign?"
Rick Perlstein: [10-30]
What will you do? "Life-changing choices we may be forced to make
if Donald Trump wins."
Molly Redden/Andy Kroll/Nick Surgey: [10-29]
Inside a key MAGA leader's plans for a new Trump agenda: "Key
Trump adviser says a Trump administration will seek to make civil
servants miserable in their jobs." Spotlight here on Russell Vought,
"former acting director of the Office of Management and Budget."
Also on Vought:
James Risen:
[10-25]
Mainstream media was afraid to compare Trump to Hitler. Now the press
has no excuse. "Statements by John Kelly, Trump's former chief of
staff, have made it nearly impossible for the media to avoid Hitler
comparisons." Kelly's comments did pop up among the late show comics,
but I wouldn't expect much more.
[10-22]
Americans need a closing argument against Trump: "Too many Americans
seem to be ignoring the risks that another Trump presidency would pose
to the US. This is a warning to them." Included here because the author
casually mentions: "Trump is a fascist who wants to overthrow the United
States' democratic system of government." That's under the first section
here, which is just one of several:
- Threat to democracy
- Imprison political opponents
- Eliminate reproductive rights
- Concentration camps and mass deportations for immigrants
- Create a theocracy
- Increase censorship and destroy the media
- A puppet for Putin
- Dictator for life
Actually, I don't see many of these things happening, even if
Republicans take Congress, and the last two are total canards.
No one aspires to be a puppet, but aside from that, the rest are
at least things Trump might think of and wish for. What separates
Trump from the classic fascists has less to do with thought and
desire than with checks and balances that make it hard for any
president to get much of anything done. Still, a bad president
can do a lot of damage, and any would-be fascist is certain to
be a very bad president. As Trump has already proven, so we
really shouldn't have to relitigate this.
[10-03]
The reason Netanyahu and Putin both want a Trump victory:
"Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu both want Donald Trump to
win so they can prolong and intensify their brutal wars."
Asawin Suebsaeng/Tim Dickinson:
'American death squads': Inside Trump's push to make police more
violent.
Sean Wilentz:
Trump's plot against America: "A leading historian looks back
at Philip Roth's novel and how it perfectly predicts the rise of
Trump and his willing collaborators."
No More Mr. Nice Blog:
[10-28]
It's world-historical fascism, but it's also ordinary white-guy
bigotry.
Did yesterday's rally seem like the work of an organized, dangerous
fascist party? Yes -- but the rally's rhetoric also seemed like
ordinary casual conversation among bigoted white men when they
think no one can hear them. Remember the cops who beat Rodney King
in 1991 and sent messages to one another describing Black citizens
involved in a domestic dispute as being "right out of 'Gorillas in
the Mist'"? Remember the police official responsible for investigating
workplace harassment in New York City being fired in 2021 after it
was revealed that he'd written racist posts in a police discussion
group called the Rant? . . .
This is how bigoted men talk. Among cops, it reinforces a sense
of grievance that often leads to brutality. It'll do the same thing
among Trumpers if they win -- and, to a lesser extent, if they lose.
This is a rising fascist movement, but it's built on ordinary
hatreds that aren't new and that predate Trump's political career.
[10-24]
Fascism and other matters.
[20-21]
Donald Trump, relatable fuckup?
I think young men find Trump's campaign-trail lapses relatable.
It's not just that they might really believe Haitians in America are
eating people's pets, or might enjoy Trump's smutty anecdotes. I think
they also might notice that Trump is being accused of campaign
incompetence or dementia -- and that endears him more to
them.
After all, many of them were diagnosed with ADHD because they
couldn't sit still in school or stop disrupting class. They might
not like Trump's taste in music, but they can relate to someone who
shows up and just doesn't feel like doing the work.
They appreciate the way Trump suggests that he not only can solve
all the world's problems, but can do it quickly and easily -- he
conveys a sense that he can succeed at many things without doing
any hard work. That's what they want to do!Why are young men attending college at lower rates than young
women? Aren't they attending the same schools as their sisters?
Being good in school has always been seen as weird and unmanly by
most Americans, and I think that mindset is having a greater and
greater impact on young men's choices. Boys with good grades are
seen as weird losers and not very masculine -- they're like girls,
who are allowed to be good in school. It's much cooler to be an
amusing fuckup.
When we express horror at Trump's latest baffling act on the
campaign trail, I think we sound, to these young men, like annoyingly
responsible scolds. Obviously, they like Trump's offensive humor
because they like offending people, but they also relate to Trump's
refusal to restrain his speech because trying to avoid giving offense
to people is hard work. It's almost like schoolwork, and the
same people are good at it, for the same reasons -- because they're
grade-grubbing goody-goodies who seem to like spoiling everyone
else's fun.
[10-29]
No, Trump is still not "a spent and exhausted force": Disputes
the Jamelle Bouie piece I cited above.
[10-30]
A war at home is still a war, guys:
This is a reminder of one reason Donald Trump is winning over some
young men, apart from the bro-ishness and misogyny of his campaign:
Trump and his surrogates have young men convinced that a vote for
Harris is a vote for war. Trump regularly says that a Harris
presidency will lead to World War III, while he'll instantly,
magically, and single-handedly end all the major wars taking place
right now and prevent future wars by means of a slogan, "Peace
Through Strength." Harris, regrettably, has welcomed the support
not only of Liz Cheney (who has stood up for the rule of law in
recent years) but also of her father, whom nobody admires these
days and who was unquestionably a warmonger.
Seth Meyers: [10-31]
A Closer Look: Trump's embarrassing garbage stunt might be his
most surreal photo op ever.
Vance, and other Republicans:
Harris:
James Carville: [10-23]
Three reasons I'm certain Kamala Harris will win: Spoken like
the hack-consultant he's always been:
- Trump is a repeat electoral loser. This time will be no different.
- Money matters, and Harris has it in droves.
- It's just a feeling.
His feeling?
For the past decade, Trump has infected American life with a
malignant political sickness, one that would have wiped out many
other global democracies. On Jan. 6, 2021, our democracy itself
nearly succumbed to it. But Trump has stated clearly that this
will be the last time he runs for president. That is exactly why
we should be exhilarated by what comes next: Trump is a loser;
he is going to lose again. And it is highly likely that there
will be no other who can carry the MAGA mantle in his wake --
certainly not his running mate.
Lydie Lake: [10-30]
Harris's final push before election day: "Kamala Harris delivered
her closing argument in a charged pre-election rally near the White
House."
Colleen Long/Darlene Superville/Nadia Lathan: [10-25]
Beyoncé and Kamala Harris team up for Houston rally. One big
thing they talked about was abortion, including how in Texas "the
infant death rate has increased, more babies have died of birth
defects and maternal mortality has risen.
Chris Megerian/Colleen Long/Steve Karnowski: [10-17]
Following death of Hamas leader, Harris says it's 'time for the
day after to begin' in Gaza. If by "day after" you mean the
day after the killing ends, that's been overdue since Oct. 8,
2023 (and really many years before), but the statement would
seem to reject the idea that the war has to go on until there
are no Palestiniains left to kill, which seems to be Netanyahu's
agenda.
Christian Paz: [10-24]
How "Trump is a fascist" became Kamala's closing argument:
"Brat summer is over; 'Trump is a fascist' fall is in." I chased this
piece down after Nathan J Robinson
tweeted:
One of the main mistakes Hillary Clinton made was making her central
message "Trump is bad" without offering a positive case for why she
would be a good president. The error is being repeated.
A quick search reveals more complaints about this as a strategy,
along with much consternation that Harris is blowing the campaign,
possibly letting Trump win. I get that the "Trump is a fascist" jab
is suddenly fashionable thanks to the Kelly quote, although it's
been commonplace for years among people who know much about the
history of fascism, and are willing to define it broadly enough
that a 78-year-old American might qualify. I'd say that Trump is
a bit more complicated and peculiar than simply being a generic
fascist, although sure, if you formulated a generic F-scale, he
would pass as a fascist, and it wouldn't be a close call. But I
have two worries here: one is that most Americans don't know or
care much about fascism -- other than that it's a generic slur,
which judging from his use of the word (e.g., to slam "radical
leftists") seems to be his understanding; the other is that there
are lots of other adjectives and epithets that get more surely
and much quicker to the point of why Trump is bad: even fancy
words like sociopath, narcissist, oligarch, and misanthrope work
better; as well as more common ones like racist, sexist, elitist,
demagogue; you could point out that he's both a blowhard and a
buffoon; or you could settle for something a bit more colorful,
like "flaming asshole." Or rather than just using labels/names,
you could expand on how he talks and acts, about his scams and
delusions -- sorry if I haven't mentioned lies before, but they
come in so many flavors and variations you could do a whole
taxonomy, like the
list of fallacies (many of which he exemplifies -- at least
the ones that don't demand much logic).
As for Robinson's complaint, I think that's typical of left
intellectuals, who've spent all their lives trying to win people
over on issues. Politicians have to be more practical, especially
because they have to win majorities, while all activists can hope
for are incremental gains. Harris has a lot of planks in her
platform, and if you're seriously interested in policy, there's
a lot to talk about there (and not all good, even if, like most
leftists, you're willing to settle for small increments). But to
win an election, she needs to focus on the elements that can get
her majority support.
And the one key thing that should put her over the top is that
he's Donald Trump, and she isn't: that the only chance we voters
have of getting rid of Trump is to vote for her. To do this, she
needs to focus relentlessly on his negatives. She doesn't need to
toot her own horn much, as every negative she exposes him for is
an implicit contrast: to say "Trump is a fascist" implies that "I
am not." That may not be saying much, but it's something, and it
should be enough. And Robinson, at least, should know better. I
find it hard -- I mean, he's just co-authored
a book with Noam Chomsky -- seriously expects any Democrat to
offer "a positive case for why she would be a good president."
All any voter can do is pick one item from a limited, pre-arranged
menu. Sometimes you do get a chance to vote for someone you really
like or at least respect, but quite often the best you can do is
to vote against the candidate you most despise.
That choice seems awfully clear to me this year. Unfortunately,
it appears that many people are still confused and/or misguided.
At this point, I don't see any value in second-guessing the Harris
campaign. I have no reason to think they don't want to win this as
badly as I want them to win. They have lots of money, lots of
research, and lots of organization. They think they're doing the
right things, and I hope and pray they're right. It's endgame now,
so let them run their last plays. And if they do lose, that will
be the time to be merciless in your criticism. (That'll be about
the only fun you'll have in the next four years. By the way, if
you want a head start, check out
this book.)
[08-08]
"Trump is weird" will only get Kamala Harris so far: This is an
older article by Paz, kicking off the "voters want to hear from Harris
about Harris, not Trump or Biden" mantra.
Brian Bennett: [10-25]
Why Harris' closing argument is focused more on Trump than her.
Sidney Blumenthal: [10-28]
We are witnessing the making of a fascist president in real time.
Anand Giridharadas: [10-23]
Real men reject fascism: "A note on Harris's closing argument."
Susan B Glasser: [10-24]
Donald Trump and the F-word: "Kamala Harris embraces the 'fascist'
label for the ex-President, without any certainty that it will disquality
him."
Dylan Matthews: [10-23]
Is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in. "Call him a kleptocrat,
an oligarch, a xenophobe, a racist, even an authoritarian. But he
doesn't quite fit the definition of a fascist." Had the head writer
read the article, they would have seen that it all depends on the
definition, and here 8 "experts" are all over the map, although they
all pretty much agree that Trump is an awful person and a dangerous
politician who is up to no good. Unless you're writing a comparative
historical analysis of right-wing political movements, that should
be understanding enough to vote against him.
Jan-Werner Müller: [10-29]
No, Trump is not a fascist. But that doesn't make him any less
dangerous.
Robert Reich: [10-21]
Trump's closing argument: full-throated fascism.
Alex Shephard: [10-25]
This is what's missing from the fascism argument against Trump:
"Yes, of course he's a threat to American democracy. But voters need
to know how it affects them."
Michael Tomasky: [10-25]
The best reason for calling Donald Trump a fascist? Easy: He is.
"The famous 'closing argument' should be multipronged. But the f-word
must be prominent in the mix."
Jonathan Weisman: [10-17]
Harris and Democrats lose their reluctance to call Trump a fascist:
"Since Gen. Mark Milley was quoted as saying Donald Trump is 'fascist
to the core,' a term avoided by top members of the Democratic Party is
suddenly everywhere." For me, the word "fascist" packs a lot of info in
a small package. For others, that info may be undecipherable, in which
case the charge rings hollow, or perhaps just scatalogical. But obviously
you don't get to be a general without studying a bit into WWII, which
is where Milley and Kelly are coming from.
Marc A Thiessen: [10-24]
Harris's closing argument is dishonest, desperate and hypocritical:
"Trump isn't a fascist, and he didn't say he would use the military
against his political opponents." But still not nearly as "dishonest,
desperate and hypocritical" as this (or pretty much any) Thiessen
column. Here's just one example:
Jennifer Rubin: [10-27]
To understand the US economic success is to love Harris's plan:
"Kamala Harris's economic proposals would build on the remarkable US
comeback since the pandemic."
Walz, Biden, and other Democrats:
Aaron Blake: [10-30]
Did Biden call Trump supporters 'garbage'? It comes down to an
apostrophe. "Republicans have long strained for a new Hillary
Clinton-"deplorables" moment, but Biden's defense is entirely
plausible." It mostly comes down to "who gives a fuck." I'm not
in favor of epithets applied to broad swathes of people, but
anyone offended by this is awfully thin-skinned.
Joseph Bullington: [08-19]
Republicans will weaponize rural suffering as long as Democrats
ignore it: "JD Vance is a poser, but he's telling a dangerously
compelling story about rural America that Democrats are doing
nothing to defuse."
Adam Johnson: [07-12]
The best counter to Project 2025 is a Progressive Project 2025:
"If President Biden -- or any Democratic replacement -- wants to get
back in the race, they need a positive moral vision to run on, not
just dire warnings." Obviously, the subhed is dated, and even if
true (which it probably isn't), it's too late to affect the 2024
election. I'm not opposed to articulating "a positive moral vision" --
after Gaza, I'd even welcome a negative one, like "not that" -- but
naming it "2025" implies you're seeking to power to implement big
changes almost immediately, and that is neither realistic nor a
very conducive vibe.
Nicholas Lemann: [10-28]
Bidenomics is starting to transform America. Why has no one
noticed?
Branko Marcetic: [10-23]
The US isn't moving right -- the Democrats are.
Li Zhou: [10-26]
Michelle Obama made the case for abortion rights in a way Joe Biden
never could: "In a searing speech, Obama laid out exactly what's
at stake."
Supreme Court, legal matters, and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Business, labor, and Economists:
Dean Baker:
Paul Krugman:
Ukraine and Russia:
Elsewhere in the world and/or/in spite of America's empire:
Other stories:
Ross Rosenfeld: [10-30]
How America's craven plutocrats busted the myth of the business
hero: "The members of the billionaire executive class have billed
themselves as great men of history beyond scrutiny and reproach. his
is the year that shattered that illusion." Sorry to break this, but
that illusion has been pretty thoroughly debunked at least since Ida
B. Wells. And while I appreciate the occasional Harris supporter in
their ranks, she isn't really that much of a reach: arguably she'll
do better by them than their culturally simpatico golf cheat buddy.
Jeffrey St Clair: [10-25]
Roaming Charges: Antic dispositions: Some tidbits:
More than half of Trump's supporters don't believe he'll
actually do many of the things he claims he'll do (mass deportations,
siccing the military on domestic protesters and political rivals),
while more than half of Harris's supporters hope she'll implement
many of the policies (end the genocide/single-payer) she claims she
won't. And that pretty much sums up this election.
Barnett R. Rubin, former US diplomat: "Why do people keep saying
that US politics is polarized? Look at the big picture. Genocide
enjoys broad bipartisan support."
Fox News' Brian Kilmeade defended Trump's statement that
he wants the "kind of generals that Hitler had." Kilmeade: "I can
absolutely see him go, it'd be great to have German generals that
actually do what we ask them to do, maybe not fully being cognizant
of the third rail of German generals who were Nazis or whatever."
Kilmeade and Trump may not be "cognizant" of the fact that several
"German generals" (von Stauffenberg, Friedrich Olbricht, and Ludwig
Beck) tried to blow Hitler to bits and Germany's most famous General,
Rommel, was forced to kill himself after being implicated in the
plot.
Hours after the Washington Post announced its decision not
to endorse [Kamala Harris, directed by Post owner Jeff Bezos], the
Associated Press reported that Donald Trump met with executives
from Blue Origin, the space company owned by Bezos that has a $3.4
billion NASA contract to build a spacecraft to take astronauts to
the moon and back.
Eugene Debs: "I'd rather vote for something I want and don't
get it, than vote for something I don't want and get it."
Trump: "I worked a shift at McDonalds yesterday." A McDonalds
shift is eight hours, not 18 minutes . . . Dukakis in a tank looked
less ridiculous.
Sounds familiar . . . [followed by a tweet which reads: "In
1938, Benito Mussolini closed off a wheat field & did a photo
shoot showing him harvesting hay in order to portray himself as a
common working man. He was surrounded by workers who had been
vetted as loyal to the party." Includes a picture of the shirtless
Fascist with cap and aviator goggles.]
Since 2001, forest fires have shifted north and grown more
intense. According to a new study in Science, global CO2 emissions
from forest fires have increased by 60% in the last two decades.
Christian nationalist pastor
Joel Webbon called for the public execution of women who falsely
claim to have been sexually assaulted: "MeToo would end real fast . . .
All you have to do is publicly execute a few women who have lied."
Montana Senate candidate
Tim Sheehy, on why he wants to abolish the Dept. of Education:
"We formed that department so little Black girls could go to school
down South, and we could have integrated schooling. We don't need
that anymore."
Edward Luce, associate editor of the Financial Times: "Hard to
overstate what a sinister figure Elon Musk is. Never seen one oligarch
in a Western democracy intervene on anything like this scale with
unending Goebbels-grade lies." Musk is the most obnoxious kid in
middle school who is running the campaign of the school bully for
student council without even being asked because even the school
bully doesn't want to be around him . . .
Obituaries
Barbara Dane: She started as a folksinger,
and I heartily recommend her Anthology of American Folk Songs
(1959), better than her memorably titled 1973 album, I Hate the
Capitalist System, but she also recorded albums with Earl 'Fatha'
Hines, Lightnin' Hopkins, and the Chambers Brothers, and I liked
her 2016 jazz album Throw It Away enough for an A-.
Fethullah Gulen:
Phil Lesh:
Lewis Sorley:
Lewis Sorley, 90, who said the US won (but then lost) in Vietnam,
dies: [10-30] Military historian. I've always hated the very idea of his
book, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of
America's Last Years in Vietnam, where he claimed that America
could have and should have won the war in Vietnam, but was sabotaged
by the peace movement, a fickle media, and weak-willed politicians.
In Sorley's worldview, the war should have gone on forever.
Also:
-
Claire Daly, master of the baritone saxophone, dies at 66.
-
Teri Garr, comic actress in offbeat roles, is dead at 79.
-
Gary Indiana, acerbic cultural critic and novelist, dies at 74.
-
Rudy May, a stingy master of the curveball, dies at 80.
-
Fernando Valenzuela, pitcher whose screwballs eluded batters, dies
at 63.
Books
Music (and other arts?)
Rick Lopez: [10-24]
Update.01 to The Sam Rivers Sessionography: A Work in Progress:
Fulfilling his subtitle, with a very substantial addition, on top of
a "magnificent" and "gorgeous" (to quote my own blurb) 764-page book
that already seemed definitive. By the way, those words were written
in advance of this "press release" quoted on page 3:
Michael Hull's Fifth Column Films has begun work on a feature-length
documentary about Sam Rivers through the lens of The Sam Rivers
Sessionography, a book by Rick Lopez. Rivers was a musical genius
who spent his life obsessed with creating intricate compositions that
pushed music to places no one else could conceive of. It's only fitting
that his biographer has invented an entirely new way to understand the
life of an artist through a minutely detailed portrait that could only
flower from the uniquely focused mind of Lopez. Rivers was a massive
talent who has been mostly forgotten by the American jazz scene and is
rarely included in the conversation about great masters of the art.
Lopez's book and this film aim to correct that oversight, and make the
case that Sam Rivers should take his place in the pantheon of the 20th
century.
Full disclosure: Michael Hull is my nephew. He started in Jason
Bailey's Wichita-based film crew (e.g.,
My Day in the
Barrel), produced a film
Smokers
no one has heard of, wrote a novel that hasn't been published and,
most relevant here, made the superb documentary
Betrayal at Attica. I've admired Lopez since I first
discovered him twenty-some years ago, so the idea of introducing
him and Mike was blindingly obvious. (I was also the person who
introduced Mike and Liz Fink, although the gestation period on
that project took much longer.) We have some money invested in
this project, which you can take as a caveat if you wish, but I
regard more as a vote of confidence. Still some ways to go, but
here's a preliminary
trailer and more information.
John McWhorter: [10-24]
It sounded like dancing, drinking and sex. It blew people's minds.
I only noticed this piece on "the long, syncopated journey from Scott
Joplin to Beyoncé" because Allen Lowe
complained about it: "his views of ragime are just bizarre and
beneath even the most minimal amount of knowledge, full of stereotypes
and really thirdhand historiography"; Phil Dyess-Nugent added: "Having
made his name writing about some things he seemed to understand, John
McWhorter has since demonstrated his cluelessness on a vast array of
subjects." That's my general impression of the few columns I've read,
especially since his ridiculous Woke Racism book. This I'm
less sure about, maybe because I don't know or chare that much about
ragtime (or, I might as well admit, Beyoncé), so I'm mostly just noting
a lot of name-dropping and connect-the-dots that favors obvious over
interesting.
Riotriot: [10-30]
Takes by the ocean: Zambian nightlife and spongian jawbox.
Chatter
Peter Daou [10-27]
QUESTION: Who is worse for Palestinians, Trump or Harris?
ANSWER: Harris is worse for Palestinians.
WHY?
- Harris and Biden are already culpable for a year-long genocide.
- Like Trump, Harris vows to keep giving Israel unconditional support.
- Therefore, Trump can never match Harris's death toll.
- Rewarding Harris's war crimes with a vote emboldens Netanyahu and
opens the floodgates for future tyrants.
- If Trump wins and Democrats suddenly decide massacring children
is wrong, Trump will face much greater resistance to letting Israel
commit atrocities.
Bottom line: Voting third party is the only moral choice, but if
liberals insist on comparing Trump to Harris, Harris is worse for
Palestinians.
I found this immediately after posting my
preliminary draft on who to vote for president and why, so I've
already explained why I disagree with Daou's conclusion so strongly.
But perhaps I should stress one very important point, which is that
voting is not a moral choice; it is a political choice. I'm not going
to write a disquisition on the difference, but will insist that it is
a category error to vote based on morality. As for Daou's five points:
- True, but the order is wrong, like saying "Speer and Hitler
are already culpable," where the clearest charge against Speer
(and Harris) is not breaking with their leader. By the way, Biden
is more like Speer than to Hitler -- in playing follow-the-leader,
but also given their critical position in the arms pipeline.
- Not false, but Harris (unlike Trump and Graham) has never said
"finish the job," and she's not unaware of the human toll Israel's
"self-defense" is taking, so I'd say that continued "unconditional
support" is slightly less likely from her. Admittedly, that's a
thin reed she has often taken pains to cover up.
- No way of predicting, but no reason to underestimate Trump's
capacity for getting people killed. His general contempt for most
of the world suggests quite the opposite.
- Clearly, massively false. Netanyahu's preference for Trump is
widely known, not only through his own words and acts but through
mutual donors like Myriam Adelson.
- Hard to know where to begin with this variation on "if the
fascists win, the revolution will hasten." Ever hear of "moral
hazard"? Sure, some Democrats may learn to blame the genocide on
Trump -- as some Democrats came to blame Nixon for Vietnam -- but
most will simply be shocked and search for scapegoats to blame,
especially "pro-Palestinians" like Daou.
Daou's conclusion that "Harris is worse for Palestinians" is
horribly wrong, even if "Harris is no good for Palestinians" may
well be true. But I wouldn't be much swayed if one could argue
that one candidate would be good or better, because I've never
looked at this conflict through that prism. I never quite bought
the argument that "Palestinians have dug their own graves," but
I did have sympathies for Israel at one point, which may be why
I still wish to emphasize that genocide is bad (and I mean really
bad) for Israel (and for America, which is implicated not just
due to recent arms support but via longstanding cultural and
political mores), and that in itself is reason enough to oppose
it. (And sure, it's even worse for the killed than the killers,
and that's another reason to oppose it, but it doesn't have to
be the only one.)
Some more comments on Daou's tweet:
Nathan J Robinson: Peter, this doesn't make sense. It
could absolutely get worse under Trump. Any pressure to provide
any aid whatsoever to Gaza will disappear. Greater pressure may
be brought on Egypt to let Israel fully ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Don't assume this is as bad as it can get.
Andrew Revkin: I sense @RudyGiuliani would disagree
with you, @peterdaou, on who's worse for Palestinians. Here's
how he explained the Trump plan at the #MSGRally tonight in
his own words.
Films For Action: When we think of Trump in power
again, we recall that even a genocide can get much worse. Trump
just said that Netanyahu must "go further" in Gaza while
criticizing Biden for "trying to hold him back." The full
statement is highly worth reading: [link to
Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and Progressive Democrats
Statement on Presidential Election].
Shadowblade: Who moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem?
Jonathan Blank Films: [Link to
'Trump would be the worst': Palestinians react to US presidential
race.]
Nathan J Robinson: [12-27] [comment attached to a clip of Tucker
Carlson's MSG rally rant]
The level of uncontrolled rage is terrifying, but I think if Trump
is elected you will see it get far worse. The amount of overt racism
will increase, the view of Democrats, leftists, migrants being scum
in need of elimination. JD Vance has made clear that Pinochet is the
model.
Mehdi Hasan: [10-30] Donald Trump is going around telling Michigan
Muslims he'll end the war, be the peace president, and how pro-Muslim
(!) he is.
Meanwhile, Dems sent Bill Clinton to lecture Michigan Muslims on
how it's all Hamas's fault that Israel is massacring kids and killing
civilians holding white flags.
Whether or not they end up losing Michigan, at this point the Dems
deserve to lose Michigan. Sheesh.
Aaron Rupar: [10-31] Trump on Liz Cheney: "Let's put her with
a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her. Let's see
how she feels about it. You know, when the cuns are trained on her
face."
Local tags (these can be linked to directly):
music.
Original count: 228 links, 11718 words (15894 total)
Current count:
253 links, 12905 words (17532 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Speaking of Which: Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Harris vs. Trump
Note: This piece is also cross-posted at
Notes on Everyday Life. I originally posted it there first, in
hopes of generating some preliminary discussion. If keeping them in
sync proves difficult, this one should probably be authoritative.
Two questions need to be addressed before we get down to detailed
arguments. The first is why vote at all? I'd say first, because it
is your right as a citizen, but must be secured by your exercise of
it. People in America may have a very limited say in how the country
is organized and run, but you do have the vote, and using it shows
your willingness to engage in the responsibility for setting the
nation's direction.
The second question is whether you should limit your vote choice
to the two major political parties, or consider voting for a third
party should you prefer that candidate's platform? History shows us
that America gravitated into a two-party system almost immediately
after the Constitution was ratified, and quickly returned to a two
party system on the two instances where one major party disbanded
(replacing the Federalists with the Whigs, and replacing the Whigs
with the Republicans). No subsequent third party has been able to
sustain significant followings, with third-party votes often
dropping to under 5% in recent elections.
So from a practical standpoint, third parties are ineffective
and unpromising.One might nonetheless consider voting for a third
party candidate if: neither major party nominated a candidate you
can stand, and there is no significant difference between the two
candidates that can direct your choice. I can understand if you
feel that both Trump and Harris should be shunned for their rote
support of Israeli genocide, although I suspect that even there
the nature of their positions differs enough to favor a vote for
Harris.
One other possible consideration is whether one party offers a
better chance for future improvement, based on the composition of
the party, how open-minded its members are, and how democratic its
processes are. The current two-party system is quite possibly the
most polarized ever, which has led most people to select one party
or the other. Moreover, both major parties have primaries that are
open to all members, and as such are amenable to reform. If, like
me, you are primarily concerned with "left" issues of peace and
equal rights, you may have noticed that most of the people most
likely to agree with you are currently Democrats. If your goal is
to build a majority around your ideals, you need to establish a
bond of solidarity with the Democrats, which often means voting
for a candidate you don't totally agree with. You are, after all,
hoping that other Democrats, even ones that disagree with you,
will vote for your candidate should that person win a primary.
The last third party candidate I voted for was Ralph Nader in
2000. I don't feel bad about that vote, especially as I'm convinced
that the Gore-Lieberman ticket would have been as gung-ho starting
the "war on terror" after 9/11 as Bush-Cheney was. But I did learn
one lesson from that election, which is that even in Kansas, where
the Gore campaign was practically non-existent, 90% of the anti-Bush
votes cast went to the Democrat. Since then, I vowed to work within
the Democratic Party, such as it as, as best I could. (I did lapse
once since, to vote against a particular Democrat I've hated what
seems like all of my life, but there I went with the Republican, as
I really wanted that Democrat to lose.)
Having narrowed the choice down to Harris vs. Trump, arguments
that one candidate is better and/or one candidate is worse are
equally valid. This being American politics, "one candidate is
worse" arguments predominate. Lest you imagine there might be any
suspense here, Harris is the better option, while Trump is much
the worse.
And while the future is impossible to predict, the margins
overwhelm any imaginable uncertainty. Trump is especially known,
as we've actually experienced him as President. This doesn't
mean a second term will be just like his first: it could easily
be worse, for reasons we'll get into. Harris is harder to read.
Although she has much relevant experience, presidency offers
powers and temptations that she's never faced before, as well
as situations she's never had to deal with. This raises doubts,
which I will deal with in a separate list, following the "top
ten."
So, here are my top ten reasons to vote for Harris vs. Trump:
Donald Trump is a truly odious human being.
That's a personal, not a political judgment: sure, virtually all
of his political views stink, but most of the people who share
his political views have personal traits one can relate to,
respect, even appreciate. As far as I can tell -- and while
I only know what's been reported, I've been exposed to a lot
of that -- he has none. He seems totally miserable. If he's
ever laughed, it's been at someone else's expense. He lacks
even the slightest pretense of caring for anyone, even for
his wives or children (the prenups should have been a clue).
He's not unique in this regard, but most similar people are
easily ignored. The only way to free ourselves from Trump's
ever-present unpleasantness is to vote him off (like in the
"reality TV" shows he's a creature of).
Harris, on the other hand, can listen, and respond appropriately.
She has a generous and infectious laugh. And while I've never seen
her cry, she is at least cognizant of situations that call for a
show of concern and empathy. I don't particularly like the idea of
president as "handholder-in-chief," but it's better to have someone
who can feign that than someone who utterly cannot.
Such personal failings drive most people to
despair, which at least could be pitied, but Trump's inherited
wealth has provided him with an armor of callousness, which has
long elicited the warm glow of supplicants and sycophants. From
this, he has constructed his own mental universe where he is
adored and exalted. This has produced extraordinary hubris --
another of his distasteful traits -- but more importantly, his
narcissism has left him singularly unprepared to deal with reality
when it so rudely intrudes on his fantasy life (as happens all too
often when you're President).
I should note here that the collective embarrassment we so often
felt when witnessing Trump's failed attempts at addressing events
has dulled somewhat since he left office (need I remind you of
Hurricane Maria? -- just one of dozens of examples, ranging from
his staring into the eclipse to the pandemic). The only things that
have affected him that way since have been his indictments, but even
there he's been sheltered like no one else ever. There is no reason
to think that Harris wouldn't respond to events at least as well as
a normal politician, which is to say, by showing palpable concern
and deliberation. Trump's disconnect from reality is unprecedented.
(Good place to mention his election denialism.)
There is some debate as to whether Trump's wealth
is real, but even as it seems, that should be reason enough to disqualify
him. Only a few Presidents have come from the ranks of the rich, and
those who did -- like Washington, Kennedy, and the Roosevelts -- took
pains to distance themselves from their business interests. Back in
2016, Trump suggested he would give up his business ties, insisting
that his wealth made him more independent of corrupt influences, but
after he won, he backtracked completely, and ran an administration
that was outrageously corrupt -- especially at the top, where his
son-in-law's diplomacy netted him a billion-dollar private equity
fund, but his administration hired lobbyists to peddle influence
everywhere. One might argue that Trump's business was so large that
he couldn't possibly disentangle himself, but that's just part of
the reason why people like him shouldn't be allowed in politics.
Their inability to relate to ordinary Americans is another.
Aside from his abuse of executive power to staff
government with corporate agents, pack with courts with right-wing
cronies, and pardon numerous criminals in his circle, his record
for delivering on his 2016 campaign promises is remarkably thin: he
lost interest in things that might have been popular (like building
infrastructure, or "draining the swamp"). He also lucked out, when
a couple Republican defections saved the ACA, and then when Democrats
took Congress back in 2018. The only positive bill he signed was the
pandemic relief act, which he wanted desperately to save a flagging
stock market, but had to accept a mostly Democratic bill that helped
pretty much everyone.
Also, the full impact of many policies can take years before it
is felt. The repeal of Taft-Hartley in 1947 took decades before it
started to do serious damage to unions and workers (although it had
the immediate impact of ending a campaign to unionize in the South,
which would have been a big advance for civil rights). Deregulation
of savings & loans in the 1980s and larger banks in the 1990s
took most of a decade before triggering recessions. Much of what
Trump did during his term didn't blow up until after the 2020
election, including his killing of the Iran nuclear deal, his
agreement to give Afghanistan to the Taliban, and his Supreme
Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Harris's ability to deliver on campaign promises will, as Biden's
has, depend much on the balance of power in Congress, but at least
Democrats have a track record of trying to pass laws to help most
Americans, and not just those favored by Republicans with their tax
and benefit cuts. Harris will be further hampered by the Republican
packing of the courts, but that's one reason why it matters not just
that Democrats win elections, but win big.
On the other hand, if Trump were more dedicated
in pursuit of the policy positions he espouses, or if he's just given
more power by a Republican Congress, he could (and probably would)
do much more harm in a second term, way beyond the still not fully
accounted for harm of his first. For starters, he has a much more
developed idea of what he wants to do -- not because he understands
policy any better, but because he has more specific goals in areas
that especially interest him -- and will hire more loyal operatives,
eager to carry out his wishes. This will be easier, because he's
already bent the party to his will, especially promoting its most
crazed cadres, while he himself has become further radicalized.
Moreover, he now has a long list of enemies to punish, while his
minions will be free to pursue their own grafts and obsessions.
We've already seen how he's turned the presidency into a cult of
personality. Give him more power -- not just in Congress but the
Supreme Court is ready to enshrine the "unitary executive theory" --
and he will only grow more monstrous.
Donald Trump is a shit stain on the face of America.
They say that wealth is power, and that power corrupts, absolute
power absolutely. America emerged from WWII with half of the world's
wealth, with troops spread to Europe and East Asia, and corporations
everywhere. America has been "breaking bad" ever since, starting in
the 1940s rigging elections in Italy, fighting communists in Greece
and Korea, overthrowing democratic governments in Guatemala and Iran,
replacing them with corporate-friendly autocrats. Still, even Reagan
expected good guys in white hats to win out, so he pretended to be
one, while the Bushes hid their conservatism behind fake compassion.
Trump is the first US president to give up all pretense. His fans
may mistake his contempt for candor, but the result is a much more
brutal world. He demands tribute from allies, lest they fall into
the ranks of enemies, who are expected to cower when faced with
overwhelming American might, and face escalating threats when they
refuse to fall in line. His is a recipe for neverending war, as
we've already seen with Russia and Iran, with Korea and China
waiting for the next break.
Nor are we only talking about foreign policy. The conservative
solution to domestic matters is also to rely on force, starting
with mass incarceration, eroding/stripping rights, smashing unions,
purging the civil service, quelling demonstrations, stifling free
speech, book bans, censoring the press, turning education into
indoctrination, rigging elections, even going so far as to incite
mobs and promise them immunity. While these impulses have long
been endemic to Republicans, Trump is unique in he wants you to
see and smell the feces, and that seems to be the basis for his
popularity among his hardcore constituency. This, with its embrace
of sheer power and rampant criminality, is what's so reminiscent
of the fascist movements of the 1930s.
Still, as bad as Trump is personally, the real
danger is that his election will bring a tidal wave of Republicans
into power all throughout the federal and local governments they
have pledged to debilitate and reduce, as Grover Norquist put it,
"to the size where I can drown it in the bathtub." (The less often
discussed ancillary idea is to hack off functions done by government
and give them away to the private sector. This almost never works.
When attempted, it almost always makes the functions more expensive
and/or less useful.) This is just one of
many deranged and dysfunctional ideas prevalent in the Republican
Party. Like most of their ideas, it's appealing as rhetoric, but
unworkable in practice. Republicans have repeatedly tried to reduce
government spending by cutting taxes on their donor class, but have
found little to actually cut -- even when they had the power to
write budgets -- so all they've produced is greater deficits, and
an inflated oligarchy.
They've had more luck at poisoning benefits, trying to make
government appear to be worthless. The idea is to convince voters
that voting is hopeless, because government will only take from
them, and never give back. The idea that the purpose of government
is to "provide for the general welfare" (that's in the Preamble to
the US Constitution) is inimical to them. The idea of "government
of, by, and for the people" (that's in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address)
is alien to those who hate most American people. Republicans created
a death spiral of democracy, which they hope will leave them in
permanent power, not to serve the public, but to prevent people
from using government for their own improvement.
Trump has added his own authoritarian quirks to the Republican
agenda, but the big risk to democracy has always come from money,
which Republicans have made sure selects candidates and drives
elections. Trump is less a cause of oligarchy than evidence of
how far it has progressed.
Two important concepts in economics are externality
(public costs that are not factored into product costs, such as
pollution) and opportunity costs (other things that we could spend
money on if we weren't preoccupied with given expenses). Republicans,
driven exclusively by their desire to help the rich get richer in the
here and now, and blind to the future, have no interest in these
concepts. Democrats are subject to the same donor pressures, but at
least recognize that such side effects are real and important. This
is because they try to recognize and balance everyone's welfare, and
not just that of their donors and voters.
Climate change is a good example of both: it is largely caused by
the waste products of fossil fuels, and can only be remedied by major
investment sooner rather than later. But people only see what gasoline
costs when they fill up, while the climate change they're contributing
to only manifests later, and mostly to other people. This gives them
little reason to spend now to avert future costs, so they don't.
Even as climate change has become a very tangible problem, Trump and
the Republicans have wrapped themselves ever deeper into a cocoon of
denial and ignorance, which ensures that as long as they're in power
we will never invest what we need to in sustainable infrastructure.
While a second Trump term could do a lot of immediate damage, its
long-term cost will largely be opportunity costs, as we belatedly
realize we didn't invest what we should have when it would have been
more effective.
It's impossible to overstate how completely Donald
Trump has taken over and perverted our culture, what philosophers
call our noosphere -- the mental universe, our ability to reason.
This may seem paradoxical given that few people on Earth are as
disengaged from and contemptuous of reason as Donald Trump, but
that may well be the source of his power. He has effectively given
his followers permission to disengage from other people, to eschew
reason and argument and indulge their own prejudices and fantasies,
because that's what he does, and he's so fabulously successful.
Moreover, it has the added benefit of driving crazy all those who
still worry about real problems (both their own and those of other
people), which they expect to deal with through science and reason.
(Such people often project their own mania back onto the Trumpers,
and reckon them to be saddled with problems, when they actually
seem to be quite blissfully serene in their obliviousness and/or
ignorance.)
Political scientists have a concept known as the Overton window,
which describes "the range of policies politically acceptable to
the mainstream population at a given time." Ideas outside the window
are dismissed as radical or even unthinkable, making it very hard to
get any sort of coverage, as the media limits itself to more widely
acceptable ideas. Events may push some ideas into the mainstream,
while discarding others. For instance, there was a time when eugenics
was all the rage, but no more. Climate change has become increasingly
mainstream, although there are still political interests out to kill
any such discussion. A big part of politics is fighting over what we
can and cannot talk about. What Trump has done has been to expand
the Overton window to the far right, legitimizing clusters of issues
that were previously regarded as baseless (like QAnon, antivax claims,
election denial). Perhaps the most disturbing of all has been Trump's
own criminal enterprises. These subjects, which at best distract from
real problems and often create more, would only grow under a second
Trump term.
I have no doubt that the bad policies advanced by Trump will blow
up and wind up discredited, but at a great waste of effort to stop
them, and a huge opportunity cost as we ignore constructive ideas
from the left. Even where Harris does not have good programs, which
certainly includes her continued fealty to Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden
(and Cheney?) foreign policy, her election would provide a much
healthier window for debate than what we'd be stuck with under
Trump.
It's time to turn the page on Trump and the era of
Fox Republicanism. Cloture on Trump is easy to imagine, as he's way
past his prime, increasingly doddering at 78, unlikely to ever run
again. Vote him out, and that's one problem America will never have
to deal with again. Not only would it give us a chance to heal, to
move on, to deal with our self-protracted problems, but it could be
the kindest result for Trump and even for his Party. Trump could cut
his plea deals and escape most of the legal jeopardy he's landed in.
The Party could finally recalculate, trying to find a way to compete
in the real world instead of trying to scam the rhetorical madness
that Fox created to profit from fear and rage. Moreover, by cutting
their losses, they'd escape much of the blame for the disasters their
preferred policies would inevitably lead to. Progress is inexorable,
so those who would resist it only have two choices: bend or break.
The Republicans' forty-year (1980-2020) era has done much damage to
the social and economic fabric of the nation. Some things have broken,
and many more are creaking. We might survive four more years of Trump,
but time is running out. And when things do break under Trump, beware
that no one will be more ill-prepared and incompetent at dealing with
them.
On the other hand, Harris, like most Democrats (even the nominally
left-wing of the party), doesn't represent visionary change, but she
is perceptive, analytical, and pragmatic, which suggests that she will
adapt to changing circumstances, and endeavor to make the best out of
them. She will be sorely tested by the influence of wealthy lobbyists,
by the superficial and sensationalist press, by the still powerful
remains of Republican power -- which while incapable of governing
competently let alone responsibly, is still a formidable machine for
amplifying grievances -- and by new challenges we haven't even been
able to think of yet (so mired are we in the ruins of bad Republican
politics, from Nixon and Reagan through the Bushes to their ultimate
self-parody in Trump, tempered ever so slightly by interim Democrats
who never got beyond patchwork repairs).
Of course, one can think of many more reasons, especially if you
tried to work from policies outward. I may do a separate document
where I read through Trump's "Agenda 47" and comment line-by-line.
Presumably there's a comparable Harris document somewhere, which
could also be scrutinized. From them, I might be able to come up
with a scorecard, but there's no chance of a different result. As
it is, I've concentrated less on issues and more on personalities
and political dynamics: Trump is at best muddled on issues, but
his shortcomings as noted are extremely clear.
Harris, as I noted, is harder to read, especially because for
tactical campaign purposes she has adopted a set of views that aim
to win over not just undecided/centrist voters but any Republicans
that Trump hasn't totally stripped of their decency yet. She's had
some success at that, although it remains to be seen how many actual
votes follow her celebrity endorsements. At this point, I don't see
any point in second-guessing her campaign strategy. Presumably she
has researched the electorate and knows much better than I do just
how to pitch them. If she loses, we'll have a field day dissecting
her mistakes -- which, for all the reasons mentioned above and many
more, may be the only fun we can have in the next four years.
But for now, let's assume she wins, and she runs her administration
along lines it is reasonable to expect. In that case, the left will
still have work to do and things to protest. So here are my:
Top 5 Reasons Electing Harris Won't Solve Our Problems
I ran across this synopsis recently: "There are converging
political, economic, and ecological crises, and yet our politics
is dominated by either business as usual or nostalgia for a
mythical past." Harris represents the party of "business as
usual," where "change" is acknowledged as inevitable, but is
guarded so as not to upset the status quo -- which may include
reforms to make it more tolerable, as not doing so would risk
more disruptive change.
While it didn't occur to me in listing the "top ten reasons"
above, one more strong reason is that Trump's "nostalgia for a
mythical past" -- the once-great America he aims to restore and
protect -- is not just incoherent but impossible, so much so that
his efforts to force the world back into his ideal alignment are
more likely to break it than to fix anything. Reducing America
to his chosen few would breed chaos and resentment, and collapse
the economy, destroying the wealth he meant to protect. Moreover,
his instinct to use force would only compound the damage.
It is ironic that while most of us on the left have grown wary
of revolution, many on the right, perhaps due to their embrace of
violence, have been seduced by the notion that might makes right.
If conservatism means wishing to keep things as they are, it is
the Democrats who are the true conservatives, while Republicans
have turned into flaming radicals, with Trump emerging as their
leader given his flamboyance and utter disregard for conventional
political thinking. As with the fascist movements of the 1930s,
many people are enthralled by this radicalism. Why such movements
have always failed, sometimes spectacularly, has yet to sink in --
although the connection does at long last seem to be entering the
mainstream media.
Democrats are still uncomfortable being the party of the status
quo. Many are nostalgic for the days when Republicans filled that
role, providing foils against which they could propose their modest
reforms -- which they've long needed to attract struggling voters.
The problem that Harris faces in 2024 is that the Trumpian romance
of reactionary revolution has become so attractive -- the backdrop
is the unprecedented extension of inequality over the last fifty
years, which has left most people feeling left behind -- and so
terrifying that she's fallen into the trap of defending the status
quo, making her seem insensitive to the real problems that we look
to candidates to help solve. Trump at least has answers to all the
problems -- wrong ones, but many people don't understand the details,
they're just attraction to his show of conviction, while they note
that Harris seems wary of pushing even the weak reforms popular in
her party.
She's banking on the status quo to save America from Trump and
the Republicans. If she wins her bet, she will win the election.
But then she'll have to face the more difficult task of governing,
where her limits could be her undoing. These five questions loom
large on the post-election agenda:
Perhaps most immediately, US foreign policy needs
a total rethink. US foreign policy took a radical turn shortly after
WWII, renouncing the "isolationist" past and assuming a militarily
as well as an economically interventionist stance. This was partly
a matter of filling the vacuum left by the war's global destruction,
and partly ambition. Beyond the battlefields, Europe's colonial
empires had become untenable, opening the door for businesses as
the hidden powers behind local rulers. As the alternatives were
communist-leaning national liberation movement, this soon turned
into the Cold War -- which was great news for the arms industry,
which along with oil and finance became a pillar of American
foreign policy. When the cold war receded, neocons came up with
more rationales for more conflicts, to keep their graft going.
Efforts at building international institutions (like the UN)
increasingly gave way to unilateral dictates: America First,
before Trump, who basically thinks of foreign policy as some
kind of protection racket, latched onto the term. There hadn't
been significant partisan differences in foreign policy since
the advent of the Cold War: all the Democrats who followed
Republican hawks (Reagan, the Bushes, even Trump in his own
peculiar way) did was to normalize their aggressiveness. Thus
Biden reaffirmed his support for Ukraine and Israel, as well as
his opposition to Russia, China, and the usual suspects in the
Middle East, which has (so far) blown up into two catastrophic
wars, while at the same time the US has made sure that world
organizations (like the UN) are powerless to intervene.
Harris seems to be fully on board with this: not only does
she support the current wars, she has gone out of her way to
ostracize so-called autocrats -- not the ones counted as allies
because they buy American arms but the others, the ones who make
their own (or buy from each other). This conventional thinking,
based on the notion that force projection (and sanctions) can
and will dictate terms for resolving conflicts, has a very poor
track record: it polarizes and militarizes conflicts, stokes
resentments, stimulates asymmetric responses (like terrorism),
while driving its targets into each others' clutches. Meanwhile,
the reputation the US once had for fairness is in tatters.
A new foreign policy needs first of all to prioritize peace,
cooperation, and equitable economic development. It should also,
where possible, favor social justice (albeit not through force,
which is more likely to make matters worse).
Restricting immigration is the one issue where
neo-fascist politicians seem to be gaining significant popular
support, in Europe as well as the US. Harris has chosen to lean
into the issue rather than oppose the Republicans, as had Biden
and Obama before her, not that any of their harsh enforcement
efforts have gotten any cooperation or compromise from Republicans,
who would rather milk this as a grievance issue than treat it as
a practical issue. Part of the problem here is that while many
voters will support Republicans just to vent rage, other voters
expect results from Democrats, and no matter what results they
hoped for, few are satisfied. The issue is complex and messy,
and Congress is unable or unwilling to pass any legislation to
help clear the mess. Which makes this an issue that will haunt
Harris indefinitely, no matter what she tries to do.
Personally, this is an issue I care little about either way.
What concerns me more is that the system be seen as fair and
just, that it is neither exploitative of immigrants nor that
it hurts the domestic labor market. I could see arguments for
limiting or for expanding immigration numbers. I do think that
the current backlog of non-documented immigrants needs to be
cleared up, which could involve clearing the path toward
naturalization and/or paying them to leave, but it needs to be
done in an orderly and humane manner, with clear rules and due
process. I've generally opposed "guest worker" programs (like
the one Bush tried to push through), but could see issuing green
cards as a stopgap measure. Harris will find it difficult to
navigate through this maze, but what would help is having some
clear principles about how citizenship should work -- as opposed
to just responding to Republican demagoguery.
I should also note that the biggest determinant of immigration
is foreign policy. Most people emigrate because they are dislodged
by war or ecological and/or economic distress, and those are things
that American foreign policy as presently practiced exacerbates.
Policies that resolve (or better still, prevent) conflicts, that
limit climate change, and/or that extend economic opportunities
would significantly reduce the pressures driving emigration.
Democrats under Biden made the first serious
legislative effort at addressing climate change ever, but the
structure of American politics makes it much easier to promote
the development of new technologies and products than it is to
do things like changing habits of fossil fuel use. Democrats
are so wedded to the idea of economic growth as the panacea
for all problems that they can't conceive of better lives lived
differently. How one can ever get to zero emissions isn't on
any agenda. Meanwhile, Republicans keep digging themselves ever
deeper into their tunnel of ignorance, so they have nothing to
offer but obstruction.
While prevention seems to be too much to ask of any Democratic
politician, they do still have a big advantage on disaster care.
Reagan's joke -- "The nine most terrifying words in the English
language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" --
is easily disproven every hurricane season, yet remains as sacred
dogma. Given that climate change has already happened, and is
playing out in cycles of increasingly uninsurable "natural"
disasters, it becomes imperative to elect a government that
cares about such problems, and regards it as its duty to help
people out. Harris will be tested on this, repeatedly.
Meanwhile, if you want to try out nine really terrifying
words, try these: "I'm a Republican, and Donald Trump is my
President."
There is one political issue that close to 90%
of all Americans could agree on, but it has no leadership and
little support in either major party, and that is the thoroughly
corrupt influence of money on politics. The situation has always
been bad, but got much worse in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled
in favor of unlimited corporate spending in Citizens United v. FEC.
Obama spoke out against the ruling, but did nothing to overturn it.
Rather, he easily outraised his opponents in 2008 and 2012, winning
twice. Biden and Harris have also raised much more money than Trump,
so while Republicans are the most steadfast supporters of campaign
graft, top Democrats also benefit from the system -- especially
against their real competition, which is other Democrats, who
might be tempted to campaign on issues that appeal to voters, as
opposed to having to spend all their time catering to the whims
of rich donors. The 2024 presidential election is by far the most
ridiculously expensive in history, which also makes it the most
tainted by special interests and their peculiar obsessions (like
Israel, which has kept both candidates from expressing any concern
about ongoing genocide). Breaking this mold is a golden opportunity
for some aspiring politician. Harris can't do it while she's still
campaigning, but it's not only wasteful, it diminishes trust in
everyone involved, and as such discredits the whole system.
The worst offenders, of course, are the billionaires,
many of whom -- starting with Elon Musk, the kind of immigrant that
even Trump can love -- has been especially conspicuous this year.
They are the beneficiaries of a wide range of laws and breaks that
allow a tiny number of individuals to accumulate obscene amounts
of wealth. And they use that wealth to steer government away from
any notion of public interest, to do their own bidding, and to
indulge their own fantasies. This extraordinary inequality -- far
beyond the historic highs of the Gilded Age and the Roaring '20s
(both, you may recall, ill-fated bubbles) -- is the single biggest
problem facing the world today. It may seem hypothetical, but it
lies beneath so many other problems, starting with the dysfunction
of government and politics, which is largely influenced by the
distortions of wealth. It extends worldwide, with inequality of
nations mirroring the inequality of individuals.
The problem with inequality isn't that some people have a bit
more than others. It's that such wide variations corrupt and
pervert justice. It's often hard to say just what justice is,
but it's much easier to identify injustice when you see it. In
highly stratified societies, such as ours, you see injustice
everywhere. It eats at our ability to trust institutions and
people. It diminishes our expectation of fair treatment and
opportunity. It raises questions about cooperation and even
generosity. It makes us paranoid. And once lost, trust and
security is all that much harder to restore.
There is no simple answer here. It needs to be dealt with
piecemeal, one step at a time, each and every day. It helps
to reduce gross inequality (which can be done by taxation).
It helps to reduce sources of inequality (which can be done
by regulation of business, by limiting rents, by promoting
countervailing powers, like unions). It also helps to reduce
the impact of inequality (which can be done by raising basic
support levels, by removing prices from services, by ending
means testing, by providing universal insurance, and when no
better solution is possible, by rationing). I don't expect
any politician, especially one who has proven successful in
the current system of extraordinary inequality, to go far
along these lines, but most people are at least aware of the
problem, and many proposals for small improvements are in
common discourse. Even if Harris doesn't rise to the occasion,
we should work to make sure her successors do.
While I think that Harris comes up short on all five of these
really important points, they in no way argue for Donald Trump,
even as a "lesser evil." He personifies modern inequality, Back
in 2016, he tried arguing that his wealth would allow him to run
a truly independent campaign, but that was just another lie. No
one in recent memory has been more obvious about selling favors
for financing. He is a climate change denier, and has shown
nothing but contempt for the victims of natural disasters. His
signature issue is his hatred of immigrants (excepting, presumably,
two wives and his sugar daddy, Elon Musk), where he puts even more
emphasis on performative cruelty than on effectiveness.
His take on foreign policy is slightly more . . . well, "nuanced"
isn't exactly right, more like "befuddled." It's hard to make a
credible case that he's anti-war when he puts such emphasis on what
a tough guy he is, on how no opponent would dare challenge him.
He has shown remarkably poor judgment in defense staffing, which
is only likely to get worse now that two of his former generals
have called him a fascist. He has no dealmaking skills, nor would
he hire someone who could negotiate (any such person would be
dismissed as a wuss). His "America First" schemes are designed
to strain alliances, and are more likely to break than not. He
delayed his deal to get out of Afghanistan so Biden would get
the blame. His handling of Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Iran-Saudi
Arabia directly contributed to the outbreak of war and genocide.
As I said, foreign policy needs a complete rethink. He's already
failed on several counts, starting with the need to think.
Current count:
1 links, 6232 words (6414 total)
Ask a question, or send a comment.
-- next
|